What prevented The British Authorities from being more ruthless in Northern Ireland during the recent troubles?

General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
15,682
What prevented The British Authorities from being more ruthless in Northern Ireland during the recent troubles?

This question occurred to me when a radio report (on the Pat Kenny Show, IIRC) was doing a vox pop along the border on Brexit implications and one complete nutter of a woman compared the British security forces, the army in particular as being akin to an occupying force of Nazis in the way they treated the local population back in the day and said she was worried that a concrete border would bring them back.:rolleyes:
Well, OK there has been colusion with Loyalist death squads established and Catholics were treated as 3rd class citizens, during the troubles and internment and shoot to kill policies were very nasty but regarding them as being in the Nazi class is not accurate!
My question is why were they relatively restrained, and could it be down to Fr. Des Fall's contention that many Republican Paramilitary bosses were often in the pay of the British Authorities? Or Irish American pressure?
They were not exactly Black and Tan equivalents!
Indeed going further back why were The British authorities relatively restrained in the aftermath of 1916, there could have been many more executuions and prisoners could have been held longer in Frongach etc!
BTW I'm asking for information purposes and would never support the level of abuse that was actually dished out let alone demand more of it!
 


Irish-Rationalist

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
3,205
The crown forces were subjected to protocol, but they did assassinate random Catholics in the early days of the conflict, and were frequently in collusion with Loyalists. Many would argue that they weren't in fact restrained by governmental and/or military restrictions on operational activities.
 
D

Deleted member 45466

The crown forces were subjected to protocol, but they did assassinate random Catholics in the early days of the conflict, and were frequently in collusion with Loyalists. Many would argue that they weren't in fact restrained by governmental restrictions on operational activities.
Who?
 

between the bridges

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
44,937
The weather...
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
25,564
This question occurred to me when a radio report (on the Pat Kenny Show, IIRC) was doing a vox pop along the border on Brexit implications and one complete nutter of a woman compared the British security forces, the army in particular as being akin to an occupying force of Nazis in the way they treated the local population back in the day and said she was worried that a concrete border would bring them back.:rolleyes:
Well, OK there has been colusion with Loyalist death squads established and Catholics were treated as 3rd class citizens, during the troubles and internment and shoot to kill policies were very nasty but regarding them as being in the Nazi class is not accurate!
My question is why were they relatively restrained, and could it be down to Fr. Des Fall's contention that many Republican Paramilitary bosses were often in the pay of the British Authorities? Or Irish American pressure?
They were not exactly Black and Tan equivalents!
Indeed going further back why were The British authorities relatively restrained in the aftermath of 1916, there could have been many more executuions and prisoners could have been held longer in Frongach etc!
BTW I'm asking for information purposes and would never support the level of abuse that was actually dished out let alone demand more of it!
They were ruthless enough at times

- esp in known Republican areas

But any restraint was basically down to the fact that the eyes of the World were upon them

- it wasn't a bunch of fuzzie wuzzies theyw were up against in the ass hole of nowhere

Still they got away with a lot all the same....
 

Irish-Rationalist

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
3,205
The Military Reaction Force, Military Reconnaissance Force or Mobile Reconnaissance Force (MRF)[1] was a covert intelligence-gathering and counter-insurgency unit of the British Army active in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. The unit was involved in the murder of Irish Catholic civilians in false-flag attacks in order to inflame the conflict in Northern Ireland. They also colluded with loyalist paramilitaries, to the extent that a former member described it as a "legalised death squad".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Reaction_Force

Also, Google Ballymurphy massacre, Glenanne gang ..
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
22,659
Indeed going further back why were The British authorities relatively restrained in the aftermath of 1916, there could have been many more executuions and prisoners could have been held longer in Frongach etc!
Britain often acted appallingly in Ireland, no doubt about that - but there are those on here who regularly make the claim that it was on a par with, or even worse than how the Nazis treated people under it's control.

To illustrate how parochial that is, contrast the aftermath of the 1916 uprising, with the aftermath of the Warsaw uprising:

The entire civilian population of Warsaw was expelled from the city and sent to a transit camp Durchgangslager 121 in Pruszkó.

Out of 350,000–550,000 civilians who passed through the camp, 90,000 were sent to labour camps in the Third Reich, 60,000 were shipped to death and concentration camps (including Ravensbrück, Auschwitz, and Mauthausen, among others), while the rest were transported to various locations in the General Government and released.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising#Aftermath
 
D

Deleted member 45466

"But, but but, the British invented concentrations camps."

etc. etc. ad nauseam.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,666
Irish-America. We now know that Ronald Reagan talked Thatcher into eventually granting the hunger strikers demands.
 

General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
15,682
The British Army were sent in as a peace keeping force.
It was that daysent aul stock, Jack Lynch, who asked Wilson to put the troops into the North and Wilson told him, I can get them there, but it will be one hell of a job to get them out!
 

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
32,410
I remember reading here a post by a FG poster saying the Brits should have got the RAF to bomb Dublin.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
This question occurred to me when a radio report (on the Pat Kenny Show, IIRC) was doing a vox pop along the border on Brexit implications and one complete nutter of a woman compared the British security forces, the army in particular as being akin to an occupying force of Nazis in the way they treated the local population back in the day and said she was worried that a concrete border would bring them back.:rolleyes:
Well, OK there has been colusion with Loyalist death squads established and Catholics were treated as 3rd class citizens, during the troubles and internment and shoot to kill policies were very nasty but regarding them as being in the Nazi class is not accurate!
My question is why were they relatively restrained, and could it be down to Fr. Des Fall's contention that many Republican Paramilitary bosses were often in the pay of the British Authorities? Or Irish American pressure?
They were not exactly Black and Tan equivalents!
Indeed going further back why were The British authorities relatively restrained in the aftermath of 1916, there could have been many more executuions and prisoners could have been held longer in Frongach etc!
BTW I'm asking for information purposes and would never support the level of abuse that was actually dished out let alone demand more of it!
The Germans in many parts of Europe treated the locals far better then the British occupation forces treated the Nationalists in occupied Ireland. You had tens of thousands of young men from all over Europe who were delighted to be accepted into the Waffen SS. You didn't see many Irish Nationalists seeking to join the British Army.

Of course, you have to understand that the war in the occupied six counties is primarily a propaganda war. The IRA would not be able to secure a conventional military victory over the enemy, but could only hope to wear down it's will to remain in occupation of our country. That being the case, for the Brits to do very many killings like Loughgall would give a propaganda victory to the IRA. In effect, it would be proven to the world that the English régime could only rule Ireland though brute force. Therefore, the English régime preferred to carry out assassinations through their Loyalist proxies.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
1. TV cameras.
2. Echr
3. The US
4. Other Brits
5. EU/Irish pressure

Basically they couldnt really get away with it to the same extent that they did in the post-war colonial conflicts. Too much scrutiny.

Domestic repression made Britain look bad to the international bodies of which it was a member by then eg the EU etc. They couldnt
tout the benefits of democracy and freedom while the rest of the world said "And what are you up to, in your own state?"
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
Why on earth would the British want to inflame the conflict?
It was vital to the English régime to break the will of the IRA. The best way to do this was put put pressure on them though the Nationalist community. And the best way to do that was to murder random Catholics, so that each and every Catholic thought that every time their child left the house they could be seeing them for the last time. Funding, arming and providing targeting information to the Loyalist death squads was the ideal way to do this. Just as the English régime helped to fund, arm and train terrorists in Libya and Syria in an effort to destroy their governments.
 


New Threads

Top