The Black and tans in Ireland

Crann na Beatha · 09-12-2009 4:43pm #1

This post has been deleted.

McArmalite · 09-12-2009 5:24pm

Iolar wrote: »

Were attrocities like rape,murder of unarmed civilians commited by irregulars etc documented in Ireland during the War of independance?

Undoubtably when I post on this I'll be accussed of anti british extremism and that britian is a benign, benevolent, well meaning friend, etc, etc

Anyway, I recently read again Ernie O'Malley's On Another Man's Wound, so I'll try and get some of the stuff from it. In particuliar their is the horrendous beatings and torture he suffered in Dublin Castle, mock executions with empty revolvers, and how his eyesight was damaged when they threatened to burn his eyes out with a red hot poker placed millimeters from his eyes. I rememeber when he was captrued with a pistol on a morning house raid down in Tipperary and been beaten to pulp in the local barracks, they asked him had he ever been in the army ( meaning the british army). Ernie replied " Yes " to which a bemused brit asked " what regiment ? " and Ernie replied " We don't have regiments in the Irish Republican Army "

Fratton Fred · 09-12-2009 5:59pm

since when was Ernie O'Malley an unarmed civilian?

Morlar · 09-12-2009 6:01pm

If you google black and tan atrocity you eventually end up at this page

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/war-atrocities.htm

For some odd reason Oswald Mosely was apparently one of the few british establishment people at that time to speak out against them.

the page contains this piece of information ;

In 1920 over 2000 unarmed civilians, including women and children, were killed by British forces[/B]].

There were also several official white-wash reports about their activities. Among which were claims that republicans were the cause of the burning of Cork Balbriggan etc etc.

There is also a good article here about the composition of the Black and Tans ;

http://www.historyireland.com////volumes/volume12/issue3/features/?id=113768

Also one here about Listowel where this famous order was given

http://www.esatclear.ie/~garda/listowel.html

Here is the order;

"....If a police barracks is burned or if the barracks already occupied is not suitable, then the best house in the locality is to be commandeered, the occupants thrown into the gutter. Let them die there - the more the merrier. Police and military will patrol the country at least five nights a week. They are not to confine themselves to the main roads, but make across the country, lie in ambush and, when civilians are seen approaching, shout "Hands up!" Should the order be not immediately obeyed, shoot and shoot with effect. If the persons approaching carry their hands in their pockets, or are in any way suspicious-looking, shoot them down. You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped, and you are bound to get the right parties some time. The more you shoot, the better I will like you, and I assure you no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man ..."

June 17, 1920, Lt. Col. Smyth

Worth noting that issuing this order caused a near mutiny. Many RIC men were dismissed or resigned and at least 2 joined the IRA as a result.

funkydunkey · 09-12-2009 6:45pm

Although a member of the IRA at the Time of his death. The Lord Mayor of Cork was shot in his bed in front of his family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_Mac_Curtain

When the Delaney brothers in Cork were killed by British Forces in similar circumstances, their Uncle (who was not a member of the IRA) was also shot. He did not die as far as I know. This lead to reprisals that triggered the Burning of Cork City by Black and Tans / Auxiliaries during which a number of civilians were shot and killed.
In the lead-up to the burning an unarmed civilian and priest was also shot outside Dunmanway. Another priest was killed in Galway and his body dumped.

A quick look at wiki pages for Aux / Black and Tans would tell alot. Also Dan Breen's Fight for Irish Freedom and Tom Barry's Guerilla days in Ireland are great books and first hand accounts of the time that document attacks of all nature but do mention attacks of civilians regularly.

Mr.Nice Guy · 09-12-2009 7:20pm

I read a book recently, I think it might have been William Sheehan's Fighting for Dublin : the British battle for Dublin, 1919-1921 - though I'm not certain - but the book in question detailed the experiences of British Army men in Ireland during the War of Independence. It was fascinating how the regular British army men spoke with contempt of the Black and Tans about their poor attitude and how they were effectively a law unto themselves.

I recall one man saying how when he and the other British army folk would go into a local pub to get a pint they would be served and would be treated respectfully, though he noted he sensed an underlying sense of hostlity from the locals.

However he said when a Black and Tan would go into the same pub the place would fall silent and the locals would have nothing to do with them.

