"I helped burn cork"

jonniebgood1

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1214/1224285490544.html
Documentary evidence regarding the burning of Cork confirming it was carried out purposefully by the Auxillaries. I think this may have also been in the Examiner last week. Surely this is'nt legitimate army action?

According to Mr Herlihy, Temporary Cadet Charlie Schulze wrote two letters on December 16th, 1920, in which he confirmed that he and his colleagues in K Company had set fire to buildings.

The burning of Cork was carried out by K Company in retaliation for an IRA ambush on 20 auxiliaries at Dillons Cross on December 11th in which Temporary Cadet Spencer Chapman was killed, he said.

Chief secretary for Ireland Sir Hamar Greenwood denied crown forces were behind the burning and claimed civilians were responsible

“He tells how the rest of K Company were enraged after the ambush at Dillons Cross and how some said that the punishment meted out in Cork was worse than anything they saw in Flanders.”

Mr Herlihy, who is writing a history of the Auxiliaries and the Black and Tans, has also found a letter from Brig Maj Bernard Montgomery confirming the involvement of K Company.

“In one letter written to his father, Montgomery, later Field Marshall Montgomery, said Cork was burnt by K Company of the Auxiliaries,” said Mr Herlihy.

jonniebgood1

An interesting personal account of the evening of the burning-pg 5-14
http://aubanehistoricalsociety.org/aubane_collection/burning.pdf

brianthebard

I thought this was common knowledge/accepted fact? What was the previous belief?

jonniebgood1

My Apologies- I posted this partly to share the information in the article (as was published today) but also in the hope of some discussion on it. I did see another boards thread on this but not the same and didnt have the info I sought: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055639888&page=2 .
Perhaps if it is common knowledge you will share the wealth!!!
The point of the article in the times was that it is documentary proof that has been uncovered in a letter from an Auxilary soldier. The letter states that the burning was purposely carried out in response to IRA attack. I suspect that the important part of this is that it is first hand documentation that suggests pre-meditation rather a drunken rampage. I was hoping that someone could point out that this was already proven (as opposed to 'common knowledge'). I think you would usually prefer first hand sources rather than opinion?
I also read that although Britain made payments for the damage caused in this attack, they did not admit to any wrong-doing? This would make this letter significant. Again feel free to correct this.

Then again maybe the article is just an attempt to garner publicity for an upcoming book.

brianthebard

Well I haven't read about the incident much but any reference I have read seemed to explicitly state that it was the british/auxiliaries that did it. I've no problem with the thread or threads for the purpose of showing new evidence has come to light, on the contrary, I just found your op a little confusing I wasn't sure what you were trying to achieve. If this has just been heresay or educated guesses before now then its great to have information that can clarify the event in history.

Manic Moran

Surely this is'nt legitimate army action?

As it was in effect an internal security matter, I can't think of any particular law which would have applied to the military specifically to prohibit it. Such laws tend to govern warfare between distinct parties.

Whether it was legitimate under the British powers at the time, however, I don't know.

NTM

CDfm

That is an interseting point.

The Black & Tans & Auxiliaries are often portrayed as a drunken out of control gang. Really though they were a recruited from ex soldiers returning from WWI.

I remember reading somewhere that David Bowie's grandfather or something was recruited by the British to fight for the White Russians on his return from WWI.

The Black & Tans were also used in Palestine.

I dont know if many have seen the movie Zulu with Michael Caine & Stanley Baker and that depicts the Anglo-Zulu War Battle of Rorke's Drift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke%27s_Drift

http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/battle/battle.htm

( Look at the soldier bio's & these were probably the kind of guys that were in the Black & Tans)

The other point is that the "enemy" were not natives spear chuckers but a motivated force. You also had WWI veterans in the IRA with the same training and discipline that the Black & Tans had. So both sides were trained veterans who were used to killing in combat.

Colenel Smyth was assasinated in the Country Club - how mad is that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Smyth

The burning of Cork was a bit more than that as West Cork was "bandit country " and controlled largely militarily by the West Cork Brigade.

