Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Was the GPO in 1916 Looted?

1356

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    the Rebels shot civilians and blamed it on the Brits etc

    Maybe its not so far fetched.

    The Rebels claimed to be the official army and maybe the did what armies do, commandeer things and shoot prople when they don't get their way.Like occupying houses and tunnelling between houses and knocking down walls.

    Maybe the people whose homes and belongings were taken did not like it.

    Just a thought.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    A very very interesting thread, showing the problems with historical accuracy

    Even on the day of that Love Ulster parade thing, the rioters were referred to as 'Republicans' which will go down in record. I saw a load of drunk lads in celtic tops coming out of the pub as there was an early kick off in the SPL

    As an aside, does anyone know the location of the green flag with golden writing saying 'Irish Republic' that was raised over the GPO?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,986 ✭✭✭✭mikemac


    The flag is in the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    The flag is in the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin

    Is it really? Which one?
    I thought I'd looked for it. Is it on display or in storage?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,871 ✭✭✭Corsendonk


    Some further discriptions of looting and the breakdown of law and order around the GPO during Easter Week.

    Ernie O'Malley - On Another Man's Wound
    I found litte change in O'Connell Street next day. The GPO had been more thoroughly barricaded. Other shops had just been looted: Lawrence's toy store bazaar and some jewellers. Diamond rings and pockets full of gold watches were selling for sixpence and a shilling, and one was cursed if one did not buy. Women and girls, some clad in Russian leather boots, smart tweed skirts and a shawl, wore rings on every finger, throbbing rows of them, only the joints showing. Ragged boys wearing old boots, brown and back, tramped up and down with air rifles on their shoulders or played cowboys or Indians, armed with black pistols supplied with long rows of paper hats. Little girls hugged teddy bears and dolls as if they could hardly believe their good fortune. Kiddies carried golf-bags and acted as caddies to young gentlemen in bright football jerseys and tall hats, who hit golf-balls with their clubs, or indeed anything that came their way. This was a holiday. Some of the women with wispy greasy hair, and blousy figures, walked around in evening dress. Young girls wore long silk dresses. A saucy girl flipped a fan with a hand wristletted by a thick gold chain; she wore a sable fur coat, the pockets overhung with stockings and pale-pink drawers; on her head was a wide black hat towhich she had pinned streamers of blue silk ribbon. She strutted in larkish delight calling to others less splendid: 'How do yez like me now? Any chanst of yur washing ma'am?' In the backstreets men and women sprawled about, drunk, piles of empty and smashed bottles lying around.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/easterrising/tuesday/
    At 4.10pm, Eamon Bulfin on the roof of the GPO, watched as children looted a photography and toy shop, Lawrence's, and came out with a large quantity of fireworks. They "made a huge pile of them in the middle of O'Connell Street, and set fire to them. That is one thing that will stick in my mind forever. We had our bombs on top of the Post Office, and these fireworks were shooting up in the sky. We were very nervous. There were Catherine wheels going up O'Connell Street and Catherine wheels coming down O'Connell Street." The looters then set Lawrence's on fire.


    http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/04/24/today-in-irish-history-april-24-1916-the-first-day-of-the-easter-rising/
    Elsewhere the Volunteers had occupied places of work and welfare (such as there were) of poor working class people.In several cases the rebels had to use force against the locals to occupy their positions. At Jacob’s factory, a Volunteer named Sean Murphy recalled, “some civilians had … attacked one of the Volunteers and in order to save his life they had to shoot one of the civilians”.

    At South Dublin Union, the Volunteers found themselves involved in a riot with locals and had to “lay out” two with rifle butts before they got into the complex.[7] At Stephen’s Green, the Citizen Army had seized passing cars and carts at gunpoint to serve as barricades, James Stephens saw a carter try to remove his livelihood from the barricades, only to be shot dead by the insurgents. “At that moment the Volunteers were hated.

