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
Retired Gardai to commemorate RIC
Options
-
28-11-2011 7:12pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
All the half decent skins in the RIC quit rather than stand against the Irish people by trying to uphold British rule during the Tan War.
The "bobby on the beat" portrayal is an incorrect one in my opinion. The RIC were a very dangerous enemy. They raided, beat, killed and imprisoned republicans and their families on the orders of the British. With their local knowledge they were an integral part of the British intelligence network and provided material support and backup to the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries.
The IRA didn't kill so many of them for no reason. They didn't force the RIC from the countryside by destroying their barracks, the local center of colonial rule, on a whim. The RIC were a very dangerous enemy and an integral part of the British forces. They were traitors in the eyes of the IRA, Irish men who fought against their own, fought for the British against the Irish Republic for the Saxon shilling.
In my opinion I don't see how they can be viewed as anything other than enemies of Ireland.
Were the RIC men killed at Soloheadbeg simply "doing a job with the aim of bettering their own lots and often that of their communities"? Where they simply "bobbies on the beat"?
Dan Breen disagrees:
"We intended to kill some of the police whom we looked upon as the foremost and most important branch of the enemy forces. The only regret that we had following the ambush was that there were only two policemen in it, instead of the six we had expected"
In playing down the role of the RIC in the Tan War and calling them such things as "bobbies on the beat", a phrase which conjures images of a simple community policeman, what are you saying about the Irish men who killed said policemen? Did they kill a dangerous enemy or did they murder innocent men? Were they wrong to target the RIC? In my opinion they had every right and justification to attack the RIC.
When the Fenians in the 1800s attacked RIC barracks and officers were they attacking "the most important branch of the enemy’s forces"? Were the RIC in putting down the Fenians simply "doing a job with the aim of bettering their communities"? Well, the RIC did such a good job and showed such loyalty to the British crown in helping to put down the 1867 rising (failed in large part due to infiltration by members of the RIC) that Queen Victoria granted them the prefix "royal". Maybe when they were evicting tens of thousands of Irish people from their own land they were trying to better their communities rather than upholding British rule?
They are just a few examples of the RICs long history of fighting against Irish interests and freedom, but they took it to new heights during the Tan War. As I said, they raided, imprisoned, beat, infiltrated and killed. (For example, it was mainly ordinary policemen who fired the shots on Bloody Sunday, albeit under Auxiliary command.)
Now, if people want to commemorate the RIC, I imagine, seen as they are commemorating the IRAs most dangerous enemy, they are probably of the Unionist persuasion which is fair enough. But they should be remembered for what they were and not have their role in the Tan War romanticized as "bobbies on the beat" or "trying to help their community". They were a British force doing their utmost to uphold British rule. They counted among their members men such as Gerard Smyth who said the following which prompted the Listowel mutiny:
“Police and military will patrol the country roads at least five nights a week. They are not to confine themselves to the main roads but make across the country, lie in ambush, take cover behind fences near roads, and when civilians are seen approaching shout: 'Hands up!' Should the order be not 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 persons sometimes. The more you shoot the better I will like you; and I assure you that no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man and I will guarantee that your names will not be given at the inquest.”
The IRA executed this fine upstanding "bobby on the beat" in 1920. Curious how his name is not mentioned in the article. I don't see why the state would want to sponsor a commemoration for men like him.
BB0 -
All the half decent skins in the RIC quit rather than stand against the Irish people by trying to uphold British rule during the Tan War.
The "bobby on the beat" portrayal is an incorrect one in my opinion. The RIC were a very dangerous enemy. They raided, beat, killed and imprisoned republicans and their families on the orders of the British. With their local knowledge they were an integral part of the British intelligence network and provided material support and backup to the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries.
The IRA didn't kill so many of them for no reason. They didn't force the RIC from the countryside by destroying their barracks, the local center of colonial rule, on a whim. The RIC were a very dangerous enemy and an integral part of the British forces. They were traitors in the eyes of the IRA, Irish men who fought against their own, fought for the British against the Irish Republic for the Saxon shilling.
In my opinion I don't see how they can be viewed as anything other than enemies of Ireland.
Were the RIC men killed at Soloheadbeg simply "doing a job with the aim of bettering their own lots and often that of their communities"? Where they simply "bobbies on the beat"?
Dan Breen disagrees:
"We intended to kill some of the police whom we looked upon as the foremost and most important branch of the enemy forces. The only regret that we had following the ambush was that there were only two policemen in it, instead of the six we had expected"
In playing down the role of the RIC in the Tan War and calling them such things as "bobbies on the beat", a phrase which conjures images of a simple community policeman, what are you saying about the Irish men who killed said policemen? Did they kill a dangerous enemy or did they murder innocent men? Were they wrong to target the RIC? In my opinion they had every right and justification to attack the RIC.