Cork was the destination of the Arms from the Aud too, so in that sence, the Black & Tans were burning down the "Capital".

The Lord Mayors - Thomas McCurtain was shot in front of his family and Terrence McSweeney died on hunger strike - so on an emotive and popular level what was happening in Cork was totally different to Dublin or anywhere else.

Cork -the Real Capital.

Manic Moran

Although not specifically applicable as it was a war between two easily recognised, distinct, and uniformed parties (and before various of the turn-of-the-20th-century treaties), I wonder if there may not be parallels drawn with Sherman's burning of Atlanta.

The order was given to burn specific buildings of government and military consequence, to deny them to the enemy as Sherman moved on to Savannah. However, put simply, the fires just got out of control, and destroyed a large portion of the city. This did not particuarly endear Sherman and the Union Army to the residents of the Great State of Georgia.

Again, I don't know enough about the Cork incident to draw any conclusions, but I'm just putting the thought out there.

NTM

jonniebgood1

Sorry to go over the same story but reading the account in the Examiner I realise that it is clearer in its assertions.
namely:

Charles Schulze, who had served as a captain in the Dorsetshire Regiment during WWI, led Auxiliaries on a rampage of burning as a reprisal for an IRA ambush which left a colleague dead and 15 injured.
Following five years of research, a historian has disclosed that Schulze organised a group of ADRIC ‘K’ Company men who torched most of Cork city centre, especially St Patrick’s Street. The damage was estimated at the time to be have cost £2,000,000 — equivalent to €94,177,850 today. It also resulted in the loss of 2,000 jobs.

Historian Jim Herlihy has discovered letters written by Schulze to his mother and girlfriend.

In a letter sent to his girlfriend, Edith, Schulze describes what happened.

"You will have read all about Cork. Suffice to say I was there and very actively involved to boot until dawn on Sunday. I just escaped the ambush... but later arrived as a reinforcement. We took sweet revenge," he told Edith.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/culprit-who-led-burning-of-cork-finally-identified-139188.html
"sweet revenge"

jonniebgood1

I am trying to find a source regarding solid evidence of the British making payments for the burning. I read somewhere that this happened but cannot find direct evidence although it was presumably part of the damage to property (Compensation) act 1923- http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1923/en/act/pub/0015/print.html

On a slightly different note but also regarding Cork, I have read previously how it had been a unionist stronghold at the turn of the 1900's. The burning of Cork was an important event in dividing the 2 parts of the communities and resulted in an ethnic division that saw a large part of the community feel it had to leave.
These figures are interesting:

Early in 1920 the Unionist minority was spread throughout the county. However unionists do appear to have been concentrated in Cork city, Queenstown, and in towns and villages in rural West Cork such as Bandon and Skibbereen. Both of the latter villages for example proudly flew the Union flag to mark the victory in WW1; "A large Union Jack floated from the Post Office buildings, the Protestant Church, Hollybrook House and other residences throughout the day" .

The Irish Unionist Alliance and Unionist Anti-Partition League were organised throughout the county. Whilst the Constitution tended to take the side of the IUA, it gave over many column inches to covering the activities of both groupings. The IUA had district branches organised in Bandon, Buttevant, Charleville, Clonakilty, Dunmanway, Durras, Fermoy, Glanmire, Innishannon, Kilmun, Mallow, Mitchelstown, Monkstown, Muskerry, Newmarket, Queenstown, Rosscarberry, Skibbereen, Schull, Timoleague and Youghal, as well as in Cork city itself.

Referring to the Queenstown urban council the republican historian McCarthy talks witheringly of the "unionist influences still strongly embedded in the town" asserting that "the UDC had several unionists in its midst". O'Callaghan, Saunders and Downing were three such unionists, forced to term themselves independents as "there was little else they could have called themselves in the political climate that prevailed at the time."