    Three of the unarmed Dublin Metropolitan Police were shot on the first day of the Rising and their Commissioner pulled them off the streets. The decision, though understandable, unleashed an orgy of looting, especially around Sackville Street, as slum dwellers from the surrounding area took the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ransack the city’s shops and boutiques

    Otautau Standard and Wallace County Chronicle, Rōrahi XII, Putanga 580, 4 Hōngongoi 1916, Page 7

    Eye witness account by English citizen in Dublin
    157468.gif


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    You must understand that newspaper reports on Easter week 1916 were very biased one way or another. Newspapers are not considered reliable sources for what actually happened.

    What you are reading in these is likely propaganda one way or another.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,871 ✭✭✭Corsendonk


    MarchDub wrote: »
    You must understand that newspaper reports on Easter week 1916 were very biased one way or another. Newspapers are not considered reliable sources for what actually happened.

    What you are reading in these is likely propaganda one way or another.

    I am aware of that, thats why I try to use sources from both sides too, otherwise I could have fell into the modern republic belief that looting did not exist in 1916 or buildings weren't flamable in 1916 because they hadn't plastic.

    Reading the reports the Independent newspaper in Dublin seemed to be the most anti-rebel of the two Dublin papers, actually gloating over the execution of the rebellion leaders.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Corsendonk wrote: »
    I am aware of that, thats why I try to use sources from both sides too, otherwise I could have fell into the modern republic belief that looting did not exist in 1916 or buildings weren't flamable in 1916 because they hadn't plastic.

    Reading the reports the Independent newspaper in Dublin seemed to be the most anti-rebel of the two Dublin papers, actually gloating over the execution of the rebellion leaders.

    Well you can't use papers at all for evidence or for source material - forgive me but you seem to have an agenda [other than actually getting at the truth] and simplifying and misusing what I have said leads me to believe this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Corsendonk wrote: »
    I am aware of that, thats why I try to use sources from both sides too, otherwise I could have fell into the modern republic belief that looting did not exist in 1916 or buildings weren't flamable in 1916 because they hadn't plastic.

    Reading the reports the Independent newspaper in Dublin seemed to be the most anti-rebel of the two Dublin papers, actually gloating over the execution of the rebellion leaders.

    The newspapers would I presume reflect the accepted view at the time. It was'nt until after the executions started that public opinion swayed in favour of the rebels. It is interesting to compare the immediate reporting of the rising with more contemporary views that we have now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Well you can't use papers at all for evidence or for source material

    Surely the papers reflect some measure of opinion at the time. If you consider a papers bias's when it is obvious (such as the Irish times in 1916 for example) then there reporting can be tempered to be of some value. Often a foreign paper (i.e. not involved in the conflict such as some American or European papers in this case) can give a good general insight into how events will be viewed in the future IMO. I am open to persuasion on this but I don't think they can be totally discounted?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Surely the papers reflect some measure of opinion at the time. If you consider a papers bias's when it is obvious (such as the Irish times in 1916 for example) then there reporting can be tempered to be of some value. Often a foreign paper (i.e. not involved in the conflict such as some American or European papers in this case) can give a good general insight into how events will be viewed in the future IMO. I am open to persuasion on this but I don't think they can be totally discounted?


    The newspaper stories are known to have been biased - they are not faithfully recording events but rather were written with the intention of swaying public opinion. So to quote from a newspaper is not evidence of anything because it is not reliable. That is the point I am making.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    The newspapers would I presume reflect the accepted view at the time. It was'nt until after the executions started that public opinion swayed in favour of the rebels. It is interesting to compare the immediate reporting of the rising with more contemporary views that we have now.


    But what papers would have been sympathetic to the rising's politics before it happened and what did they say?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    I have old copies of the Irish Times in my possession for Easter Week and one heading reads - THE DARKEST WEEK IN THE HISTORY OF DUBLIN with a subheading - "An Orgie of Fire and Slaughter". The article then proceeds to give a 'history' the 'Sinn Fein' [sic] rebels and their movements on Easter Monday morning. It's all fabrication written in the most sensational way and claiming that even the initial take over of the Post Office involved the willful killing of innocent civilians inside.

