| Phil @ Osprey |
1
This is a topic that has been considered in the past. We do, after all, have an ELITE title on Crown forces in Northern Ireland, and a WARRIOR on the Irish Volunteer Soldier in the first couple of decades of the 20th century. Logically, we should present the flipside to these coins – studies of the IRA, UVF and other paramilitary forces that opposed the British Army, RUC and each other throughout the 60s–90s; and of the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries that fought the IRA in their original incarnation. The issue lies with the potential controversy of such topics – these were not formal, standing armed forces, and they fought a war that breached many codes of military conduct (although there are several armed forces and units that have been covered without issue, and that have breached the same codes to an extent that matches or surpasses the activities of the Auxiliaries or the IRA). These are important subjects, however, for military study, especially with the prevalence of the insurgency in modern warfare – after all, the Troubles were an armed conflict that lasted decades and shaped the lives and attitudes of generations on both sides of the Irish Sea. While we have no immediate plans for titles or a series covering the IRA and similar terrorist or paramilitary groups, it is not a field we have ruled out – provided it can be addressed objectively and without bias.
Posted: 22-Sep-2009 12:30
Report offensive material
|
| Fomalexieich |
2
I think that since Irish Volunteers were covered, a book about Black and Tans or other British forces in Ireland 1916-1923 is needed.
Posted: 22-Sep-2009 13:11
Report offensive material
|
| Dave Hollins |
3
The IRA were/are terrorist scum, who have killed and maimed many people in the United Kingdom. they have of course been financed and supported not just by Libya, but by many Americans, who have a warped idea of what "terrorism" is.
I know, let's have a book on Al-Quaeda, featuring the actual and Daily Mail claimed hideouts in afghanistan with a special mention for Mohammed Atta. Then, it could also include a chapter on "The Libyan Link" - featuring Al-Megrahi and perhaps even how he was fitted up by the CIA.
Shame on you, Osprey, for even considering this.
Posted: 22-Sep-2009 13:34
Report offensive material
|
| Michael Lubrano |
4
I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Hollins...........Especially that substantial funds for the IRA came from misguided Irish-Americans. But I think there should be a way to present even terrorist forces in a MAA or Warrior title so we can "know our enemy" be they past or present. After all, there are plenty of Osprey books on the Waffen-SS for example of "evil in uniform" so it would not be fitting to exclude irregulars/terrorists from our study of military history.
Posted: 22-Sep-2009 15:07
Report offensive material
|
| Dave Hollins |
5
No - the Waffen SS were a unit within a national force, which engaged in war. War is unpleasant, but the purpose of Osprey is to cover military combat. Terrorists must be excluded as their sole purpose was the killiling and maiming of anyone indiscriminately for their own purposes.
Only a Yank could even envisage a book about the Provos, but somehow I doubt any of them would want one on ObL etc. So, you must apply a consistent standard - unless Osprey has sold out entirely to the Yanks.
Posted: 22-Sep-2009 18:08
Report offensive material
|
| Württemberger |
6
there already was a Warrior title on the Viet Cong and the Ukrainian Army title is rather one-sided too, i see no problem there. just check the original MaA on the Soviet-Afghan War, that's a hilarious read nowadays. and that's just the tip of the ice-berg, Osprey also covered the Maquis, various eastern front guerillas as well as Tito's Partisans, none of them regulars to any intend or purpose. if there's any damage, it has already been done. actrocities happen in warfare you can't exclude it and weather you considder certain forces without unfiorms as combattants or not is a matter of politics. in war, i care little if the guy shooting at me wears an uniform or not or whatever his motivation is.
Posted: 22-Sep-2009 18:46
Report offensive material
|
| JoJo Dog |
7
I think Osprey should be covering terrorist groups and/or seperatist groups. You cannot cover military actions for the past 100 years without covering these groups. I've been asking for Osprey to cover these groups for years. Here's a short list of groups that I can need to be covered: Black September, PLO, Red Brigade, Japanese Red Army, ETA, Contras, Sandinistas, Hezbollah, Lehi, Irgun, Tamil Tigers, Abu Sayyaf...and I can go on further if I actually sat down to think about it. Partisans from WWII have been cover. The Hungarian Uprising has been covered. The Bay of Pigs has been covered. I believe the Lincoln Brigade was covered. I don't have a problem with Al-Qaeda being covered and yes I'm an American. I do have a problem with books that cover events that have happened within 10 years because I think there's more reliable information available as more time goes on. There's still secrets being uncovered from WWII, such as the UK's plan to bomb the Germans with chemical needles. It took the collapse of the USSR for the Russians to finally admit that they received material help--trucks, clothes, food, boots--from the US during WWII. (Both this is a different topic.)
Posted: 23-Sep-2009 00:00
Report offensive material
|
| wellington |
8
osprey already has books on the plo and several other terrorist organisations in the lebanon if we are to cover warfare in all its forms then the ira could be covered as we already have a book about the beginnings of the ira why not one of the present ira, but we must also have one of the black and tans etc .one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and i speak as a man who was bombed by the ira and shot at by them whilst serving this country.
Posted: 23-Sep-2009 15:50
Report offensive material
|
| ChewyMatt |
9
An Essential History may be acceptable, id consider illustrations of them to be immoral. I mean, what would you show, them torturing a mother of 10 to death then signing-on monday morning? Its like having a Campaign title for the Manson family.
Posted: 23-Sep-2009 19:48
Report offensive material
|
| deankal |
10
My observation is that Osprey has published several titles on irregular, and arguably criminal, combatants. The most obvious example of a criminal group examined in these series would be the volumes on pirates. The Mau-Mau fighters covered in a Warrior volume are also not dissimilar to the IRA. Of course the Mau-Mau did not have the access needed to undertake attacks in Great Britain, so they may not touch such a sensitive nerve. I agree with JoJo Dog, there should be a respectful lapse of time before taking up these topics. Nations are frequently ambivalent about treating irregular fighters by military or judicial means (the recent example of the United States comes to mind), so it is not surprising that Osprey readers would split on this issue.
Posted: 24-Sep-2009 03:32
Report offensive material
|