Very nasty pieces of work the Black and Tans.

funkydunkey · 09-12-2009 8:15pm

I might look that one up. I read a book a while back along the same lines called British Voices. It was a collection of letters home by British soldiers. It was very interesting because they were by anything from an Auxiliary up to Lord French. And it pretty much covered the whole spectrum of attitudes towards the war. Some were angry with the Irish and others were confused as to why we didnt want to be part of "the Realm"

DublinWriter · 09-12-2009 8:20pm

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I read a book recently, I think it might have been William Sheehan's Fighting for Dublin : the British battle for Dublin, 1919-1921 -

Very good book.

The whole role the Auxiliaries played is generally overlooked when ascribing all the blame to the Black and Tans. They were supposed to be the officers who oversaw the B&T's, but in general, didn't.

I'm not trying to excuse the B&T's for any of their numerous atrocities, but it is worth remembering that many of them were severely shell-shocked and psychologically scarred from the trenches of WW1.

CDfm · 09-12-2009 11:28pm

My grandfather was in the West Cork Brigade and was from Millstreet. He rarely spoke about events but did speak of moving weapons along the trainlines at night and of an ambush outside Ballavourna and Black and Tan reprisals.

He was embarrassed by the Civil War and had been involved in securing polling stations and ballot boxes in 1932. He discouraged an interest in it.

Years back I met some of his co-volunteers in San Francisco. I think they were a bit dismayed by the outcome and aftermath.

There are lots of reasons why many did not document there experiences and from the little I know thought many episodes were best forgotten as in the Civil War they adopted the same paractices.

West Cork was ungovernable for the British forces during the War of Independence.

donaghs · 10-12-2009 10:01am

Yes there certainly were atrocities against civilians. But I've never read anything definitive on rape, or an accusation in court. I did read of women being maltreated/roughed up in house searches and in womens prisons.

McArmalite wrote: »

Undoubtably when I post on this I'll be accussed of anti british extremism and that britian is a benign, benevolent, well meaning friend, etc, etc

Anyway, I recently read again Ernie O'Malley's On Another Man's Wound, so I'll try and get some of the stuff from it. In particuliar their is the horrendous beatings and torture he suffered in Dublin Castle, mock executions with empty revolvers, and how his eyesight was damaged when they threatened to burn his eyes out with a red hot poker placed millimeters from his eyes. I rememeber when he was captrued with a pistol on a morning house raid down in Tipperary and been beaten to pulp in the local barracks, they asked him had he ever been in the army ( meaning the british army). Ernie replied " Yes " to which a bemused brit asked " what regiment ? " and Ernie replied " We don't have regiments in the Irish Republican Army "

Ridiculous. Off the point as he was an armed participant. A different question would be how each side treated their prisoners.

Fratton Fred · 10-12-2009 1:12pm

I know three people whose Grandfather was walking home from school and were confronted by the B&Ts. In each case they took the newspaper their Grandfather was carrying out of his top pocket, hit him over the head with it and told him to **** off home quickly.

it must have been common practice for the B&Ts.

Morlar · 10-12-2009 1:38pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I know three people whose Grandfather was walking home from school and were confronted by the B&Ts. In each case they took the newspaper their Grandfather was carrying out of his top pocket, hit him over the head with it and told him to **** off home quickly.

it must have been common practice for the B&Ts.

To the best of my knowledge there is no central repository for listing their recorded atrocities.

However if you read through random Irish history books & historical biographies you come across countless atrocities (some of which were mentioned).

To give you one other example, Tim Pat Coogans 'Michael Collins' biography - off the top of my head lists several including anecdotes about the woman tending her garden shot right through with a 303 by a potshot from a lorry carrying some passing b&t's.

The incident of the b&t who arrived in the country a matter of hours when he had executed a random priest and a random civilian standing by the side of the road - the only reason anything came of that was because the survivor happened to be a local RM.

I think what was commonplace was a far sight worse than happy-smacking random children with newspapers.

I think this comment above serves only as an attempt to downplay the actual & significant atrocities they committed on a fairly large scale. This is all notwithstanding the sacking of entire towns, balbriggan and cork city etc - shooting firemen and cutting hoses etc. There were also stories of them executing people and putting 'Executed Tout' on the bodies so as to deflect attention to local republicans who would have known full well who they did and did not shoot.