Referring to Bandon the ex-IRA man Liam Deasy comments that it's inhabitants had "changed little in their loyalties with the passing of the years they could scarcely have been more opposed to the Volunteers"

The tables showing figures derived from census's of 1911 & 1926 and is contained in the link:
http://www.reform.org/TheReformMovement_files/article_files/articles/cork.htm

CDfm

Gorey detail is good johnnie

now any scandal to go with it

jonniebgood1

Gorey detail or scandal:

Therefore, throughout 1920 the IRA began a systematic campaign of murdering those whom they felt were not entirely sympathetic to their cause. By mid-July the revolution had gathered ground and the Constitution began to reflect the views of a community which saw itself as being increasingly isolated and under siege. This sense of isolation translated itself easily into strong support for the police and for the concept of Law and Order. Under the headline "Ireland in Revolution" the editorial reminded readers that "Seven shocking murders have been perpetrated in West Cork" - going on to call for greater assistance for the loyal community in the county. "Crime in Ireland" became a central editorial theme and horror was expressed at the Sinn Fein practice of

"dragging young girls from their beds and shearing off their hair with every circumstance of terror as a means of intimidating them from associating with policemen and soldiers"

In the light of such IRA activity it is hardly surprising that the paper commented with satisfaction on the "armed constabulary" shutting down a Sinn Fein court in Foynes. The paper also carried in full a government notice announcing a curfew for Cork - a tactic which had the whole-hearted support of the editor.

From link as posted above http://www.reform.org/TheReformMovement_files/article_files/articles/cork.htm

I find the article very interesting as it is a perspective that I have not really had much reading on, i.e. most accounts are from an IRA perspective. WHether this article is neutral or unionist can be decided by those who read it but it is worth the time IMO

jonniebgood1

Manic Moran wrote: »

Although not specifically applicable as it was a war between two easily recognised, distinct, and uniformed parties (and before various of the turn-of-the-20th-century treaties), I wonder if there may not be parallels drawn with Sherman's burning of Atlanta.

The order was given to burn specific buildings of government and military consequence, to deny them to the enemy as Sherman moved on to Savannah. However, put simply, the fires just got out of control, and destroyed a large portion of the city. This did not particuarly endear Sherman and the Union Army to the residents of the Great State of Georgia.

Again, I don't know enough about the Cork incident to draw any conclusions, but I'm just putting the thought out there.

NTM

I think the burning of Atlanta may have been more considered and strategic although that is only from a brief look into the incident. As you point out there were similarities in both events though:
Occupying army in control of city sets strategic points alight and significantly, the long term effect (particularly in Cork- not sure of Atlanta) was to really galvanise the populace against the aggressor.

Fratton Fred

As a slight ironic aside, the man in charge of putting out the flamed that night was an Englishman who had recently moved to Ireland to take up his new appointment ad the head of cork fire brigade.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As a slight ironic aside, the man in charge of putting out the flamed that night was an Englishman who had recently moved to Ireland to take up his new appointment ad the head of cork fire brigade.

Considering that most of the commercial proberty was owned by protestants - some might conclude - that it was a precautionary measure.Was it ?

Who appointed him and why was it nesscessary to appoint an englishman.

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

Considering that most of the commercial proberty was owned by protestants - some might conclude - that it was a precautionary measure.Was it ?

Who appointed him and why was it nesscessary to appoint an englishman.

I think you are reading far too much into it. this was probably a simple appointment of the right person, that's all.

Would the majority of commercial property been owned by protestants? Did it matter? I believe even the black hearted prods could have republican tendencies.

If you Google Fred Huston you will find an eyewitness account written by a journalist and in it he talks about the regular British army being alarmed by the black and tans as well. I'm posting from a phone but when I get near a pc I will post a link.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think you are reading far too much into it. this was probably a simple appointment of the right person, that's all.

I disagree that CDfm is reading too much into it, it was a very common situation where official positions would be given exclusively to protestants and/or englishmen. Its a avenue worth exploring.

Would the majority of commercial property been owned by protestants? Did it matter? I believe even the black hearted prods could have republican tendencies.

Yeah course it matters, I'm sure you can think of a few reasons why it would matter.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

I disagree that CDfm is reading too much into it, it was a very common situation where official positions would be given exclusively to protestants and/or englishmen. Its a avenue worth exploring.

