The War of Independence in the North?

SurlyBoy

Hi all,

The study of Irish revolution in the early 20th century generally, in my experience, doesn't focus on the experience of northern nationalists beyond the period where say, the UVF and Volunteers were developing, up to the outbreak of the 1916 Rising..

I was watching a program that was on rte years ago called "Rebel Heart" which is pretty great, detailing an Irishman's involvement in republican affairs from 1916 to the civil war, it was great to see a gritty dramatisation of the Rising in 1916 (I've always felt it would make a brilliant film)

But anyway, in the second episode of the series (Spoiler alert if you haven't seen it) the protagonist travels to Belfast on duty and when staying in the house of a family of nationalists overnight, a squad of RIC obviously alerted to the family's involvement (girls in Cumann na mBan) comes in and executes all the male members of the house including a boy.

Having heard virtually nothing about the history of Belfast nationalists between 1916 and the late 60's I was wondering how accurate this fairly sensationalist scene was to history? If it is accurate, then the northern war of independence has been really underlooked in history (as I say, in my experience, feel free to contradict me)

Can anyone summarise what happened in the North during this period? Was there much activity by the Belfast volunteers and elsewhere in the north against RIC/British Army? Was there much reprisals/cold blooded attacks by RIC or tans/auxiliaries? How did it compare to what was happening elsewhere, other atrocities? Also, did Michael Collins pay much attention to the Northern rebels? This series portrays his neglect of them.

Any information would be appreciated!

Thanks

Tim

Dr.Nightdub

I could be typing for days and still not finish answering the question, it's way too broad.

Try getting your hands on either of these:

thecommietommy

SurlyBoy wrote: »

But anyway, in the second episode of the series (Spoiler alert if you haven't seen it) the protagonist travels to Belfast on duty and when staying in the house of a family of nationalists overnight, a squad of RIC obviously alerted to the family's involvement (girls in Cumann na mBan) comes in and executes all the male members of the house including a boy.

Having heard virtually nothing about the history of Belfast nationalists between 1916 and the late 60's I was wondering how accurate this fairly sensationalist scene was to history? If it is accurate, then the northern war of independence has been really underlooked in history (as I say, in my experience, feel free to contradict me)

The scene wasn't actually sensationalist, it's based on the murder of 6 members of the McMahon family by the RUC on March 4, 1922. No one was ever prosecuted for the murders.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1376480/Murders-that-shocked-the-world.html

SurlyBoy

Thanks for the replies.
Good god, that's awful.

Fenian Army

Michael Farrells "Northern Ireland - The Orange State" deals with IRA activities in the six counties during the tan war.

whitelines

SurlyBoy wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.
Good god, that's awful.

Far worse happened when India was partitioned. Civilisation's a veneer.

golden lane

whitelines wrote: »

Far worse happened when India was partitioned. Civilisation's a veneer.

at what stage does ethnic integration.....ever work......

it always end up as a snowball going downhill...............

thecommietommy

whitelines wrote: »

Far worse happened when India was partitioned. Civilisation's a veneer.

Yes and then again what the Romans did in Cathage in 146 BC was far worse again - is that an excuse for murdering six members of a family ? I suppose it is with our unionist friends when the family murdered were Catholics in Belfast.

dubhthach

thecommietommy wrote: »

Yes and then again what the Romans did in Cathage in 146 BC was far worse again - is that an excuse for murdering six members of a family ? I suppose it is with our unionist friends when the family murdered were Catholics in Belfast.

I don't see what Carthage has to do with the topic. Refrain from making broad generalisations. The Unionist population isn't some sort of Monolith. The thread shouldn't be derailed.
Mod

thecommietommy

whitelines wrote: »

Far worse happened when India was partitioned. Civilisation's a veneer.

dubhthach wrote: »

I don't see what Carthage has to do with the topic. Refrain from making broad generalisations. The Unionist population isn't some sort of Monolith. The thread shouldn't be derailed.
Mod

Well can you tell me what India has to do with the subject either though quite clearly you have ignored/missed it. Clearly the point of my reply was to show we could all go grasping at straws making excuses with comparisions with events throughout history saying " Far worse happened when .... blah, blah ".

However I would agree with you that the Unionist population isn't some sort of monolith - though back in the ' good old days ' that's what they used to describe their hold on the northern state. See Micheal Farrell's The Orange Sate.

jonniebgood1

thecommietommy wrote: »

Well can you tell me what India has to do with the subject either though quite clearly you have ignored/missed it. Clearly the point of my reply was to show we could all go grasping at straws making excuses with comparisions with events throughout history saying " Far worse happened when .... blah, blah ".

However I would agree with you that the Unionist population isn't some sort of monolith - though back in the ' good old days ' that's what they used to describe their hold on the northern state. See Micheal Farrell's The Orange Sate.

