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

The Black and tans in Ireland

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Morlar wrote: »
    Except no one has said that they were.



    That was the Civil war. Not the Black and Tans/Auxilliaries/RIC throughout the War of Independence which is what we are discussing here.

    I am just pointing out that both sides committed atrocities and I am just using that as an example.


    You are questioning the motives of the RIC not republicans. In particular you have tried to repeatedly throw doubt on the accuracy of the famous Smyth order.

    There are 2 versions. I am just saying that as Smyth was dead by 1920 people could print what they wanted.
    Saying that the RIC men who signed the document (which outlined the contents of the Smyth order) are not to be trusted, their motives were fear etc but you are not presenting any kind of evidence to that. They had more to fear from the British establishment than from fellow Irishmen - ie republicans. This makes their signing of the document and their stand (ie their refusal to comply which led to their dismissal or resignation) all the more noteworthy. If you do not accept the truth of the Smyth order perhaps you can provide an alternate text - one which - as mentioned more than 14 constables agree was accurate as the one I presented and the 14 constables agreed was accurate (& the one accepted outside of revisionist unionist circles) is the one I quoted above.

    I have seen two versions and I am not a historian.

    All I am saying is that my grandfather and his buddies who were members of the West Cork Brigade certainly used tactics that later on they were not proud of. So who they(The RIC constables) were more afraid of is arguable.

    It was war and it was fear based.

    That the Republicans were able to enter Smyths Club and shoot him must have frightened all RIC members nationwide.

    It would probably have given people the same unease as we have when we see drug dealers killing each other.On that basis I can understand it -without taking sides.


  • Options
    #63
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    CDfm wrote: »
    There are 2 versions. I am just saying that as Smyth was dead by 1920 people could print what they wanted.

    I have seen two versions and I am not a historian.

    Can you post a link to your 2nd version of the Smyth 'shoot civilians' order made at Listowel June 1920 ?


  • Options
    #64
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Morlar wrote: »
    Can you post a link to your 2nd version of the Smyth 'shoot civilians' order made at Listowel June 1920 ?

    I can't put my hand on it just now - but if I find it I will.

    I don't dispute the Black and Tans were bad guys or that Smyth was a serving British Unionist with all that that entailed.

    Just saying that both sides committed atrocities and that there is no need to be self righteous and that the book on the Exodus of Protestants from Ireland and Civilian Casualties Post 1916 has not yet been written.


  • Options
    #65
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Morlar wrote: »
    Saying that the RIC men who signed the document (which outlined the contents of the Smyth order) are not to be trusted, their motives were fear etc but you are not presenting any kind of evidence to that. They had more to fear from the British establishment than from fellow Irishmen - ie republicans. This makes their signing of the document and their stand (ie their refusal to comply which led to their dismissal or resignation) all the more noteworthy. If you do not accept the truth of the Smyth order perhaps you can provide an alternate text - one which - as mentioned more than 14 constables agree was accurate as the one I presented and the 14 constables agreed was accurate (& the one accepted outside of revisionist unionist circles) is the one I quoted above.
    Your posting on the Smyth ravings were fine Morlar. As for replying to this fella CDfm, well I myself reckon he's only trying to be a comedian, but whatever, your only replying to someone who will disregard anything you have to say regardless.


  • Options
    #66
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Your posting on the Smyth ravings were fine Morlar. As for replying to this fella CDfm, well I myself reckon he's only trying to be a comedian, but whatever, your only replying to someone who will disregard anything you have to say regardless.

    I did find one hero worshipping site which had an articled called,

    http://www.raymondscountydownwebsite.com/html/banbridge_g.1.htm

    " A ONE ARMED IRISH WARRIOR OF DAUNTLESS COURAGE "
    Lt. Colonel Gerald Brice Ferguson Smyth
    D.S.O. and Bar, French Croix de Guerre and Palm
    Belgium Croix de Guerre, Mons Star

    By Paul McCandless

    (Which hardly strikes me as impartial) In which the author paraphrased the Smyth into milder terms than the quote above.

    He also attributed it to a slightly different date then the listowel one. So Smyth said different things on different days certainly nothing that would substantively indicate the one I quoted and the generally accepted one was inaccurate. So yes I would have to agree with you on that.

    There was also however this

    http://www.historyireland.com//volumes/volume17/issue3/letters/?id=113733

    (from the letters page) which at least indicates there are different versions but in general accepts the one the RIC constables themselves transcribed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    Morlar wrote: »
    I'd say they were heroes to the unarmed people they refused to shoot & to the innocent families they refused to put into the gutter :)

    I think they were overlooked in Irish history, at a time when it must have been an incomparably more difficult decision to give up your career & livelihood they made a personal sacrifice.