Yeah course it matters, I'm sure you can think of a few reasons why it would matter.

Why? We are talking 1922, not 1822. If, as I believe you may be implying, the protestant business community were all pro British, why did the tans burn their property?

Nope, I honestly can't see why it matters.

Edit; maybe relevant to the thread is a better way of putting it.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why? We are talking 1922, not 1822.
If, as I believe you may be implying, the protestant business community were all pro British, why did the tans burn their property?

Nope, I honestly can't see why it matters.

If you're implying that favouring English men and women was not par for the course among the anglo-irish population in 1922 then I don't know what to say. Its well documented and you can take any newspaper from the period, flick through the advertised jobs, and see tons of jobs that explicitly ask for protestants only or english people only. This is especially true among higher paid jobs such as post office administrators and firehouses.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

If you're implying that favouring English men and women was not par for the course among the anglo-irish population in 1922 then I don't know what to say. Its well documented and you can take any newspaper from the period, flick through the advertised jobs, and see tons of jobs that explicitly ask for protestants only or english people only. This is especially true among higher paid jobs such as post office administrators and firehouses.

I changed my post, is that better?

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I changed my post, is that better?

Not really; why did you bring up the englishman story in the first place if it doesn't matter?

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Not really; why did you bring up the englishman story in the first place if it doesn't matter?

I found it quite ironic that a group of Englishman were burning Cork, whilst another was trying to put out the flames.

Sorry, I didn't think it was that emotive an issue.

brianthebard

Its not particularly emotive, I'm just confused by you bringing it up and then when CD pointed out the man in charge was not there for the goodness of his health you seemed to take offence or go in a different direction. I just wanted to understand what people were talking about and why.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Its not particularly emotive, I'm just confused by you bringing it up and then when CD pointed out the man in charge was not there for the goodness of his health you seemed to take offence or go in a different direction. I just wanted to understand what people were talking about and why.

Not at all.

I remember an article on the guy and it was an interesting perspective on the nights events.

I don't see what religion has to do with anything, except for how he got his job. Unless of course there is an accusation that the fire brigade and the tans were selective in what properties were burnt.

For example, who owned Grants department store?

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not at all.

I remember an article on the guy and it was an interesting perspective on the nights events.

I don't see what religion has to do with anything, except for how he got his job. Unless of course there is an accusation that the fire brigade and the tans were selective in what properties were burnt.

For example, who owned Grants department store?

That is definitely an interesting line of enquiry and I'd like to see a breakdown of properties attacked if it is available.

Fratton Fred

One of the accounts I read ( I think it was from an IRA intelligence officer) stated that she heard an ADRIC officer telling a group of tans not to loot a shop as the owner was a loyalist, to which their response was that they did not care.

I suppose this could indicate a degree of pre meditation in that it was to be directed against the nationalist community, but also that it became just an orgy of violence and indescriminate criminality.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

One of the accounts I read ( I think it was from an IRA intelligence officer) stated that she heard an ADRIC officer telling a group of tans not to loot a shop as the owner was a loyalist, to which their response was that they did not care.

It would be good to see that -if you have a link - Sam Maguire who was Michael Collins mentor was a Protestant from Cork.

Economically, 2,000 people became unemployed as a result of the burning of Cork.

I suppose this could indicate a degree of pre meditation in that it was to be directed against the nationalist community, but also that it became just an orgy of violence and indescriminate criminality.

You only had the franchise for men over 21 and women over 30 since 1919 and I can imagine that at the date of the event that business people will have adapted to the changes too. They could not ignore the reality.

So, in that way, punishment and intimidation was being meted out indiscriminately to both communities.

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

It would be good to see that -if you have a link - Sam Maguire who was Michael Collins mentor was a Protestant from Cork.

Economically, 2,000 people became unemployed as a result of the burning of Cork.


You only had the franchise for men over 21 and women over 30 since 1919 and I can imagine that at the date of the event that business people will have adapted to the changes too. They could not ignore the reality.