You were told not to derail this thread by a moderator. Rather than take this advice on board you posted as quoted above. Because of this you receive a warning infraction. If you continue to post off- topic the infraction may well be increased to a ban. If you dont agree with a moderator decision you can PM them to discuss it. You should understand this as you have done so previously. Please heed this warning as we prefer not to interfere in this way. If you have a problem with this then PM the relevant moderator.

Moderator.

MarchDub

thecommietommy wrote: »

The scene wasn't actually sensationalist, it's based on the murder of 6 members of the McMahon family by the RUC on March 4, 1922. No one was ever prosecuted for the murders.

I agree with you that it's fairly pointless to 'compare' atrocities - no matter where in the world they are committed - as being somehow in gradients i.e this is bad, no, this was worse etc. Atrocities are atrocities - end of.

The historian and journalist Andrew Boyd - who died recently at age 90 - in his writings highlighted some of the barbarous acts in NI of that period that he accused historians of downplaying. In his Northern Ireland Who is to Blame he makes reference to the McMahon murders and the pogroms of that period:

The pogrom of 1920-22 was the worst the Catholics of the north had ever before experienced...

Amongst the dead were the McMahon family. The father, five sons and one employee were massacred by uniformed, armed loyalists in the middle of the night [24 March 1922].

Also among the dead were six little Catholic children of Weaver Street who were killed [30 January 1922] when a hand grenade was thrown among them, and the six people of Arnon St who were battered to death by the Ulster police one week after the McMahons were murdered.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

I agree with you that it's fairly pointless to 'compare' atrocities - no matter where in the world they are committed - as being somehow in gradients i.e this is bad, no, this was worse etc. Atrocities are atrocities - end of.

The historian and journalist Andrew Boyd - who died recently at age 90 - in his writings highlighted some of the barbarous acts in NI of that period that he accused historians of downplaying. In his Northern Ireland Who is to Blame he makes reference to the McMahon murders and the pogroms of that period:

The pogrom of 1920-22 was the worst the Catholics of the north had ever before experienced...

Amongst the dead were the McMahon family. The father, five sons and one employee were massacred by uniformed, armed loyalists in the middle of the night [24 March 1922].

Also among the dead were six little Catholic children of Weaver Street who were killed [30 January 1922] when a hand grenade was thrown among them, and the six people of Arnon St who were battered to death by the Ulster police one week after the McMahons were murdered.

Perhaps I am being overly pedantic but surely the fact that Andrew Boyd labels the pogrom as "the worst" that Catholics in the North had experienced, is a contradiction of your initial point. To label them as 'worst' necessitates a comparison.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Perhaps I am being overly pedantic but surely the fact that Andrew Boyd labels the pogrom as "the worst" that Catholics in the North had experienced, is a contradiction of your initial point. To label them as 'worst' necessitates a comparison.

He was saying they were the worst in NI - he wasn't saying as one poster here was that hey this is nothing, look what happened in India ie. as a way of downgrading or denying the NI Catholic experience. Not at all.

So no, I don't agree that his motivation was at all the same.

whitelines

MarchDub wrote: »

He was saying they were the worst in NI - he wasn't saying as one poster here was that hey this is nothing, look what happened in India ie. as a way of downgrading or denying the NI Catholic experience. Not at all.

So no, I don't agree that his motivation was at all the same.

Pogrom - what pogrom?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0511/1224315908195.html

MarchDub

whitelines wrote: »

Pogrom - what pogrom?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0511/1224315908195.html

I was quoting Andrew Boyd on the issue. The fact that Parkinson does not like the word, is well, his opinion.

Personally I'm not bothered either way with what language or word is used - many innocent people were killed in the period, including children.

Historian Dr Alan Parkinson said it was the case that there was a “disproportionately high” number of Catholic victims of violence at that time.[

"Disproportionately high" will do for me also.

whitelines

MarchDub wrote: »

I was quoting Andrew Boyd on the issue. The fact that Parkinson does not like the word, is well, his opinion.

Personally I'm not bothered either way with what language or word is used - many innocent people were killed in the period, including children.



"Disproportionately high" will do for me also.

'Pogrom' is one of those loaded words that seem to get Irish Nationalists all hot and bothered - like 'death squad', 'collusion', 'shoot to kill', 'gerrymander', 'sectarian', 'discrimination', etc. They usually use such words in a grossly narrow manner and seem to lack the ability to contextualise their absurd rhetoric. Just my opinion.

As for 'pogrom', a more accurate phrase in this particular context would be 'inter-communal violence' - reflecting as it does the idea that both Catholics and Protestants suffered - as was the case.

Dr.Nightdub

It should be noted that the comments of Alan Parkinson quoted in the Irish Times were part of his contribution to a series of seminars recently held at Stranmillis College in Belfast on the theme of "Remembering the Future" - the structure of these was that after one speaker introducing a subject in a general way, two additional speakers would then give "perspectives" i.e. discuss that topic as it was seen subjectively from the particular point of view of each community in the north. To simply quote Parkinson as the Irish Times did was to take his words somewhat out of context.