When the Fenians in the 1800s attacked RIC barracks and officers were they attacking "the most important branch of the enemy’s forces"? Were the RIC in putting down the Fenians simply "doing a job with the aim of bettering their communities"? Well, the RIC did such a good job and showed such loyalty to the British crown in helping to put down the 1867 rising (failed in large part due to infiltration by members of the RIC) that Queen Victoria granted them the prefix "royal". Maybe when they were evicting tens of thousands of Irish people from their own land they were trying to better their communities rather than upholding British rule?
They are just a few examples of the RICs long history of fighting against Irish interests and freedom, but they took it to new heights during the Tan War. As I said, they raided, imprisoned, beat, infiltrated and killed. (For example, it was mainly ordinary policemen who fired the shots on Bloody Sunday, albeit under Auxiliary command.)
Now, if people want to commemorate the RIC, I imagine, seen as they are commemorating the IRAs most dangerous enemy, they are probably of the Unionist persuasion which is fair enough. But they should be remembered for what they were and not have their role in the Tan War romanticized as "bobbies on the beat" or "trying to help their community". They were a British force doing their utmost to uphold British rule. They counted among their members men such as Gerard Smyth who said the following which prompted the Listowel mutiny:
“Police and military will patrol the country roads at least five nights a week. They are not to confine themselves to the main roads but make across the country, lie in ambush, take cover behind fences near roads, and when civilians are seen approaching shout: 'Hands up!' Should the order be not 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 persons sometimes. The more you shoot the better I will like you; and I assure you that no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man and I will guarantee that your names will not be given at the inquest.”
The IRA executed this fine upstanding "bobby on the beat" in 1920. Curious how his name is not mentioned in the article. I don't see why the state would want to sponsor a commemoration for men like him.
BB
They upheld the law existing at the time, and people don't have to be of the "unionist persuasion" to appreciate this. If there was ever a threat from dissidents on a grand scale now, the GS would probably act in the same way that the RIC did then.
Dan Breen was bound to disagree, simply because he was on the opposing side.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Just so it's clear, what exactly are you saying? Is it that the RIC where just simple policemen like the Gardaí and in the same situation (which simply cannot come about unless we are invaded or somehow the Gardaí fall under the control of some other state and not the south) the AGS would act in the same way as the RIC? It would suppress the Dáil, fight against a democratically mandated army? It doesn't matter who made the laws? Really?
This is a rather preposterous, fanciful suggestion which really has no place in a history forum. It's derailing the thread.
I suggest mentioning your theory to a Garda.
Even after the civil war when the IRA posed a threat, during the troubles and whatnot, AGS behaved in a fashion no where near the behavior of the RIC. (thats not to say that on occasion AGS didn't let themselves down by acting like thugs, but never in the same league of thuggery and violence as the RIC)
The IRP where illegal in the eyes of the British, NOT in the eyes of the democratically elected Irish government, the Dáíl! The RIC where fighting against the Irish government in order to preserve the domination of a foreign power, you must have had some seriously bad experiences with AGS to believe they would do something like that! I am confident that AGS would side with the Irish people and government unlike the RIC.
Had Britain won (well, they kinda did in the end but thats an issue for another day) I am sure that just as in 1867 the British would have heralded their armed forces, RIC among them (remember the Tans and Auxies were supplementary forces to the RIC) for another bloody suppression of the Irish. As for Dan Breen, many Irish patriots like him where beaten, tortured and killed by the RIC. Some 'plods'. Where they just 'plods' when they gunned down spectators at a GAA match? <insert countless other examples here> Were the IRA wrong in targeting the RIC? If they were simply 'plods' the answer must be yes? Do you regard them as Dan Breen, the IRA and the Dáil did, as forces of the crown fighting against the Irish people?
After the Free State was set up many ex RIC men joined AGS. Typically these were members who had quit the RIC early on, perhaps switched sides or at least didn't stand against the Irish. Many other ex RIC men where hounded out of their communities because of what they did during the Tan War. Others went north and joined the RUC. Others kept their heads down and raked in pensions from the Free State. (quite a lot of aggro over that, was part of the treaty)
As for whose laws the IRP were 'keeping', they were the laws of the Irish Republic. You are aware I assume that the Dáil set up Courts for instance, civil authorities etc, and these where an integral part of the war effort and undermining British rule?
As I said in the beginning, the decent skins left the RIC rather than stand against the Irish people. Many joined the IRA in fact. I sense you have a degree of admiration for the RIC so I suspect we may go around in circles on this issue, something I have no interest in doing.