    Those who refused and were dismissed and those who resigned - either way they refused on a moral principle. I think it proves that republican propaganda about the RIC is not always correct.

    Even the ones who remained on in order to pass information to Collins' intelligence squad - I believe they were turned to republicanism by the british establishment - evidenced by the fact that until that point they were not involved with the IRA.

    I don't for a second buy the 'argument' that there is no 'impartial' evidence of a shift in policy behind the Smyth order. Nor do I believe that the 14 RIC constables who signed the document outlining the smyth order were inaccurate or not to be trusted. If you can find an alternate version of the Smyth order signed by 15 RIC constables who were there that argument may have some substance. There was a shift and on that basis their refusal puts them in the good books in my view.

    which proves my point r.e. the curragh munitys, if they sideded with the republicans they were heros and it was fine to lose thier
    Impartiality and it was fine to go against the state but if they sided with the unionists then they were traitors but still should have worked imparitaly for the state.


  • Options
    #68
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    junder wrote: »
    which proves my point r.e. the curragh munitys, if they sideded with the republicans they were heros and it was fine to lose thier
    Impartiality and it was fine to go against the state but if they sided with the unionists then they were traitors but still should have worked imparitaly for the state.

    I am afraid it doesn't prove that point at all.

    The Curragh mutiny amounted to british army officers giving advance notice that they would refuse any legitimate orders to even move against the heavily armed UVF - even if the UVF were to march south (should Home Rule be implemented).

    Listowel was about the RIC men refusing to accept an illegitimate order to shoot down unarmed civilians. There is a significant difference there in my view.


  • Options
    #69
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Morlar wrote: »

    He also attributed it to a slightly different date then the listowel one. So Smyth said different things on different days certainly nothing that would substantively indicate the one I quoted and the generally accepted one was inaccurate. So yes I would have to agree with you on that.

    Nice links - thanks.

    I just think that given the circumstances a bit of healthy cynicism should be applied. Of course, we all know the version we prefer.

    I know McA will be very shocked at the notion that policemen, especially British policemen, sometimes lie and may have colluded on the statement.


  • Options
    #70
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    CDfm wrote: »
    I just think that given the circumstances a bit of healthy cynicism should be applied. Of course, we all know the version we prefer.

    I hate to be pedantic or argumentative but I disagree - the discussion is not about 'which version of history we prefer' it is about which version is truthful.

    So far I am pretty sure I know which version is truthful but was genuinely open to persuasion (due to the critical historical importance of that order) which is why I asked you to provide links to the alternates so they could be assessed. I really see no reason to doubt that the official, generally accepted version of the wording of that order is correct.


  • Options
    #71
    Simarillion
    Registered Users Posts: 123 ✭✭Simarillion


    Well unfortunatly (or fortunatly which ever way you want to see it) nobody was sitting there taking down the Colonels' speech word for word. So there is no such thing as an official version. There are only distorted and apparent versions, cited by: constables who were present and resigned, constables who were present and did not resign, and Lt. Colonel Smyth himself. None of these is a reliable source.

    Those who resigned were clearly disgusted by something Colonel Smyth said or did (or were looking for an excuse to resign due ot the stress on RIC men at the time), and are therefore biased against his speech.

    Colonel Smyths' version will be accused of softening his wording so as not to seem provocative.

    In fact the most neutral parties are those who did not resign, because they had nothing to gain by exagerating the facts. Then again, certian people here will accuse them of being blindly loyal to King and Country regardless of what the Colonel said, and willing to carry out his orders as the subordinate officers that they were. Therefore willing to stand by Colonel Smyths' version of the story.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Tarzan007
    Closed Accounts Posts: 104 ✭✭Tarzan007


    Simarillion wrote: »
    Well unfortunatly (or fortunatly which ever way you want to see it) nobody was sitting there taking down the Colonels' speech word for word. So there is no such thing as an official version. There are only distorted and apparent versions, cited by: constables who were present and resigned, constables who were present and did not resign, and Lt. Colonel Smyth himself. None of these is a reliable source.

    Those who resigned were clearly disgusted by something Colonel Smyth said or did (or were looking for an excuse to resign due ot the stress on RIC men at the time), and are therefore biased against his speech.

    Colonel Smyths' version will be accused of softening his wording so as not to seem provocative.