Winty · 10-12-2009 1:47pm

McArmalite wrote: »

Undoubtably when I post on this I'll be accussed of anti british extremism and that britian is a benign, benevolent, well meaning friend, etc, etc "

McArmalite more often that not writes very one sided bar stool I love the IRA crap but today on the matter of the Black and Tans he is correct.
Britan should face the fact that the Tans were killers who loved nothing more than inflicting pain on innocent people. A dark part of British Army History

Fratton Fred · 10-12-2009 1:51pm

Morlar wrote: »

I think this comment above serves only as an attempt to downplay the actual & significant atrocities they committed on a fairly large scale. This is all notwithstanding the sacking of entire towns, balbriggan and cork city etc - shooting firemen and cutting hoses etc. There were also stories of them executing people and putting 'Executed Tout' on the bodies so as to deflect attention to local republicans who would have known full well who they did and did not shoot.

I was just relaying a story I have heard several times.

I wouldn't question the well documented abuse of civilians, especially the incidents you mention above.

R.Dub.Fusilier · 10-12-2009 7:32pm

donaghs wrote: »

Yes there certainly were atrocities against civilians. But I've never read anything definitive on rape, or an accusation in court. I did read of women being maltreated/roughed up in house searches and in womens prisons.

i have read a bit about the Easter Rising , War of Independence , Tan War etc but i cant remember ever reading anything about women being raped. i'm not saying it didnt happen just that i never heard of it.

i read in a book about Tom Barry , i may have been Meda Ryans one, taht Barry became friends with a former B&T officer. the officer in question was decent and didnt mistreat prisoners etc. he later opened a bookmakers , one of the big chains that operates here in ireland.

Simarillion · 10-12-2009 10:18pm

My great-grandparents lived near a castle that had been requisitioned by the Auxilieries and partly by the Black&Tans to act as a barracks. They were protestant and unionist, and were on rather poor terms with the local republicans (burned them out in the end), but in particular they talked of some of the awful things that happened as a result of the B&T's drunken raids. They could see the reasons they had been drafted over, and frankly most of them were suffering from trauma from the Great War and many were certainly alcoholics but I think they were seen to be letting down the side, especially when compared to the army.

CDfm · 11-12-2009 1:12am

Simarillion wrote: »

They could see the reasons they had been drafted over, and frankly most of them were suffering from trauma from the Great War and many were certainly alcoholics but I think they were seen to be letting down the side, especially when compared to the army.

I dont think you can really excuse it like that. It doesnt matter how they were seen they represented the Crown -so you cant really say "bad show chaps" .(no disrespect to your family) The Black and Tans were little more than mercenaries and similar to contractors in the Middle East today.

There was no shortage of regular soldiers available and their use was inexcuseable. The Curragh Mutiny where the officers based there were given the offer by their Commander General Paget as early as 1914 and prior to WW1 to resign rather than accept deployment in Ulster to move against the Ulster Volunteers should Home Rule take place.

So the Army had a political and not an impartial role and was aligned with Unionism and ,while it is not much mentioned now,this undermined the authority of Parliment as Home Rule had already been passed by Parliment.

Furthermore, the hurried executions following the 1916 Rising by courts martial was stupid and General Maxwell proceeded even though he had been advised by telegram from London to stop them and he disregarded this.

So on balance I think that the Army Brass was out of control for a long time and lacked the will to control them. You cant really blame an undisciplined load of drunks for their behavior if thats what you recruit.

So you could probably say that the legitimacy of the administration and its forces had started to break down long before the black and tans arrived. I would question their formation as supporting the administration and say it was to intimidate the population.

MarchDub · 11-12-2009 3:08am

CDfm wrote: »

So the Army had a political and not an impartial role and was aligned with Unionism and ,while it is not much mentioned now,this undermined the authority of Parliment as Home Rule had already been passed by Parliment..

Agree - this was well borne out by the army's actions during the Curragh Mutiny. In fact they was accompanied in this support by the English Conservative Party also who travelled to Belfast during 1913/14 in open support of the Unionists urging them to break the Home Rule legislation.

CDfm wrote: »

So on balance I think that the Army Brass was out of control for a long time and lacked the will to control them. You cant really blame an undisciplined load of drunks for their behavior if thats what you recruit.

The records of the discussion concerning Churchill's proposal to Lloyd George regarding the deployment of the Black and Tans was hidden for decades. In fact Churchill himself was told not to mention this discussion in his memoirs. We now know that the reasoning behind this decision was precisely to send in a crowd of murdering hooligans to terrorize the country into submission.

CDfm · 11-12-2009 3:47am

MarchDub wrote: »

Agree - this was well borne out by the army's actions during the Curragh Mutiny. In fact they was accompanied in this support by the English Conservative Party also who travelled to Belfast during 1913/14 in open support of the Unionists urging them to break the Home Rule legislation.

So its pretty clear that lots of groups got used to the show of military force without a mandate. This type of behavior sent a message about the use of force.