    I am inclined to think that the OP has an agenda - discredit the 1916 rebels and pull out any negative stuff that you can find to support this thesis. I am open to being dissuaded on this but his posts read that way to me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Even newspapers today have a slant and are not unbiased but the fact is looting did take place and buildings got burned down.

    Last year I bumped into an elderly neighbour who is originally from Cork ,staunch catholic & will not drink any tea other than Barry's and she was siting reading the IT.
    "Mary " said I " Are you alroight"
    " And why wouldn't I be"
    "You're reading a protestant paper"

    Banter, but the IT was the establishment paper in 1916 - and the Indo had strong FG sympathies later on ans the Irish Press was FF.

    It still is around today & the benefit of a thread like this is that you can try to get past these juxtapositions.

    I imagine the pickpockets had a bumper day in London on Friday too. Some people might say " How could they".

    Like it or not -there were dissenting voices in 1916 and there were looters and civilians got injured and killed by both sides.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    Even newspapers today have a slant and are not unbiased but the fact is looting did take place and buildings got burned down.

    Last year I bumped into an elderly neighbour who is originally from Cork ,staunch catholic & will not drink any tea other than Barry's and she was siting reading the IT.
    "Mary " said I " Are you alroight"
    " And why wouldn't I be"
    "You're reading a protestant paper"

    Banter, but the IT was the establishment paper in 1916 - and the Indo had strong FG sympathies later on ans the Irish Press was FF.

    It still is around today & the benefit of a thread like this is that you can try to get past these juxtapositions.

    I imagine the pickpockets had a bumper day in London on Friday too. Some people might say " How could they".

    Like it or not -there were dissenting voices in 1916 and there were looters and civilians got injured and killed by both sides.

    I wouldn't disagree with any of this - but the point I am making is supporting a historic thesis by newspaper reports is not valid.

    And the OP seems bent on making the anti-rebel point more than doing anything that looks like a balance IMO. They were fighting for Irish independence for God's sake - our independence for God's sake or are we not supposed to give a damn. They gave their lives or put their lives on the line - and we have to put their actions under a moral microscope and 'compare' it with the actions of the British who were after all looking once again through the use of arms to hold onto world domination?? Oh and how badly behaved were the impoverished citizens of Dublin and what moral compass can we employ here?

    But really, was there looting in the PO for Christ's sake - give me a break. Was there looting in Ireland, in Africa, in India in the middle east by the British Empire ?? - how much looting do we really want to talk about here?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Corsendonk wrote: »
    I am aware of that, thats why I try to use sources from both sides too, otherwise I could have fell into the modern republic belief that looting did not exist in 1916


    Could you possibly supply your source for this statement - I know of no Irish historian who supports that view.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I wouldn't disagree with any of this - but the point I am making is supporting a historic thesis by newspaper reports is not valid.

    And the OP seems bent on making the anti-rebel point more than doing anything that looks like a balance IMO. They were fighting for Irish independence for God's sake - our independence for God's sake or are we not supposed to give a damn. They gave their lives or put their lives on the line - and we have to put their actions under a moral microscope and 'compare' it with the actions of the British who were after all looking once again through the use of arms to hold onto world domination?? Oh and how badly behaved were the impoverished citizens of Dublin and what moral compass can we employ here?

    But really, was there looting in the PO for Christ's sake - give me a break. Was there looting in Ireland, in Africa, in India in the middle east by the British Empire ?? - how much looting do we really want to talk about here?

    You seem to want to look at this from one side of the view only. The looting and fires that are discussed in this thread are interesting in gaining a balanced rather than one-sided view of the events around the easter 1916 events. A discussion of this nature does not in any way take away from the blood sacrifice made by the participants in the rising- it merely makes clear the reality of the week as opposed to the rose tinted half view that some people would prefer to believe. Perhaps the amount of looting was due to the bad conditions in the city centre which could be attributed to the years of crown neglect to this area, i.e. justifying the proponents of the rising. I am surprised that you take issue with the OP -Do you not think the sources for this information are genuine or should they just be kept secret?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    But what papers would have been sympathetic to the rising's politics before it happened and what did they say?