    In fact the most neutral parties are those who did not resign, because they had nothing to gain by exagerating the facts. Then again, certian people here will accuse them of being blindly loyal to King and Country regardless of what the Colonel said, and willing to carry out his orders as the subordinate officers that they were. Therefore willing to stand by Colonel Smyths' version of the story.

    Absoulutely pointless post :rolleyes: Well if you were to follow your line, the vast, vast majority of events, speeches etc in human history are questionable as those who witnesses them could possibly be presenting biased versions.

    I would have thought that a bit of cop on and pragmatism would have told you which was the truthful version. After all, the RIC men would hardly have given up a full time job and lost their pensions etc at the drop of a hat or a mild worded speech :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #73
    Simarillion
    Registered Users Posts: 123 ✭✭Simarillion


    Well to be perfectly truthful the vast majority of historical events are questionable which is why you have to base your decsion on a variety of sources from differant backgrounds.

    The main reason for my post is that this topic is supposed to be about the Black and Tans in Ireland not about the RIC or Colonel Smyth.

    As for leaving the force - over 416 RIC men who murdered during the Anglo-Irish and Civil Wars. They resigne din their thousands so as not to be targeted. By the end of the war the force had been greatly depleted in numbers due to threats from the IRA


  • Options
    #74
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    Tarzan007 wrote: »
    Absoulutely pointless post :rolleyes: Well if you were to follow your line, the vast, vast majority of events, speeches etc in human history are questionable as those who witnesses them could possibly be presenting biased versions.

    I would have thought that a bit of cop on and pragmatism would have told you which was the truthful version. After all, the RIC men would hardly have given up a full time job and lost their pensions etc at the drop of a hat or a mild worded speech :rolleyes:


    History by its very nature is subjective so unless you werew actully there then you can't say for certain what was said and even if you were your realting of the event would be subject to what ever bias you may have


  • Options
    #75
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Simarillion wrote: »
    Well to be perfectly truthful the vast majority of historical events are questionable which is why you have to base your decsion on a variety of sources from differant backgrounds.

    I agree and there will be various interpretations on events based on hindsight. Its not science.
    The main reason for my post is that this topic is supposed to be about the Black and Tans in Ireland not about the RIC or Colonel Smyth.

    Probably because Colenel Smyth had an Army Rank and not a police rank. It is easy to see how lines get crossed as to his status.
    As for leaving the force - over 416 RIC men who murdered during the Anglo-Irish and Civil Wars. They resigne din their thousands so as not to be targeted. By the end of the war the force had been greatly depleted in numbers due to threats from the IRA

    I agree -their membership was not mutually exclusive to the political and other realities.

    It also coincided with the end of WWI and dying had become a bit unfashionable.


  • Options
    #76
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Anyway how high was the Black and Tan casualty rate.

    Is it fair to say they were fairly useless against the Republicans who adopted guerilla tacts. Did they have any impact ort military successes.

    Were any prosecuted for civilian or military crimes?


  • Options
    #77
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    CDfm wrote: »
    Anyway how high was the Black and Tan casualty rate.

    Is it fair to say they were fairly useless against the Republicans who adopted guerilla tacts. Did they have any impact ort military successes.

    Were any prosecuted for civilian or military crimes?

    well, the black and tans did plenty in the destroying people's lives department, their business and homes etc. as yu know between them and the auxies, people sh&t themselves (a rightly so) when they were brought to the barrack or dublin castle (as seen in Ernie O'Malley's book) There actions really spurred whatever hatred there was or may have been towards the english.

    Considering that whilst the IRA had numbers around the country, only few counties were in full flight war and / or the IRA at any given time had a small amount of active service men, lack of arms and other artillery, clothes, food,money and in some cases lack of training, it was some achievement for the men of the IRA (for men who had either to try and hold down work or were on the run, or best men in prison) to put the elements of the british forces and police to anywhere near absolute defeat.

    All the same, although deaths by war are horrible regardless of who is it, its a horrible shame that there were more casualities in the civil war.


  • Options
    #78
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Morlar wrote: »
    Not according to this ;

    Consequently, within three months of this highly-publicised event, some 1,100 men resigned from the force.
    So in 1914 the threatened resigantion of 57 officers at the Curragh camp caused the british govt to back down and yet the actual resigantion of 1,100 RIC men later didn't come close to doing the same - and then we'll hear about british integrity :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #79
    Nolanger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,556 ✭✭✭Nolanger


    http://www.notmike.com/images/black_tan.gif


  • Options
    #80
    crazyhorse88
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6 ✭crazyhorse88


    Hello Everyone!
    Sorry for off topic but I'am (desperately )looking for help. I'am a student of English from Poland and I have to write my diploma project. It is about life of the Irish people in the early 1900s and I provide County Kerry as the example. Especially invaluable for me would be accounts of how life looked like from the perspective of an ordinary citizen during 1920s in Tralee. Unfortunately I'm not able to travel to Ireland and gather sufficient and credible data. So if anyone has a familiy member who remembers these turbulent times or is in possession of some memoirs or old newspaper articles or knows good webpages and is willing to help me, please contact me or simply reply!