On the more general use of "pogrom", while it doesn't fit the technical definition of pogrom as it evolved in Russia or Armenia, it was the term that was used by nationalists at the time as it reflected what they felt was being done to them - the Provisional Government discussed "pogrom propaganda", G.B.Kenna wrote "Facts and Figures of the Belfast Pogrom" in 1922, etc.

"Inter-communal violence", on the otherhand, is a little bit sanitised for my liking. While Whitelines is quite right to point out that both Catholics and Protestants suffered, and while each was guilty of perpetrating acts of sheer sectarian brutality, to gloss over that fact that - as even Parkinson acknowledged - Catholics suffered to a hugely disproportionate degree is run the danger of ignoring the imbalanced reality.

MarchDub

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

It should be noted that the comments of Alan Parkinson quoted in the Irish Times were part of his contribution to a series of seminars recently held at Stranmillis College in Belfast on the theme of "Remembering the Future" - the structure of these was that after one speaker introducing a subject in a general way, two additional speakers would then give "perspectives" i.e. discuss that topic as it was seen subjectively from the particular point of view of each community in the north. To simply quote Parkinson as the Irish Times did was to take his words somewhat out of context.

Thanks for this within context contribution. Very helpful.

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

On the more general use of "pogrom", while it doesn't fit the technical definition of pogrom as it evolved in Russia or Armenia, it was the term that was used by nationalists at the time as it reflected what they felt was being done to them - the Provisional Government discussed "pogrom propaganda", G.B.Kenna wrote "Facts and Figures of the Belfast Pogrom" in 1922, etc.

"Inter-communal violence", on the otherhand, is a little bit sanitised for my liking. While Whitelines is quite right to point out that both Catholics and Protestants suffered, and while each was guilty of perpetrating acts of sheer sectarian brutality, to gloss over that fact that - as even Parkinson acknowledged - Catholics suffered to a hugely disproportionate degree is run the danger of ignoring the imbalanced reality.

Yes - language is powerful and while some words might be used just for emotive purposes - not my purpose at all I should add - it is also important as you say to not ignore, or misrepresent, the historic reality of the period.

whitelines

I believe that there were about twice as many RC deaths as Protestant between 1920 and 1922. Apparently Craig and Collins agreed that Collins would call off The IRA campaign in NI and Craig would try and reign in militant Loyalists.

One Loyalist 'reigned in' was the infamous 'Buck' Alec, who was actually interned by The NI authorities at this time. He led a truly unbelievable life and is well worth 'googling'. They certainly don't make them like him anymore!

CDfm

whitelines wrote: »

One Loyalist 'reigned in' was the infamous 'Buck' Alec, who was actually interned by The NI authorities at this time. He led a truly unbelievable life and is well worth 'googling'. They certainly don't make them like him anymore!

It would be good if you filled us in on the facts and recomended sources as anything gets into google or wikipedia.

Dr.Nightdub

Not the most salubrious of characters was Buck Alec:

http://buckalecrobinson.rushlightmagazine.com/

CDfm

thecommietommy wrote: »

However I would agree with you that the Unionist population isn't some sort of monolith - though back in the ' good old days ' that's what they used to describe their hold on the northern state. See Micheal Farrell's The Orange Sate.

Is this the guy and the book,

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr200/orange.htm

The catholic experience in NI did lead to the Civil Right's Movement and sociologists call segregation structural and to enforce it required a lot of effort.

It is hard to argue against it factually because the evidence is all there.

whitelines

CDfm wrote: »

It would be good if you filled us in on the facts and recomended sources as anything gets into google or wikipedia.

There's a difference between Google and Wiki. Wiki isn't a credible source at all, though it can be used as a starting point. Google is more like a vast library containing a broad selection of documents of varying quality. It is the responsibility of the reader to decide which documents to take seriously and why.

MarchDub

whitelines wrote: »

There's a difference between Google and Wiki. Wiki isn't a credible source at all, though it can be used as a starting point. Google is more like a vast library containing a broad selection of documents of varying quality. It is the responsibility of the reader to decide which documents to take seriously and why.

Google has a priority system in its search engine so you're not always brought to the most valid/informed sites ...and the web is full of bad information. An uninformed reader cannot discern between the good and the bad - believe me, I've seen students who just pump out whatever comes up on the Google search.

And it's not confined to students either - read the daily papers and you can spot the Google results on many subjects where the reporter/journalist just went in and took nonsense verbatim.

whitelines

MarchDub wrote: »

Google has a priority system in its search engine so you're not always brought to the most valid/informed sites ...and the web is full of bad information. An uninformed reader cannot discern between the good and the bad - believe me, I've seen students who just pump out whatever comes up on the Google search.

And it's not confined to students either - read the daily papers and you can spot the Google results on many subjects where the reporter/journalist just went in and took nonsense verbatim.

That's where experience and judgement come in. The same applies to books.

There's no easy way round it.

MarchDub

whitelines wrote: »

That's where experience and judgement come in. The same applies to books.

There's no easy way round it.

We're getting off topic -

but I would say that a particular book can be vetted by author, reputation, standing etc. whereas a Google search brings up all kinds of sites and blogs that are not vetted in any way and the inexperienced can and do easily fall into thinking that what they read is legitimate based on nothing more than a Google result.

CDfm

whitelines wrote: »

That's where experience and judgement come in. The same applies to books.

There's no easy way round it.

There is, quote your sources to back up your point and sure it'll all be grand.

And then I am sure we can discuss you point and the sources.

Dr.Nightdub

OK so, on the subject of "Buck Alec" Robinson:

"...acknowledged by police as 'a dangerous gunman and leader of a murderous gang'. Though based in the area around Andrew Street and described in the press as 'the Dockland bomber and gunman', Robinson was engaged in 'freelance' terror, involving himself in shootings and bombins across the city. A colourful character, Robinson's infamy as a killer of Catholics was unsurpassed and despite a criminal record, managed to serve as a 'C' Special, before being interned in November 1922."
Source: Alan Parkinson, "Belfast's Unholy Wars", p281

And for "balance", from a more nationalist perspective:
"His minute sheet reads: 'He is reported to be a Protestant gunman of a most dangerous type who does no work and whose ordinary amusement is murder.' In October he was arrested and interned,, but released on condition that he go to England for two years. Robinson returned soon after. On October 21, 1922, the RUC Commissioner's Office reported he was 'One of the most notorious gunmen and murderers in the City of Belfast. His history was fully reported some short time ago and the Government ordered his arrest. His last known exploit was the murder of Mrs. Rafferty in Andrew Street on 17th ult.'"
Source: Jim McDermott, "Northern Divisions, The Old IRA and the Belfast Pogroms 1920-22", p270

With the RUC, a unionist historian and a nationalist historian all identifying Robinson as a scumbag, I think it's fair to conclude that Robinson was indeed a scumbag.

thecommietommy

whitelines wrote: »

'Pogrom' is one of those loaded words that seem to get Irish Nationalists all hot and bothered - like 'death squad', 'collusion', 'shoot to kill', 'gerrymander', 'sectarian', 'discrimination', etc. They usually use such words in a grossly narrow manner and seem to lack the ability to contextualise their absurd rhetoric. Just my opinion.

As for 'pogrom', a more accurate phrase in this particular context would be 'inter-communal violence' - reflecting as it does the idea that both Catholics and Protestants suffered - as was the case.

It should also be pointed out, that many Protestants were also the victims of the orange order mobs, they usually were Protestant anti sectarian trade unionists and/or nationalists. Also no one more than unionists are capable of using words to grossly exaggerate their absurd rhetoric, for example, here where they tried to claim the IRA had carried out " genocide " no less by the killing of 10 men at Kingsmills in 1976. The killing of 10 - must have been the smallest " genocide " in history

" SHOCKED English MPs have rejected a Stormont minister’s testimony that the IRA carried out “genocide” against unionists in south Armagh. "
"http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/mps_in_row_over_ira_genocide_1_3483623

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

"Inter-communal violence", on the otherhand, is a little bit sanitised for my liking. While Whitelines is quite right to point out that both Catholics and Protestants suffered, and while each was guilty of perpetrating acts of sheer sectarian brutality, to gloss over that fact that - as even Parkinson acknowledged - Catholics suffered to a hugely disproportionate degree is run the danger of ignoring the imbalanced reality.

Well I agree in general with you Dr. but personally I think the wording should be used to try and reflect the actual reality of the events instead of sanitising the extreme violence. " Poignantly, the first victim was Mrs Margaret Noade, a young mother from the Short Strand, shot dead by police as she crossed Cromac Square. Over the next two years 500 people would die violently, of whom a staggering 58 per cent were Catholics in a city in which they numbered only 25 per cent of the population. ...... Over the next two years 23,000 people, mainly Catholics, were driven from their homes in the city. The Irish government estimated that 50,000 persons left the North permanently in response to the violence and intimidation of these years. " - which to me anyway, does indeed represent a pogrom.

http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume14/issue1/reviews/?id=114012

cormacocomhrai

My maternal grandmother was from Belfast. One of three Catholic families in the street. They were tipped off by a neighbour that they were going to be targeted and so cleared out. That was July 1920. They went first to Glasgow and then to Manchester. They ended up in Cork city (her grandfather was a naval pensioner originally from Cape Clear so they had Cork relations) on December 10 1920. That night Cork city was burned by the Auxiliaries. An eventful few months.