    The politics prior to the rising would not have been very popular. This is reflected in the ordinary persons indifferent reaction to the rising. The only papers to support it would be publications that the people involved in the rising were involved in such as the 'workers republic' which involved connolly. The main newspapers view is well shown on this BBC page which also gives insight into why the independent was so anti-rising: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/newspapers/index.shtml


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    You seem to want to look at this from one side of the view only. The looting and fires that are discussed in this thread are interesting in gaining a balanced rather than one-sided view of the events around the easter 1916 events. A discussion of this nature does not in any way take away from the blood sacrifice made by the participants in the rising- it merely makes clear the reality of the week as opposed to the rose tinted half view that some people would prefer to believe. Perhaps the amount of looting was due to the bad conditions in the city centre which could be attributed to the years of crown neglect to this area, i.e. justifying the proponents of the rising. I am surprised that you take issue with the OP -Do you not think the sources for this information are genuine or should they just be kept secret?

    This is the history forum - it is not the hearsay forum so the rose tinted view of random people is not the issue. There are no historians that I know of who have rose tinted views as you say. Show them to me if I am wrong. I repeat - the OP seems bent on putting forward a negative view and goes to any source to present his agenda -goggling up nonsense in the pursuit.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    The politics prior to the rising would not have been very popular. This is reflected in the ordinary persons indifferent reaction to the rising. The only papers to support it would be publications that the people involved in the rising were involved in such as the 'workers republic' which involved connolly. The main newspapers view is well shown on this BBC page which also gives insight into why the independent was so anti-rising: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/newspapers/index.shtml

    What constitutes an ordinary person? There is ample primary source evidence to suggest otherwise - MacNeill gathered around 170,000 recruits for the volunteers. I would think that many were ordinary people.

    As for the Dublin crowd - the Dublin crowd attacked the British Army on Bachelors Walk within a few short years prior to the Rising - because the army had tried to take action against the Howth gun running - and were gunned down for their efforts.

    And yes, the Indo's reaction is well documented and well known among historians - especially the demand for Connolly's life. The hold that the unionist view had on the national newspapers is one of the reasons the Irish Press Newspapers was later established.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »

    As for the Dublin crowd - the Dublin crowd attacked the British Army on Bachelors Walk within a few short years prior to the Rising - because the army had tried to take action against the Howth gun running - and were gunned down for their efforts.

    We were not in a democracy and there were no democracies.

    A bit like the Balkan States really.

    And yes, the Indo's reaction is well documented and well known among historians - especially the demand for Connolly's life. The hold that the unionist view had on the national newspapers is one of the reasons the Irish Press Newspapers was later established.

    And the editorial content of newspapers influences whether official advertising is placed in it.

    A newspapers revenue is a combination of paper sales and advertising sales.

    Interesting that FG and the Indo are still linked.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    What constitutes an ordinary person? There is ample primary source evidence to suggest otherwise - MacNeill gathered around 170,000 recruits for the volunteers. I would think that many were ordinary people.
    When I say the ordinary person I guess it is the collective reaction. Compared to say recent upheavals in Egypt & Libya for example where there was a mass movement for change I would say that this was different than the rising where people seemed to be indifferent rather than openly supportive (out in arms) for the most part. I am open to being corrected/ educated on this.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    This is the history forum - it is not the hearsay forum so the rose tinted view of random people is not the issue. There are no historians that I know of who have rose tinted views as you say. Show them to me if I am wrong. I repeat - the OP seems bent on putting forward a negative view and goes to any source to present his agenda -goggling up nonsense in the pursuit.

    Fair enough- For clarity which of the sources provided do you consider to be nonsense?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    When I say the ordinary person I guess it is the collective reaction. Compared to say recent upheavals in Egypt & Libya for example where there was a mass movement for change I would say that this was different than the rising where people seemed to be indifferent rather than openly supportive (out in arms) for the most part. I am open to being corrected/ educated on this.

    Jeez - the mass participation in the recent uprising in Egypt and Libya have been credited to the new social media connections that are easily made. In 1916 no one - except the super wealthy - even had radios or telephones.

    But considering this handicap I would say that recruitment into the volunteers was nevertheless hugely impressive.

    And by 1918 the electorate had copped on and came out in big numbers to support Sinn Fein. That was revolution at the ballot box.
    Fair enough- For clarity which of the sources provided do you consider to be nonsense?

    I asked for original sources from the OP on some of the assertions made - no reply - and I jumped in on the newspaper nonsense and the faux eye witness accounts.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    I saw this elsewhere.
    http://www.swp.ie/reviews/visit-king-george/4391

    A piece written by James Connolly before King George's Royal Visit in 1911

    But MD - Sinn Fein was not associated with the Rising -didnt that link come afterwards ?

    And also, the political views of Connolly were fairly extreme and his political ideas may not have been shared by the electorate.In Limerick, you had an alliance between communists and the IRA to overthrow the British and sort out the political system afterwards.

    You even had a Soviet in Limerick

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

    http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Socialism

    In addition, the Representation of the People Act saw the franchise extented to all men over 21 and women over 30 - previous to that only around 30% of men had the vote - so democratisation had a role too.

    Dublin was a seaport and in the confusion you could have had organised lootings and wholesale organised crime.

    I think it is very valid to ask how civilians were treated, some might even say looting was a "popular show of support depending on your politics or it may have been organised or disorganised crime.

    Did the rebels feel the looting brought the rising into disrepute, for instance, and how did they treat looters ??


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »

    But MD - Sinn Fein was not associated with the Rising -didnt that link come afterwards ?

    Sinn Fein was not a military organization - it was political but was well associated and in line with the aspirations of the IRB - Griffith was friends with most of those who partook in the Rising and was himself a member of the IRB and the Gaelic League. But Griffith wanted to challenge the Home Rule party and saw this as the way forward. He founded Cumman na Gaedheal first then that developed into Sinn Fein as a new philosophy of non cooperation.

    Arthur Griffith was involved in the Howth gun running and was arrested after the Rising and imprisoned. To say that there was no association is therefore not historically correct.
    CDfm wrote: »
    I think it is very valid to ask how civilians were treated, some might even say looting was a "popular show of support depending on your politics or it may have been organised or disorganised crime.

    Did the rebels feel the looting brought the rising into disrepute, for instance, and how did they treat looters ??

    I have no problem with any issues being raised if there are reliable sources available to back it up. It seems to me that the OP failed to do this on many occasions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Sinn Fein was not a military organization - it was political but was well associated and in line with the aspirations of the IRB - Griffith was friends with most of those who partook in the Rising and was himself a member of the IRB and the Gaelic League. But Griffith wanted to challenge the Home Rule party and saw this as the way forward. He founded Cumman na Gaedheal first then that developed into Sinn Fein as a new philosophy of non cooperation.

    Arthur Griffith was involved in the Howth gun running and was arrested after the Rising and imprisoned. To say that there was no association is therefore not historically correct.

    But its policies were not violent struggle but passive resistance and Griffiths proposed a Dual Monarchy -Austro-Hungry style.

    The other policies were more post-rising.

    Not taking seats in Westminster and setting up its own assembly was effectivelly a constitutional event -but it was post rising.

    I have no problem with any issues being raised if there are reliable sources available to back it up. It seems to me that the OP failed to do this on many occasions.

    The rising had to happen for independence. Political means just had not worked and the political reality was changing.

    I don't think the looting or the treatment of civilians can be so easily dismissed as most sources agree that it happened and that there were civilan casulaties.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    But its policies were not violent struggle but passive resistance and Griffiths proposed a Dual Monarchy -Austro-Hungry style.

    The other policies were more post-rising.