    Here's my e-mail:
    bartek_kozub@onet.eu

    Thank you for Your help!
    Regards!
    Bartek


  • Options
    #81
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    crazyhorse88 wrote: »
    Hello Everyone!
    Sorry for off topic but I'am (desperately )looking for help. I'am a student of English from Poland and I have to write my diploma project.
    Bartek

    Have you posted in the kerry forum

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=958


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    McArmalite wrote: »
    So in 1914 the threatened resigantion of 57 officers at the Curragh camp caused the british govt to back down and yet the actual resigantion of 1,100 RIC men later didn't come close to doing the same - and then we'll hear about british integrity :rolleyes:

    You had a WWI and 1916 in the middle plus the change in the voting rules and suffrage for all men over 21 and women over 30 in 1918.

    The power of the House of Lords and influence of the traditional establishment had also changed.

    So the status quo was different and the world had changed.


  • Options
    #83
    SlabMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭SlabMurphy


    CDfm wrote: »
    You had a WWI and 1916 in the middle plus the change in the voting rules and suffrage for all men over 21 and women over 30 in 1918.

    The power of the House of Lords and influence of the traditional establishment had also changed.

    So the status quo was different and the world had changed.
    Yes the staus quo of the world had changed. Britain was actually weaker post WW1 and hence even more reason to feel the effects of the mass resignation of 1,100 RIC than it was in 1914 for the resignation of 57 army officers :rolleyes:.


  • Options
    #84
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    SlabMurphy wrote: »
    Yes the staus quo of the world had changed. Britain was actually weaker post WW1 and hence even more reason to feel the effects of the mass resignation of 1,100 RIC than it was in 1914 for the resignation of 57 army officers :rolleyes:.

    Yes Britain was weaker.

    Home Rule was law from 1914 and was awaiting implimentation and Llyod George attempted to hold discussions between all parties in 1917.

    So Home Rule was going to happen and the only issues to be decided were the institutions and partition.

    Home Rule was inevitable.Partition was not.

    The Black & Tans supplemented the RIC and many believed their actions were counter productive. However, politically the British didnt nesscessarily want to be liked as the political results were such that the attitudes couldnt be changed. My reckoning is that part of the reason for their deployment was reprisals.

    They were a lot more disciplined in Palestine and had learnt their craft in counter insurgency practices.


  • Options
    #85
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    CDfm wrote: »
    Yes Britain was weaker.

    Home Rule was law from 1914 and was awaiting implimentation and Llyod George attempted to hold discussions between all parties in 1917.

    So Home Rule was going to happen and the only issues to be decided were the institutions and partition.

    Home Rule was inevitable.Partition was not.

    The Black & Tans supplemented the RIC and many believed their actions were counter productive. However, politically the British didnt nesscessarily want to be liked as the political results were such that the attitudes couldnt be changed. My reckoning is that part of the reason for their deployment was reprisals.

    They were a lot more disciplined in Palestine and had learnt their craft in counter insurgency practices.

    sorry but partition was inevitable in some form or another, civil war was on the cards, without partition the island would have been plunged into a full scale war.


  • Options
    #86
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    junder wrote: »
    sorry but partition was inevitable in some form or another, civil war was on the cards, without partition the island would have been plunged into a full scale war.
    Yeah :rolleyes:, and how many times in my own lifetime alone have the unionists threatened to " the island would have been plunged into a full scale war " :rolleyes: They were going to do it if the Anglo Irish Agreement wasn't dropped, if they didn't get down Garvagh Road, if the RUC cap badge was replaced :rolleyes:. These are the same people who ditched tens of thousands of fellow unionists without a whimper in the border counties and indeed Dublin etc where the Carson the leader of unionism was from. As James Connolly once described the relationship of unionism to britain, it is a relationship not found anywhere in nature, it is a relationship where one type of parasite breeded off another type of parasite. Without the brits - their nothing.