MarchDub

thecommietommy wrote: »

Well I agree in general with you Dr. but personally I think the wording should be used to try and reflect the actual reality of the events instead of sanitising the extreme violence. " Poignantly, the first victim was Mrs Margaret Noade, a young mother from the Short Strand, shot dead by police as she crossed Cromac Square. Over the next two years 500 people would die violently, of whom a staggering 58 per cent were Catholics in a city in which they numbered only 25 per cent of the population. ...... Over the next two years 23,000 people, mainly Catholics, were driven from their homes in the city. The Irish government estimated that 50,000 persons left the North permanently in response to the violence and intimidation of these years. " - which to me anyway, does indeed represent a pogrom.

http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume14/issue1/reviews/?id=114012

Thanks for the book review - and your point that much of the violence against the Catholic population came from 'loyalist gangs' backed by those employed in official capacity, like the police.

From History Ireland:

Unlike during earlier sectarian troubles in the city, little effort was made by the British government or local Unionist leadership to have the expelled Catholics—dubbed ‘Sinn Féiners’ by their aggressors—reinstated.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

From History Ireland:

Unlike during earlier sectarian troubles in the city, little effort was made by the British government or local Unionist leadership to have the expelled Catholics—dubbed ‘Sinn Féiners’ by their aggressors—reinstated.

What do we know of the main players at the time in relation to this. Unionist leaders reactions, Nationalist leaders reactions and British leaders reactions?

jonniebgood1

This recent thread referred to efforts between Collins and Craig to have peace agreements http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77737163
Refer in particular to post 04 for these.

These agreements did not work as the trouble carried on in any case. Ther Irish side were clear in their distrust of Craig and they felt that he was not making genuine attempts to be conciliatory.

At this very moment it is no harm to retrace briefly events since the signing of the Pact between Sir James Craig and myself.

This pact was agreed to between us and signed on Saturday 21st January. I undertook by it to get the Belfast Boycott discontinued immediately and Sir James Craig undertook 'to facilitate in every possible way' the return of Catholic workmen who had been expelled from the Belfast shipyards and various other concerns.

It will be remembered that my part of the agreement was carried out at once, and Northern commercial men have been free to enter and sell their wares in any corner of the twenty-six counties since, and I have not heard of one case in which they have been interfered with.

On the other hand, what has Sir James Craig done? It is exactly nine weeks to-day since that agreement was signed, and in all that time not one single expelled Nationalist or Catholic worker has been reinstated in his employment, nor has Sir James Craig, to my knowledge, taken any action whatever or even publicly expressed a wish that his part of the agreement should be honoured.

There are at present 9,000 workers, all citizens of Belfast, who have been driven out of their employment solely because they happen to hold different political and religious views from the 'Sam M'Guffins of the crowd.'

Sir James Craig has not kept his honourable undertaking with me.

On Tuesday last, a Deputation, seven in number, representing the expelled workers, met Sir James Craig, but got nothing from him but a bare statement to the effect that he could not keep his undertaking with me owing to the difference existing from the Boundaries question and the tense feeling created by other causes.

taken from DIFP Document No. 256 Volume 1 (27 March 1922) Statement by Michael Collins on relations with Northern Ireland

An earlier statement (February 4th) blamed the British establishment for the mistrust between the 2 sides-

Finally, I should like to say that the present deadlock between Sir James Craig and myself is attributed by him to the fact that he was tricked by certain British statesmen. If that be so, then I suggest to him that it is a further convincing argument for dealing between Irishmen only on what are Irish issues only.

I do not have a source for the counter opinion- i.e. Craigs direct view on the Provisional government.

cormacocomhrai

Some points that should be remembered or that are interesting:

• support for the republican movement was much weaker in the North than it was in the west for example even among the nationalist population. The IRA was almost as suspicious of its fellow nationalist in terms of informing as it was of the Unionists.There was serious conflict between republicans and the Ancient Order of Hibernians a nationalist, Catholic sectarian society that was linked with the IPP. A number of its members on both sides of the border were shot dead as informers in 1921. Another interesting aspect of the conflict was how few informers were shot in the North and in Ulster generally. Only two apparently in the six counties, none in Donegal, two/three in Cavan and a number in Monaghan. Both the informers shot in Armagh were Catholics and Hibernians.
• Another interesting aspect of the conflict were the raids for arms. Loyalist were well armed. In some areas they were raided in some areas they were left alone and it was only Catholics that were raided.
• In Belfast the IRA was getting a lot of high-grade intelligence from the RIC. This may have been a reaction by Catholic RIC men to what was going on. Interesting a Protestant RIC man in South Armagh was passing intelligence to the IRA as well.
• In Rosslea in Fermanagh there were reprisals by republicans against members of the B-specials and their houses after previous activity by the Specials. The most infamous case of a reprisal by republicans was at Altnaveigh in South Armagh where a number of Protestants were shot dead by Frank Aiken's men after attacks on local nationalists and republicans. That was in 1922.
• There was little military activity by republicans in most of Ulster in 1920-1921. There was a fair bit of activity in South Armagh/Newry, Donegal became active in 1921, there was some in Belfast but other than that little enough happened in most areas. Unlike the recent bout of troubles, however, areas of republican attacks were expanding in the lead up to the summer of 1921 rather than contracting. Derry County saw it's first fatal ambush of a policeman in June of 1921, for example. IRA men from Belfast were active in Cavan by then as well.

Dr.Nightdub

Just a couple of things to add to Cormac's post:

There was one informer shot dead in Belfast, in March 1922 - dunno whether he was a Hibernian. In his interview with Ernie O'Malley for the famous notebooks, Tom McNally (Belfast Brigade Quartermaster) also mentioned that in the early part of 1921: "There was not much doing except the shooting of lads who were giving evidence against some of our lads.” These were non-fatal punishment shootings. Newspapers accounts also told of people being found tarred and feathered and tied to the railings of Dunville Park.

As regards arms, the IRA duped a priest into giving them 60 rifles, originally the property of the National Volunteers, which he thought he was handing over to the AOH - Roger McCorley mentioned this in his BMH witness statement. He also said they bought guns and amumunition from British soldiers, but that their main source of ammunition was the UVF - some of it stolen, some of it bought! Finally, there's a letter in PRONI, seized when the RIC raided the truce liaison office in St Mary's Hall in Feb 1922, from a man offering to set up a weekly supply of revolvers and ammunition for a specified price - he says ""I bargained but of course have to be careful as the stuff is coming from the Specials Depot at Newtownards."

On the intelligence side, the IRA had a mole placed in the British military headquarters at Victoria Barracks - he used to spirit files out for the IRA to copy. This man was later transferred to RIC headquarters and played the same role there. He enlisted in the C Specials in order to keep his cover watertight. When he felt the RIC were on to him, he legged it to Dublin with as many files as he could carry. This is all detailed in the BMH witness statemnt of David McGuinness, Assistant Intelligence Officer of the Belfast Brigade.

As regards activity in other areas outside Belfast, the Cavan episode turned out to be short lived - a dozen members of the Belfast Brigade ASU were sent to help form a flying column in Cavan, but within a couple of days the police were tipped off and following a gun battle, the Belfast men were captured.

I like to think of Antrim as a case of "what might have been". My granda was sent there as a full-time IRA organiser in Nov 1920 (think Ernie O'Malley lite) and after an interval for training that Brigade (I presume), from the start of 1921, they started mounting the usual interceptions of the mail, attacks on RIC patrols and barracks, one of which they succeeded in destroying. Then, according to a BMH statement from an Antrim veteran, word came down from Belfast that they were to stop attacking the police for fear of prompting reprisals. So my granda took it out on the railways instead - they tried derailing a train then he told the Brigade Engineer he wanted to burn all the train stations in the area, which they duly did in mid-March, seven stations in one night. In response to that, the glens were swamped with Specials and they captured my granda the next month. After that, Antrim went quiet again...

cormacocomhrai

Great post there by Dr.Nightdub.
I didn't realise that the Cavan debacle was as short lived. Cavan seems to have been a very poor area for the republicans. There seems to have been very few active IRA men from Cavan itself. Joe McMahon a Clareman was up there and there was a fella from Galway called Connolly was an officer up there. McMahon was active, I don't know if Connolly did anything. The biggest incident up there was the killing of Dean Finlay and even then that wasn't a shooting but dying either from being struck by something or hitting his head off something while the IRA were clearing them out of a house.


In an awful lot of areas in the North there was far more republican attacks on the crown forces iin early 1922 than there was in 1921.

Re the attitude of loyalists to the republicans in one of the Northern witness statements, Billy McMullan I think, he said that he regarded it as a mistake to enter into an electoral pact with the IPP in 1918 as a mistake as it immediately made the Unionists think that the republicans were another triumphalist sectarian Catholic organisation.He says that in the Conscription crisis that republicans and Unionists marched together in North Antrim and that afterwards the Unionists who marched were never too hostile to republicans. Another republican WS statement describes canvassing Unionist areas and being treated as a curiosity and then getting beaten up by supporters of the IPP in a nationalist area.

Being sent as a GHQ organiser to Antrim was tough. Isolated and boxed in.

Dr.Nightdub

cormacocomhrai wrote: »

In an awful lot of areas in the North there was far more republican attacks on the crown forces iin early 1922 than there was in 1921.

Just on that point, the War of Independence is traditionally dated as having finished with the signing of the Truce in July 1921. But in relation to the north, as McCorley told O'Malley: “The pogrom lasted 2 years...the Truce itself lasted six hours only.”

If you read any of the BMH statements or the interviews with O'Malley, it's clear that as far as the northern IRA were concerned, they were still fighting the War of Independence as late as the summer of 1922 - hence the failed northern uprising / offensive in May of that year, the remnants of 2nd and 3rd Northern Division being brought to the Curragh for re-training in August with a view to re-commencng operations in the north again, etc.