    Not taking seats in Westminster and setting up its own assembly was effectivelly a constitutional event -but it was post rising.

    I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The establishment of Sinn Fein was prior to the Rising and their success came afterwords - likely as a result of the Rising. Yes.

    CDfm wrote: »
    I don't think the looting or the treatment of civilians can be so easily dismissed as most sources agree that it happened and that there were civilan casulaties.

    I dismissed nothing that was documented. In fact, on the contrary I challenged the notion stated by the OP that some historians/sources - never named by the OP - did not accept looting, which is nonsense.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The establishment of Sinn Fein was prior to the Rising and their success came afterwords - likely as a result of the Rising. Yes.

    The point was that it was not a Sinn Fein Rising. They were not anybodies political wing & it seems to me their policies, membership and sucess followed the rising which was a catalyst for it.

    What I am saying is that my understanding is that looting was not part of the rising or as I understand it condoned by the leaders.

    Or was it ???



    I dismissed nothing that was documented. In fact, on the contrary I challenged the notion stated by the OP that some historians/sources - never named by the OP - did not accept looting, which is nonsense.

    Oh right, I do think some excuse it and have a romantic notion of popular support thru looting or rioting.

    That is not realistic or plausable.

    What I am left with is a lot of dead and injured civilians shot by someone and spontaneous criminal acts not condoned by anybody.

    We do know that both the Rebels and the Army shot civilians as "hostiles" .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,871 ✭✭✭Corsendonk


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I have old copies of the Irish Times in my possession for Easter Week and one heading reads - THE DARKEST WEEK IN THE HISTORY OF DUBLIN with a subheading - "An Orgie of Fire and Slaughter". The article then proceeds to give a 'history' the 'Sinn Fein' [sic] rebels and their movements on Easter Monday morning. It's all fabrication written in the most sensational way and claiming that even the initial take over of the Post Office involved the willful killing of innocent civilians inside.

    I am inclined to think that the OP has an agenda - discredit the 1916 rebels and pull out any negative stuff that you can find to support this thesis. I am open to being dissuaded on this but his posts read that way to me.

    Hangon a minute there Bronco. First of all I have no agenda, I asked a simple question at the start and the thread veered from my OP about the looting of the GPO to looting and arsene of Dublin when the next poster darned to say that some of the damage caused to buildings in Dublin City Centre during Easter Week may have been caused by someone other than the Brits. I came up with source accounts of looting and arsene from the Dublin Fire Brigade and Rebels who witnessed the looting and fires started by 3rd party looters. You continued on attacking the thread until I pointed out my original post concerning evidence from the Dublin Fire Brigade which you hadn't taken the time to bother your ass to read fully.

    You have mentioned I have an agenda now in two posts in this thread because I disagreeded with your idiotic statement about buildings been less flammable in 1916 than they are now because they "hadn't plastic" back then. I am not disagreeding with any sources or historians quoted in this thread just you and your dismissal that the buildings wouldn't burn as easily back then.

    Lastly this is a history thread to be enjoyed not to be taken over by a person who quite clearly thinks he is more intelligent than others that contribute here. Its not a Masters Thesis for God sake. That kind of attitude turns people off history quite quickly. I think I now know who the Sheldon Cooper of the forum is.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    I worked for about 10 years back in the early 80s as a writer of reports for two fire physicists. I was writing up the research results. I learned a lot about modern buildings and about the plastic – the physicists’ word for modern man-made materials - contained in building materials and the contribution that plastic makes to ‘flashover’ or the length of time it takes for modern buildings to catch fire. The difference between this time compared to the pre WWII buildings is enormous - as is the ease with which a fire can start in modern buildings. The hazard of fire grew enormously with the introduction of modern materials – commonly called plastic. And it is not just in building materials – much of modern furniture contains a great deal of plastic. It was the concern for the presence of plastic in the contents and buildings built after WWII that led to the establishment of stricter fire codes and to the modern sprinkler systems.


    Hence my statement that buildings in 1916 were likely more difficult to ignite accidentally by looters.


Advertisement