We now know that the reasoning behind this decision was precisely to send in a crowd of murdering hooligans to terrorize the country into submission.

In some ways this acted like a harbinger to future events by allowing the paramilitary organisation of political factions.

You could almost say the lesson wasnt lost on Sir Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists which also used military style tactics with William Joyce (yes Lord Haw Haw)as a candidate and director of mayhem. Mosley withdrew support from Joyce but his exposure to force paramilitary must have influenced him.

junder · 11-12-2009 9:49am

Apoint often left out when the curragh munity is brought up, is the fact that the majorty of officers involved in it were of Ulster/Irish/unionist extracation and were in fact refusing to fight what they regarded as fellow country men.

CDfm · 11-12-2009 10:35am

junder wrote: »

Apoint often left out when the curragh munity is brought up, is the fact that the majorty of officers involved in it were of Ulster/Irish/unionist extracation and were in fact refusing to fight what they regarded as fellow country men.

Thats how i understand it too. However, the commander had given the officers the option too resign or to absent themselves rather than accept redeployment to Ulster to enforce the law of the land especially against the Ulster Volunteers and 57 did so. The Ulster Volunteers were a "private army" and that it continued without being banned is odd.

So in effect Paget had given them the option to choose whether or not they would go to Ulster. The events were not a mutiny and the individuals did nothing wrong. The message was that the officers were given the right to choose and it was a huge benefit to the Ulster Volunteers army would not move against them. It gave the message that paramitarisation of politics worked.

Moving on to the B & T's - the chain of command was biased. and allowed to be so.

junder · 11-12-2009 11:14am

CDfm wrote: »

Thats how i understand it too. However, the commander had given the officers the option too resign or to absent themselves rather than accept redeployment to Ulster to enforce the law of the land especially against the Ulster Volunteers and 57 did so. The Ulster Volunteers were a "private army" and that it continued without being banned is odd.

So in effect Paget had given them the option to choose whether or not they would go to Ulster. The events were not a mutiny and the individuals did nothing wrong. The message was that the officers were given the right to choose and it was a huge benefit to the Ulster Volunteers army would not move against them. It gave the message that paramitarisation of politics worked.

Moving on to the B & T's - the chain of command was biased. and allowed to be so.

I think it had more to do with what they faced, there is a tendacy to dismiss the UVF of the time but it was a fully fleged and trained army so it would insure that any conflict would be protracted

topper75 · 11-12-2009 11:34am

CDfm wrote: »

...Maxwell proceeded even though he had been advised by telegram from London to stop them and he disregarded this...

History fascinates me because of the way it pivots on small things and huge consequences arise.

I don't think any force resembling the Tans would have deployed against a similar Welsh or Scottish insurrection.

coldwood92 · 11-12-2009 11:44am

IRa were worse then the black and Tans

CDfm · 11-12-2009 12:44pm

junder wrote: »

I think it had more to do with what they faced, there is a tendacy to dismiss the UVF of the time but it was a fully fleged and trained army so it would insure that any conflict would be protracted

True - but it was their job and it was a colonial army used to conflict. It was explicit about the us and them situation. In other words the army rolled over for the unionists and that was the precedent.

topper75 wrote: »

History fascinates me because of the way it pivots on small things and huge consequences arise.

I don't think any force resembling the Tans would have deployed against a similar Welsh or Scottish insurrection.

The army saw itself as a colonial force - but it went off on one. Very arrogant.

MarchDub · 11-12-2009 1:19pm

There is evidence that rape was sometimes a part of the atrocities committed by the British forces and the Black and Tans during this period. Remember too that women were very reluctant to report rape because of the serious social stigma against women who claimed this.

Here is a description of events north of the new border just after the Treaty signing.

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0032/D.0032.192910230036.html

After the Treaty the British forces took steps to drive out those who were in favour of the Republican movement and who were a danger to their supremacy there. Naturally enough, they picked out men like James MeGuill, who were well-known Republicans and who had entertained people like Michael Collins, and they raided him time and again. One night a party of Specials with blackened faces broke into the house and attempted to rape Mrs. McGuill and other womenfolk—her mother and the maidservants. Mrs. McGuill was a short time before her confinement. I saw her the next day in the most frightful state, and I swore that if I could take it out of the skins of the men who did it I would do it. We went the following night and we laid ambush for the Specials from the Camp who were responsible for the attempted rape. We shot a few of them. I am sorry we did not get them all. Following that, Mr. McGuill's house was destroyed by the British on the plea of military necessity.