So, in that way, punishment and intimidation was being meted out indiscriminately to both communities.

Back on a PC now, I can cut and paste:cool:

http://www.carlow-nationalist.ie/tabId/392/itemId/1266/The-burning-of-Cork-in-1920.aspx

Florence O’Donoghue, intelligence officer with the IRA at the time, wrote: “It is difficult to know whether Cork would have burned on that night if Dillon’s Cross had not happened. What is more probable is that this was the excuse needed for what was a premeditated action, and for which arrangements had been made well in advance.” The speed with which petrol was brought from Victoria Barracks to the city centre, and the deliberate manner in which the premises were fired by groups under the control of officers gives credence to this claim. She goes on: “An auxiliary officer trying to stop a shop being looted by Black and Tans on the grounds it belonged to a Loyalist, received the reply: “we don’t give a damn, it was pointed out to us.” - another indication of this being a prepared action.’

I disagree with the summary though, the B&T response could quite easily indicate that they (Possibly by this time) were just on a looting frenzy.

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I remember an article on the guy and it was an interesting perspective on the nights events.

I don't see what religion has to do with anything, except for how he got his job. Unless of course there is an accusation that the fire brigade and the tans were selective in what properties were burnt.

Not withstanding how he may have got the job in the first place, Huston seems to have been very critical of the British forces in their role in the burning: taken from http://homepage.eircom.net/~corkcounty/Timeline/Cork%20burning.htm

Shortly before dawn, two of Cork city's historic buildings would also be destroyed by flames. On Sunday 12 December Captain Huston received word that both City Hall and the nearby Carnegie Library had been put to the torch. Seven members of the fire brigade tried in vain to fight the flames and, like the buildings in Patrick Street, both places were completely destroyed. As they fought the flames the members of the fire brigade were subject to continuous harassment from crown forces, who fired on them, turned off hydrants and slashed hoses with their bayonets.

In his report to the Lord Mayor, Captain Huston wrote; "I have no hesitation in stating I believe all the above fires were incendiary fires and that a considerable amount of petrol or some such inflammable spirit was used in one and all of them. In some cases explosives were also used and persons were seen to go into and come out of the structures after breaking an entrance into same, and in some cases I have attended the people have been brought out of their houses and detained in by-lanes until the fire gained great headway".

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

You only had the franchise for men over 21 and women over 30 since 1919 and I can imagine that at the date of the event that business people will have adapted to the changes too. They could not ignore the reality.

So, in that way, punishment and intimidation was being meted out indiscriminately to both communities.

This view is backed up in link previously given -http://www.reform.org/TheReformMovement_files/article_files/articles/cork.htm

The fact that Unionists joined nationalists in reacting with outrage to the burning of Cork city demonstrates that, whilst pro-British, they were unwilling to go along with the excesses of some of the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries. An editorial in the Constitution called for an independent inquiry into the burnings:

"The demand for a satisfying inquiry is becoming irresistible and should it not be forthcoming the public will naturally draw conclusions by no means complimentary to the Administration"

note: the 'Cork constitution' was a popular unionist newspaper.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

the 'Cork constitution' was a popular unionist newspaper.

The rugby club Cork Con is a Cork Institution.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

The rugby club Cork Con is a Cork Institution.

I had'nt put the 2 together. The obvious link is there

The Cork Constitution was a well read daily newspaper in the last decade of the 1800's. It did not publish on Sundays, thus allowing the staff to be free on Saturday afternoons. Members of staff formed a cricket club, but cricket is a summer pursuit and obviously prompted by the enjoyment derived from their summer activities, thoughts turned to a winter activity and rugby football in particular. Some of the staff were very proficient in several sports, not least one David Kilroy, who was an all-rounder in the true sense. With the cricket club firmly established, the rugby club came into existence in 1892.

http://www.corkcon.ie/clubHistory.php -funny they don't explain their Unionist roots!!! or maybe not!
The papers publication stopped after Independence.

jonniebgood1

To follow up an earlier post I have found more specific information regarding the type of payments made by Britain for the damage done in the burning.

........City Hall, a limestone structure which replaced the old City Hall, destroyed by British troops on 11th December 1920 in a event called 'The burning of Cork', which took place during the country’s War of Independence. The foundation stone of the new City Hall, which was build at the same place as the old building, was laid by the Executive Council of the State, Mr. de Valera, on 9 July 1932.

The complete cost of this new building was provided by the British Government in the 1930s as a gesture of reconciliation. The City Hall consists of three sections, two wings comprising the Municipal Offices and an assembly hall, capable of seating up to 1,300 people. In March 1935 the first staff members of a few departments of the city administration moved into the western wing of the building. The first council meeting was held in City Hall on the 24th April 1935. The building was then officially opened by the Irish President on 8th September 1936.

http://www.citymayors.com/cityhalls/cork-cityhall.html

Not a part of the 1923 compensation act then. A gesture of reconciliation is a bit unusual particularly as it was built at the time of the economic war with Britain. I wonder why they would have done this at that time?

jonniebgood1

Documentary from 1960 with accounts from eye-witnesses on the night Cork was burned.

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/doconone/radio-documentary-the-burning-of-cork-ireland.html

bitter

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Documentary from 1960 with accounts from eye-witnesses on the night Cork was burned.

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/doconone/radio-documentary-the-burning-of-cork-ireland.html

That accent is horrible on the ears:mad:

It must be remembered that only a small section of cork was burned down and not the whole town.Propaganda has played a role in forming most Irish minds as it does to most others minds.It does seem that cork was a unionist town as the term "rebels" was actually unionist in truth.

Denerick

bitter wrote: »

That accent is horrible on the ears:mad:

It must be remembered that only a small section of cork was burned down and not the whole town.Propaganda has played a role in forming most Irish minds as it does to most others minds.It does seem that cork was a unionist town as the term "rebels" was actually unionist in truth.

What exactly do you mean by 'Unionist town'? During the War of Independence there were at least four groups: Republicans, sympathetic Republicans (Helped the lads on the run etc.), neutrals (Just wanted to go on with day to day life) and Unionists (Actively opposed to Republicans) Most people fell into the 'neutral' camp, though many were probably sympathetic to the IRA, they just mightn't have offered any actual aid in any shape or form. I doubt you could call Cork a 'Unionist Town'.

PatsytheNazi

bitter wrote: »

That accent is horrible on the ears:mad:

It must be remembered that only a small section of cork was burned down and not the whole town.Propaganda has played a role in forming most Irish minds as it does to most others minds.It does seem that cork was a unionist town as the term "rebels" was actually unionist in truth.

The commerial centre of the city was destroyed and drunken British soldiers looted the shops etc Firemen who tried to put out the fire had their hoses cut and were threatened to be shot. An act of gross terrorism if ever their was. And neither was it was the first or last time Cork city suffered such "peacekeeping" at the hands of the British army.

And if Cork was such a unionist town, how many unionists did it return in the 1918 election ?

bitter

Denerick wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by 'Unionist town'? During the War of Independence there were at least four groups: Republicans, sympathetic Republicans (Helped the lads on the run etc.), neutrals (Just wanted to go on with day to day life) and Unionists (Actively opposed to Republicans) Most people fell into the 'neutral' camp, though many were probably sympathetic to the IRA, they just mightn't have offered any actual aid in any shape or form. I doubt you could call Cork a 'Unionist Town'.

cork had more Orange Lodges than anywhere else at the time, like a lot of Irish people at the time they were quite happy in the Union & being British and then suddenly become Republican & anti-British after 1921. People are fickle...

PatsytheNazi

bitter wrote: »

cork had more Orange Lodges than anywhere else at the time, like a lot of Irish people at the time they were quite happy in the Union & being British and then suddenly become Republican & anti-British after 1921. People are fickle...

:rolleyes: ' Sigh ' And if Cork was such a unionist town, how many unionists did it return in the 1918 election or indeed other elections before it ?