In relation to Belfast, most of the focus tends to be placed on their role of defending nationalist areas against the pogrom, but at first they viewed that as very much a secondary local priority, even if it did, in time, come to overwhelm their wider national objectives.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I do not have a source for the counter opinion- i.e. Craigs direct view on the Provisional government.

Craig had pretty much got what he wanted - the Six County region. So his concern was to maintain control of that. Remember Carson had tabled a motion back in January 1913 for nine counties exclusion and held onto that hope for some time but Craig was shrewd enough to know that Six Counties would give the Unionists control of the area that he needed to hold onto it.

Tim Pat Coogan in his Michael Collins describes the time of late 1921 early 1922...

In November [1921] at a time of renewed rioting in Belfast the British handed over responsibility for Justice and Security to the Six County government. Wilson was still Chief of Staff of the Imperial General Staff and he and Worthington Evans saw to it that Craig’s government received a considerable number of weapons and ammunition in bringing the Specials back on to the stage. The new administration immediately put arms and men to use in cracking down on the IRA. GHQ was particularly incensed by a raid on an IRA training camp at Cranagh in the Sperrin Mountains on Christmas Eve 1921. Until then no operations against Specials had been sanctioned…


At the end of February 1922 following the expiry of the date for handing in all unauthorised weapons, that is, those in Catholic hands, raiding by Specials intensified and during a ten day period in March Collins sanctioned reprisal attacks against barracks in Pomeroy, Maghera, and Belcoo in which a number of Specials were killed.

cormacocomhrai

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

Just on that point, the War of Independence is traditionally dated as having finished with the signing of the Truce in July 1921. But in relation to the north, as McCorley told O'Malley: “The pogrom lasted 2 years...the Truce itself lasted six hours only.”

If you read any of the BMH statements or the interviews with O'Malley, it's clear that as far as the northern IRA were concerned, they were still fighting the War of Independence as late as the summer of 1922 - hence the failed northern uprising / offensive in May of that year, the remnants of 2nd and 3rd Northern Division being brought to the Curragh for re-training in August with a view to re-commencng operations in the north again, etc.

In relation to Belfast, most of the focus tends to be placed on their role of defending nationalist areas against the pogrom, but at first they viewed that as very much a secondary local priority, even if it did, in time, come to overwhelm their wider national objectives.

That's accurate about the Truce meaning next to nothing in Belfast.

The IRA effort to defend Catholic areas has to be viewed as part of a general communal effort as well. It wasn't just the Republicans who were involved with that.

CDfm

cormacocomhrai wrote: »

That's accurate about the Truce meaning next to nothing in Belfast.

The IRA effort to defend Catholic areas has to be viewed as part of a general communal effort as well. It wasn't just the Republicans who were involved with that.

Did it cross over into the non catholic and non republican community/traditions ?

Dr.Nightdub

Non-catholic, no, mainly cos they were the ones being defended against. Though in the other thread, Jolly Red Giant has detailed how "rotten prods" were also targetted by loyalists.

Non-republican, yes, absolutely. In November 1921, the AOH set about trying to recruit for the Hibernian Knights, a kind of catholic neighbourhood-defence militia - this was detailed in a letter at the time from Sean MacEntee TD to de Valera (MacEntee was a former senior IRA officer in Belfast).

Ex-servicemen were also heavily involved - again, from Tom McNally's interview with O'Malley: “The only men to rely on were the Irish Volunteers and on some of the ex-servicemen.” This contrasts with the usual picture painted of ex-servicemen in relation to the south, where they're usually painted as mere mercenaries who flooded into the Free State army in the Civil War.

Finally, the British military played more of a role in defending nationalists than is generally recognised. In "Northern ireland - The Orange State", Michael Farrell described them as behaving with "fine impartiality" - it was mathematical: they killed 35 from each side. There was particular friction between the Norfolk Regiment and loyalists from the lower Shankill and north Belfast as the latter viewed that regiment as being too impartial. There was also friction between the same regiment and the RIC / RUC.

cormacocomhrai

From memory some loyalists distrusted Norfolk's regiments because the Duke was a Catholic.

In Derry one of the British Army Regiments was reported in the press during the summer of 1920 as wearing orange lilies. Regardless of the intention behind it Catholics, regardless of political beliefs, must have regarded that as a deliberately provocative act.

MarchDub

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

Finally, the British military played more of a role in defending nationalists than is generally recognised. In "Northern ireland - The Orange State", Michael Farrell described them as behaving with "fine impartiality" - it was mathematical: they killed 35 from each side. .

cormacocomhrai wrote: »

In Derry one of the British Army Regiments was reported in the press during the summer of 1920 as wearing orange lilies. Regardless of the intention behind it Catholics, regardless of political beliefs, must have regarded that as a deliberately provocative act.

Just to note on the issue of British troops that the place where "fine impartiality" is in Farrell's book it is written with a air of cynicism or sarcasm - not admiration - as in they were shooting at everyone on the occasion.

"For the next two nights Catholic premises and isolated Catholic houses were burnt out in Protestant areas, and a 4,000 strong mob attacked St Matthew’s church and the adjoining convent in the short Strand and the Catholic Church and monastery in Clonard. British troops arrived belatedly and with fine impartiality fired into the crowd"

cormacocomhrai

That particular church was a red rag to a bull. It was targeted into the 1960s as well. An IRA man was seriously wounded defending it. I think it was Billy mcKee but I could be wrong. Whoever it was was interviewed for Peter Taylor's Provos documentary.

Fenian Army

MarchDub wrote: »

Just to note on the issue of British troops that the place where "fine impartiality" is in Farrell's book it is written with a air of cynicism or sarcasm - not admiration - as in they were shooting at everyone on the occasion.

That was my impression too.

"Fine impartiality" is taking things out of context. He was being sarcastic.

Fenian Army

Craig making attempts to be conciliatory?

In a speech to shipyard workers he told them that he approved of their actions - kicking out the catholics.

People have overlooked the B and C specials thus far.

These were incorporated into the police and were in effect UVF regiments/murder gangs. Entire sections of the UVF were brought lock stock and barrel into the police. These groups were responsible for many of the reprisals, burnings and lootings against catholics which defined the period.

Dr.Nightdub

cormacocomhrai wrote:

That particular church was a red rag to a bull. It was targeted into the 1960s as well. An IRA man was seriously wounded defending it. I think it was Billy mcKee but I could be wrong.

Billy McKee was indeed wounded and a non-IRA Short Strand resident named Henry McElhone was killed in the church grounds, as well as two protestants killed nearby.

MarchDub wrote: »

Just to note on the issue of British troops that the place where "fine impartiality" is in Farrell's book it is written with a air of cynicism or sarcasm - not admiration - as in they were shooting at everyone on the occasion.

Believe me, I'm not normally one to defend the British army, but in this case, I disagree. If anything, their behaviour in 1920 was in stark contrast to their behaviour in 1970, where they didn't even turn up to St Matthews until the morning after it was attacked.

The incident Farrell describes was on 23rd July. The previous night, a military patrol had shot a protestant man dead. When the church was attacked on the 23rd, they opened fire and killed two more protestants, another protestant was shot later that night from a military lorry in Bryson St. The military killed two more protestants on the Newtownards Rd in mid-August, another two in Dee St on the 25th and it wasn't until 28th Aug that the first catholic in the Short Strand was killed by the military.

It was similar around the Clonard monastery where a lot of the initial rioting happened. The British killed nine people in that area in July 1920, four protestants and five catholics.

There's a booklet written by a Belfast local historian on the McMahon family murders which can be downloaded in pdf format here. At the back of that, there's a chronological list of people killed during the pogrom; it's not 100% complete and accurate as he imports a lot of errors from G.B. Kenna's "Facts & Figures of the Belfast Pogrom" which was written in 1922, but it's not a bad start. All the deaths I mentioned above can be cross-referenced against newspaper accounts from the time.

It's also very good on the McMahon family and Arnon St murders. The previous poster mentioned the Specials, they were heavily implicated in both incidents, along with what the IRA dubbed "the murder gang", composed of regular RIC led by DI Nixon. It gives a good flavour of the viciousness of the time.

MarchDub

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

Believe me, I'm not normally one to defend the British army, but in this case, I disagree. If anything, their behaviour in 1920 was in stark contrast to their behaviour in 1970, where they didn't even turn up to St Matthews until the morning after it was attacked.

I wasn't making a broad statement about this period vs any other. I was only referencing the part in the book where Farrell uses the term 'fine impartiality' - and it reads like sarcasm to me as in, they fired indiscriminately at the whole crowd. That is why I typed out that section directly from the book myself.

Fenian Army

Going off topic for a second, does anyone know were I could buy a copy of that book? I've been using one from a library

Dr.Nightdub

MarchDub wrote: »

I wasn't making a broad statement about this period vs any other. I was only referencing the part in the book where Farrell uses the term 'fine impartiality' - and it reads like sarcasm to me as in, they fired indiscriminately at the whole crowd. That is why I typed out that section directly from the book myself.

I understand that, and in the context of the rest of the book, you could be forgiven for thinking he was being sarcastic. But when you see the detail behind the specific incident to which he refers, then it's fair to conclude, as I've argued, that he actually meant it.

I'm not claiming the British army were angels in 1920-22, there were plenty of allegations from catholics of foul language, threatening behaviour, verbal and physical abuse, etc and unlike August 1969, there are certainly no stories of them being offered cups of tea. But if you take the admittedly grisly approach of going by the body count they generated then, given that they were generally called on to intervene in riot situations where they had to deal simultaneously with two sides, they could not be accused of bias.