Another case is that of Mrs. Anne James Byrne, Tullyorior, Banbridge, Co. Down, whose house was burned down by the Specials in June, 1922. She made a claim for compensation amounting to £2,067 5s. 0d. Her claim was turned down because of the evidence given by the [174] Specials that the burning was a military necessity. Mrs. Byrne, of course, was the mother of two boys who were officers under my command during the Black and Tan war. They were officers in Banbridge, where a man had to be a good man to be in the Volunteers. Her home was destroyed because of the help her sons gave to the Volunteers who were fighting Ireland's fight during the Black and Tan war and following it.

Another case is that of Frederick Joseph Slater, Curry, Belleek, Co. Fermanagh, whose home was burned on the night of the 30th June, 1922, during Curfew hours by the British military and police forces. Mrs. Slater was given a decree for £1,070. This decision was appealed against by the Fermanagh County Council, and the case was dismissed. At the first trial Captain Beatty, who was in charge of the Specials at the time, swore that he was fired at from Mr. Slater's house, but at the later trial he was not called. These are the cases, all cases of people who suffered because of the actions the people of the North took to support the national fight.

Simarillion · 11-12-2009 1:34pm

I think we can hardly be surprised that the Army was aligned with Unionism. They were not an Irish Army, but rather were Irishmen in the British Army. All of them were British citizens and all would have sworn an oath to the Crown.

The fact that their mutiny was dealt with harshly is no shock either. You can't give an order and then have half the barracks not bother to follow through because they don't want too. Thats not how the military works. They put forward their objections and were given the choice to "do as your told or resign"

McArmalite · 11-12-2009 2:13pm

Morlar wrote: »

Also one here about Listowel where this famous order was given

http://www.esatclear.ie/~garda/listowel.html

Here is the order;

"....If a police barracks is burned or if the barracks already occupied is not suitable, then the best house in the locality is to be commandeered, the occupants thrown into the gutter. Let them die there - the more the merrier. Police and military will patrol the country at least five nights a week. They are not to confine themselves to the main roads, but make across the country, lie in ambush and, when civilians are seen approaching, shout "Hands up!" Should the order be not immediately obeyed, shoot and shoot with effect. If the persons approaching carry their hands in their pockets, or are in any way suspicious-looking, shoot them down. You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped, and you are bound to get the right parties some time. The more you shoot, the better I will like you, and I assure you no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man ..."

June 17, 1920, Lt. Col. Smyth

Was that fella Smyth later shot by the IRA ? I thnk he may have been.

Worth noting that issuing this order caused a near mutiny. Many RIC men were dismissed or resigned and at least 2 joined the IRA as a result.

Yes, Ernie O'Malley states that the Tans actually went around to the houses of resigned RIC men and beat them up, that's the sort of thugs they were.

le · 11-12-2009 2:17pm

dont live in the past

topper75 · 11-12-2009 2:22pm

le wrote: »

dont live in the past

Have you not heard what happens those who try to forget it?!!!:D doomed to repeat it!

I saw an interview with an old IRA guy from West Cork, I think it was on RTE's Nationwide, some years back. He spoke more openly than most about these times and events, and seemed like a genuinely 'nice' chap. However, when he was asked about regrets, he only had one. It related to a chance he blew in the War of Independence to get that Smyth chap. I was greatly taken aback listening to the interview to see such deep raw hatred in a very old frail man going back to incidents that happened so long ago. That alone told me all I needed to know about Smyth. Anyone got anymore cold facts about Smyth?

CDfm · 11-12-2009 2:24pm

simarrilion - thats a leap. The reason I think is that the Home Rule Party had sold the idea of limited self government and that was based on accepting the legitimacy of the existing arrangements. The institutions of the state including the Army express the will of the State.

The Mutiny as its called gave individuals representing the state the right to cherrypick what they wanted to do. So this breakdown in authority meant the population no longer had ownership of the army as it was aligned with one of the private armies the Ulster Volunteers.

The Home Rule Act had been passed except there appeared to be no institution to enforce and protect the new institutions of governments should they have come into being.

Democracy and forms of government are ideas agreed upon - so IMHO - the Curragh Mutiny was significant on behalf of the Unionist population as the Easter Rising was on the part of the Republican population.It was the same - look we have an army and officers too!

I dont think any army officer would downplay the need for discipline and obedience or that the events surrounding the Mutiny were misunderstood. It was a coup of sorts.

The Black and tans in Ireland

Comments