    The unionists make up 2% of the population of the state of ' britain '. 2% and your going to tells us that britain was honestly afraid to move against them :D. Not one single arrest, not one bullet recovered, unlike their wholesale attack on nationalist Ireland. As stated " No thousands of british soldiers, Tans, Auxilliary's etc been sent over to the northeast with martial Law, internment, executions, house burnings etc like the brits did to nationalist Ireland. Too well we know about british ' peace keeping ' and honesty. "


  • Options
    #87
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Yeah :rolleyes:, and how many times in my own lifetime alone have the unionists threatened to " the island would have been plunged into a full scale war " :rolleyes: They were going to do it if the Anglo Irish Agreement wasn't dropped, if they didn't get down Garvagh Road, if the RUC cap badge was replaced :rolleyes:. These are the same people who ditched tens of thousands of fellow unionists without a whimper in the border counties and indeed Dublin etc where the Carson the leader of unionism was from. As James Connolly once described the relationship of unionism to britain, it is a relationship not found anywhere in nature, it is a relationship where one type of parasite breeded off another type of parasite. Without the brits - their nothing.

    The unionists make up 2% of the population of the state of ' britain '. 2% and your going to tells us that britain was honestly afraid to move against them :D. Not one single arrest, not one bullet recovered, unlike their wholesale attack on nationalist Ireland. As stated " No thousands of british soldiers, Tans, Auxilliary's etc been sent over to the northeast with martial Law, internment, executions, house burnings etc like the brits did to nationalist Ireland. Too well we know about british ' peace keeping ' and honesty. "


    The war is over, you missed it, time to move on.


  • Options
    #88
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    junder wrote: »
    The war is over, you missed it, time to move on.

    I am not a moderator but maybe it might be an idea to respond to posts in a more constructive manner ?


  • Options
    #89
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    junder wrote: »
    sorry but partition was inevitable in some form or another,
    But not as we know it.

    The democratic model was abandoned
    civil war was on the cards,

    Debateable
    without partition the island would have been plunged into a full scale war.

    I agree but the form of governments/institutions were never fully explored


  • Options
    #90
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    CDfm wrote: »
    But not as we know it.

    The democratic model was abandoned



    Debateable


    I agree but the form of governments/institutions were never fully explored

    the only model to avoid civil war is the one we have ie partition, the size of northern ireland may have varied to some degree but the result would have been the same. There was/is no interest in a united ireland among the unionist population even now a united ireland would spark of wide scale civil desturbances which would quickly escalate.
    Much is made about Northern Ireland being a protestant state for a protestant people bit conviently forget that the Free state later RoI was a catholic state for catholic people, there was nothing about the free state that remotely interested Unionists in wanting to be part of, and as it was there was a exodius of protestants from the free state into northern ireland which would account for the massive protestant population drop in the free state/roi after partition.
    Could the free state have defeated the UVF we can only speculate and even then any debate about that would likely end up in a pissing contest. Either way the fact that the UVF was created and armed in the way it was shows how much resolve there was to resist being forced into a united ireland


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    junder wrote: »
    the only model to avoid civil war is the one we have ie partition, the size of northern ireland may have varied to some degree but the result would have been the same. There was/is no interest in a united ireland among the unionist population even now a united ireland would spark of wide scale civil desturbances which would quickly escalate.
    Much is made about Northern Ireland being a protestant state for a protestant people bit conviently forget that the Free state later RoI was a catholic state for catholic people, there was nothing about the free state that remotely interested Unionists in wanting to be part of, and as it was there was a exodius of protestants from the free state into northern ireland which would account for the massive protestant population drop in the free state/roi after partition.
    Could the free state have defeated the UVF we can only speculate and even then any debate about that would likely end up in a pissing contest. Either way the fact that the UVF was created and armed in the way it was shows how much resolve there was to resist being forced into a united ireland


    A 32 county Ireland would be a much different place to the current ROI or NI.
    The free state had a huge catholic majority and therefore was a catholic country. By and large there was no oppression of protestants and the vast majority of southern protestants did and do very well and are contented and proud Irishmen and women. The small miniority was by and large well looked after and rightly so.

    On the other hand the North had less than a 2:1 protestant majority and the government quickly enforced policies to ensure complete protestant dominance and control even by gerrymandering areas of a catholic majority.

    The protestant fear of what will happen them under rule by Roman Catholics has been guiding their politics for a long time. There is little evidence that Roman Catholics have used their power in the republic to persecute protestants.

    Partition, against the hopes of its signatories has only polarised the unsolved problem and was clearly a huge mistake.

    As the proprtion of protestants in NI falls the case for exclusion from a united Ireland based on unsubstantiated fear of prosecution weakens.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement