Stanley features at least 3 times in the IT today, its Editorial, Michael McDowell and Kathy Sheridan. The Editorial makes my point that Stanley is simply echoing the SF line that the Provo campaign was every bit as justified as the WoI but that SF see this as electorally damaging and would prefer to keep that to themselves.
I suppose it all boils down to interpretation. My view is it is not the referencing of Kilmichael and Warrenpoint that is at issue, as from a purely historical military context the parallels are there to see. It was the manner in which he communicated it. This is in the IT editorial "
He was criticised by party colleagues for his tone and the manner in which he expressed himself – but the party did not, and will not, retract the sentiment which gave rise to the ill-judged tweet."
The theory of the Provo campaign not being electorally advantageous is correct - it is after all peace-time. It does not serve on the one hand to pushing a peace agenda, while simultaneously glorifying armed resistance against the enemy.
It is no different for FF or FG. When was the last time you heard them glorifying the actions of Kilmichael? Or the Civil War? Each party commemorates the memories of its past associated veterans, Collins, De Valera, etc but they refrain from glorifying specific military operations. Rightly so, its peacetime, to do so is insensitive to those who were victims in those military operations, invariably represented by others on the other side of the peacetime equation.
Even the commemorations of 1916 are washed in the ideals of the Proclamation, the gallantry of the participants, but rarely the specifics. Nobody I know from the Labour party gloats about the ICA putting a bullet in the head of constable O'Brien of DMP. O'Brien, a Limerick man, just doing his job preventing unauthorised access to Dublin Castle, was summarily executed.
It is notable that the IT recognises that the WoI "enjoyed widespread support", it has never been established if it ever enjoyed
majority support from the public. The 1918 election sweep of SF is used as evidence of majority support. SF winning 70% of the parliamentary seats, however only 47% of the popular vote. More significant imo is the SF manifesto, upon which that election was won. It falls short of explicitly declaring it will wage war against Britain. Albeit war is implied, I think it is cleverly and deliberately omitted.
There is no record, vote or account from the First Dáil or its cabinet that authorises war against Britain. As well as that, the Catholic Church, and significant elements of media were vehemently opposed to the violent actions and the methods of the IRA at the time.
They called them savages and murderers!
The argument against the Provo campaign about lack of popular support is valid, but also a little trite.
Similar to when violence erupted in 1916 there was no popular political support. That in the years following 1916 SF organised into an effective political entity by 1918 is probably more testament to the existing and well established acceptance of free-and-fair UK elections in Ireland at that time.
The Stormont regime under the Government of Ireland Act was a different beast altogether and there was a not insignificant amount of the nationalist population in NI who were disenfranchised from the system, saw it for the gerry-mandered, discriminatory operation it was and simply did not recognise nor participate in it. For instance, SF as a political organisation was already banned in NI before the violence began.
When violence erupted in 1969, it came from the communities, not private armies. Rather than the political system acting as the valve to demonstrate legitimacy, as in 1918, it was the Stormont political system itself that was targeted as an already discredited entity and it was subsequently collapsed. The IT editorial lazily ignores that that was one of the consequences of partition. The reality is that while the Provo campaign never enjoyed majority support even amongst nationalists, it did enjoy significant support from nationalist communities. It is the only plausible way in my opinion that it could have sustained itself for 25yrs.