BB0 -
-
Just because someone doesn't agree with you, they have to be a unionist, or have an admiration for the RIC? This is complete nonsense. I like to examine a situation from the point of view of both sides, and the reality of the situation as it existed at the time.Just so it's clear, what exactly are you saying? Is it that the RIC where just simple policemen like the Gardaí and in the same situation (which simply cannot come about unless we are invaded or somehow the Gardaí fall under the control of some other state and not the south) the AGS would act in the same way as the RIC? It would suppress the Dáil, fight against a democratically mandated army? It doesn't matter who made the laws? Really?
This is a rather preposterous, fanciful suggestion which really has no place in a history forum. It's derailing the thread.
I suggest mentioning your theory to a Garda.
Even after the civil war when the IRA posed a threat, during the troubles and whatnot, AGS behaved in a fashion no where near the behavior of the RIC. (thats not to say that on occasion AGS didn't let themselves down by acting like thugs, but never in the same league of thuggery and violence as the RIC)
The IRP where illegal in the eyes of the British, NOT in the eyes of the democratically elected Irish government, the Dáíl! The RIC where fighting against the Irish government in order to preserve the domination of a foreign power, you must have had some seriously bad experiences with AGS to believe they would do something like that! I am confident that AGS would side with the Irish people and government unlike the RIC.
Had Britain won (well, they kinda did in the end but thats an issue for another day) I am sure that just as in 1867 the British would have heralded their armed forces, RIC among them (remember the Tans and Auxies were supplementary forces to the RIC) for another bloody suppression of the Irish. As for Dan Breen, many Irish patriots like him where beaten, tortured and killed by the RIC. Some 'plods'. Where they just 'plods' when they gunned down spectators at a GAA match? <insert countless other examples here> Were the IRA wrong in targeting the RIC? If they were simply 'plods' the answer must be yes? Do you regard them as Dan Breen, the IRA and the Dáil did, as forces of the crown fighting against the Irish people?
After the Free State was set up many ex RIC men joined AGS. Typically these were members who had quit the RIC early on, perhaps switched sides or at least didn't stand against the Irish. Many other ex RIC men where hounded out of their communities because of what they did during the Tan War. Others went north and joined the RUC. Others kept their heads down and raked in pensions from the Free State. (quite a lot of aggro over that, was part of the treaty)
As for whose laws the IRP were 'keeping', they were the laws of the Irish Republic. You are aware I assume that the Dáil set up Courts for instance, civil authorities etc, and these where an integral part of the war effort and undermining British rule?
As I said in the beginning, the decent skins left the RIC rather than stand against the Irish people. Many joined the IRA in fact. I sense you have a degree of admiration for the RIC so I suspect we may go around in circles on this issue, something I have no interest in doing.
BB
It also seems to me that anything that you don't agree with “has no place in a history forum”, or is "derailing the thread".
You failed to understand my AGS/RIC comparison, so I suggest you read it again. I made no mention of the AGS being controlled by another state, or anything else you seem to have added into the equation to suit your purpose. If there was a threat to the Irish state from internal dissident forces, the AGS would act in the same way that the RIC did in attempting to bring the insurrection to an end. It's completely naive to think otherwise.
Anything that was set up outside the remit of the law at the time of the War of Independence was illegal, and that's the reality. This included the First Daíl and anything springing from it, including the setting up of the IRP.
The MPs were democratically elected, but they also acted outside of their remit, again based on the laws at the time.
Your one-sided view tells us that people left the RIC because they supported the Nationalist struggle, or didn't want to fight their fellow Irishmen, but because you don't want to see beyond that, you don't mention that an indeterminate number of them left because they valued their lives more than their jobs. I think the vast majority of them never signed up to become members of a paramilitary police-force, which is probably what it evolved into when the War of Independence took hold.
In the end, it was a free-for-all, with both sides using whatever means at their disposal to survive.
Even after the truce, and before the independent state came into being, the RIC was still the only legal police-force in the land, despite your views.0 -
-
Just so it's clear, what exactly are you saying? Is it that the RIC where just simple policemen like the Gardaí and in the same situation (which simply cannot come about unless we are invaded or somehow the Gardaí fall under the control of some other state and not the south) the AGS would act in the same way as the RIC? It would suppress the Dáil, fight against a democratically mandated army? It doesn't matter who made the laws? Really?
This is a rather preposterous, fanciful suggestion which really has no place in a history forum. It's derailing the thread.
I suggest mentioning your theory to a Garda.
Even after the civil war when the IRA posed a threat, during the troubles and whatnot, AGS behaved in a fashion no where near the behavior of the RIC. (thats not to say that on occasion AGS didn't let themselves down by acting like thugs, but never in the same league of thuggery and violence as the RIC)
If we exclude the period 1918 until 1923 then what exactly do you see the large difference in role as being? Both forces in normal times fulfilled a very similar role. Many members who served up until resigning in 1917-20 went back to the same roles in the new force post independence. Pensions were paid by the Irish government to retirees of AGS for their time spent in the RIC.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement