Modern History
MODERN HISTORY
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE BRITISH / IRISH ‘TROUBLES’

(Which resumed in 1968 and remained an active conflict throughout until The Good Friday Agreement, signed in Belfast on  10. 04. 1998)

The British / Irish 'Troubles' (as they were called at the time, and as they are commonly referred to by history), go back a very long way. They flared up into violence again in the late 1960s, and 'The Troubles' in Ireland was to be a major feature of the politics and protest of the 1970s.

As 'Chronicles' has now commenced describing the history of the 1970s, I thought it important to post an overview account of The British - Irish ‘Troubles’, to familiarise people with the issues.

British (in older history (pre-1600s) it is more accurate to say English) - Irish relations have always been uneasy to say the least, so dating the origin of this discord is uncertain. The religious element which became so central to it must, of course, date to The Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century, which commenced the Protestant - Roman Catholic wars of religion throughout central Europe. The policy of British King James VI of Scotland and I of England (1566 – 1625) of seizing land from Irish nobles and resettling it with Scots Protestants as a way to subdue the Catholic population, may be considered the origin of the Irish population divide.

Britain handled its 'Irish problem' very badly, if looked at in cool, reasonable, impartial terms. Irish Roman Catholics were denied many basic civil rights which their Protestant neighbours enjoyed. There is insufficient space to be detailed here, but these included, for example, rights of ownership of land, ownership of animals, and various employment prejudices. In Britain generally the promotion of the Roman Catholic faith was proscribed until the late 1700s. (I recommend Dickens' 'Barnaby Rudge' as a novel which deals with the violent reaction to Roman Catholic emancipation in Britain at that time).

Resistance to oppression by English / or Britain had been almost a way of life for the Irish for centuries, and so conflict with the English / British authorities was on going.

In an attempt to find solution to its 'Ireland problem', in the early 1900s Irish Home Rule was on the British political agenda. Fearing a cave-in to Irish Republican pressure by the British Government, that would grant Independence to Ireland, the Protestant / British Loyalist majority in the province of Ulster (the descendants of King James's Scots), led by leading political figures Edward Carson and James Craig, formed the paramilitary group The Ulster Volunteer Force (U.V.F) in 1913, to resist Irish Home Rule.

1916 brought The Easter Uprising by Roman Catholic Irish Republicans, when a few lightly armed men occupied the Post Office building in Dublin - a building symbolic of British rule. This is seen as the beginning of paramilitary group The Irish Republican Army (I.R.A). The conspirators were captured. At this time Irish public opinion is said to have been mainly in favour of the British - as most of the Roman Catholic majority just wanted a fair deal from them.

It was now that the British blundered again in their policy towards Ireland: they made the mistake of executing the rebels. Irish Roman Catholic public opinion turned against Britain...

Political pressure was brought to bear on Britain, by pressure groups and by the Irish aristocracy - including those who had been dispossessed of land by the British. Most notable was Daniel O'Connell - generally accepted as the central figure in Irish liberation. Home Rule for Ireland was given a still higher profile on the British political agenda.

War against British rule followed in Ireland, which led to Britain conceding territory to the Irish Republicans, but insisting upon protecting the Loyalist Protestant majority in the province of Ulster (Northern Ireland). Consequently, Ireland was partitioned in 1921. Northern Ireland was made a separate country, with its own government (in Stormont Castle) - but remaining part of the United Kingdom and under British jurisdiction.

In the years between then and the present day, the paramilitary IRA has launched several attempts to reclaim Ulster from British rule, and has reinvented itself a number of times in the process. The Irish Government meanwhile made it declared policy to one day reunite Ulster with the rest of Ireland.

The Loyalist community, feeling under siege, and always mindful of what they considered to be their betrayal by the British Government in 1919, kept a firm grip on power in Northern Ireland, and Roman Catholics continued to be denied many civil rights: for example, the Unionists largely followed the unofficial edict by Carson that (paraphrasing): Protestants should employ Protestants.

The Roman Catholic / Republican protests that began in 1968 started as a peaceful civil rights campaign. It can, I suggest, be fairly assumed, however, that The IRA was 'in the wings', especially as it had made a declaration of intent in 1966, by blowing up the Dublin monument, Nelson's Pillar (a monument to 18th Century British admiral, Lord Nelson). It must also be said that, yet again, Britain - and the Loyalist majority - handled the situation very badly, and inflamed Roman Catholic / Republican feelings by disrupting the marches, which resulted in them descending into violence, whilst still denying them the basic civil rights that they wanted - and should have had, in all fairness...

1969 saw a resumption of attempts at peaceful marches, but with the same violent results. This culminated in what is remembered as 'The Battle of Bogside' (12th - 14th August): a full scale riot in (London)Derry, lasting three days. This prompted the Irish Republic's Prime Minister (Jack Lynch) to call for a United Nations peace keeping force to be sent to the province. The Northern Irish Prime Minister (James Chichester-Clark) considered this an outrageous interference and ceased diplomatic relations with the Republic - and called in British troops to restore order and keep the peace.

The I.R.A entered the field again, and soon after came Loyalist groups like the U.V.F, and the Ulster Defence Association (U.D.A). The British Army was what came between the two communities and their paramilitary wings, and prevented all-out civil war.

British policy, however, was to blunder again, again, and yet again - with the introduction of internment without trial (1971); the infamous 'Bloody Sunday' incident (1972), in which peaceful Republican protestors were shot at by British troops, killing 14 people and wounding 12 more; and the handling of the I.R.A hunger strike prisoners, which resulted in the death of 10 of the protestors (1981) as examples.

The I.R.A sought to take the issue away from civil rights and back to an attempt to reunite Ulster with The Irish Republic.

It must be said in fairness to the Loyalists, that this was a wholly unrealistic demand under the circumstances. The Irish Republic at the time was the most deprived and impoverished country in Western Europe. Also, politics in The Republic was still closely bound up with the Roman Catholic Church - which wielded enormous social and political power in that country. As well as social depravation, the people of Northern Ireland would have been absorbed into a social and political situation that was almost mediaeval: with some of the human rights that were being won all over the western world strictly denied to those in the Irish Republic by the power of the Roman Catholic Church. Expecting people from the relatively prosperous and liberal U.K to give up those rights and join such a political and social set-up was unreasonable and unrealistic under any circumstances - far more so with the deeply entrenched social / religious divide of Northern Ireland's community also in the mix.

Atrocities were committed by all sides in this conflict, and so very much innocent blood was spilled so senselessly: each time an atrocity happened the side responsible would issue a pale apology, but attempt to qualify it in some way by saying that their side had been provoked by the other side, and the usual glib 'get-out' references used by all who are involved in aggression and armed conflict, such as: 'the consequences of armed struggle'; 'tragic, unavoidable consequences of war'... etc... It was very sad...

The I.R.A could not break the British and Loyalist resolve, and the British Army held its own under intensely difficult circumstances, and kept the province from all out civil war, but could not ultimately defeat the I.R.A, nor put a stop to the reprisals of the loyalist groups.

The stalemate resulted in (slowly, slowly) a political willingness to talk, and to give concessions on both sides, until they arrived at some kind of agreement (it's difficult to call it 'peace', but it is a cease fire). We must all hope and pray that it lasts, and that it results in real peace.

So much artistic expression has been written, painted, and performed describing 'The Irish Troubles' in the era; for some examples: the great contemporary Irish poet Seamus Heaney wrote extensively on the subject; Paul McCartney released the single 'Give Ireland Back To The Irish', and it was banned by the BBC; comedian / Folk singer Billy Connolly handled the subject with moving sensitivity in his song 'Sergeant, Where's Mine?'; less sensitive was Hawkwind's single 'Urban Guerrilla' (which is a song that describes terrorism, but not specifically in Ireland), was also banned by the BBC.

Later, dramas, like the 1982 BBC miniseries, 'Harry's Game' - about a British Special Air Service (SAS) operative who infiltrates the Republican community in Northeast Ireland, (featuring the haunting theme song by Irish Folk Rock band, Clannad), depicted the tension, plotting and subterfuge of the conflict - and the effect it had on the two divided communities... 🤔

Within this range of artistic depiction must also be mentioned the sometimes astonishing Folk Art of the wall murals which were painted on the walls of some of buildings in the province.

Stunning art, moving passion, and a great and creative people... It is of great sorrow that all of this genius has been put to such destructive uses so often.

May all of Ireland find peace: soon, and enduring... (M).

Textual content: ©Copyright: MLM Arts 13. 12. 2011. Editeds and reposted: 21. 02. 2015. Edited and re-posted: 05. 05. 2016. Edited and re-posted: 08. 01. 2018. Edited and re-posted: 08. 04. 2019. Edited and re-posted: 19. 02. 2020. Edited and re-posted: 02. 05. 2020
CAUSES OF WORLD WAR II

In his assessment of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) which ended WWI, the French military commander, Marshal Foch asserted:

             “This is not Peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.”

His words proved to be accurate to the very year, as war in Europe between Germany and the alliance of France and Great Britain resumed in 1939 after German violations of the terms of the treaty, involving remilitarization, unification with WW I ally Austria, and the occupation of territory ceded to Czechoslovakia and Poland by the treaty. 

It is widely accepted that the humiliating terms imposed upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles can be seen as the main cause of WW II: as is implied by Foch’s assertion. 

                                           The Treaty of Versailles 

The treaty was agreed between the leaders of the four victorious allied counties: Lloyd George (GB), Woodrow Wilson (USA) Clemenceau (France) and Orlando (Italy). Wilson wanted a treaty that would ensure international co-operation and set up a platform for world peace. It included Lands forfeited by Germany after Versailles.
the creation of The League of Nations: the predecessor of The United Nations. Clemenceau and Orlando wanted heavy punishment of the defeated nations. Lloyd George, although agreeing with Wilson, accepted the view of the French and Italians, as it was in line with British public opinion.

The terms of the treaty demanded that Germany and Austria give up important industrial and agricultural land to France, Poland and Czechoslovakia (with the added humiliation of having German peoples now subjugated to other countries); Germany must disband virtually all of it’s armed forces and agree never to rebuild them; Germany had to accept all the blame for the outbreak of WWI, and pay all the cost of reparations (thus crippling the German economy); the German royal family was deposed, as was the government, and the democratic Weimar Republic was imposed on Germany as it’s government. It was weak, and was resented by the German people. Germany protested the terms, but had no option but      
to accept. Cartoon of Germany’s reluctant acceptance of the treaty.                                    
                            Consequences of The Treaty of Versailles 

The terms of the Treaty of Versailles are generally accepted as unfair and punitive in themselves, but circumstances conspired to compound the effect on Germany. The rise of Soviet Russia after WWI, and the fear of the spread of communism left the de-militarized Germany particularly vulnerable. Also, when economic depression hit the world in the 1930s the effect on Germany was increased by its economic undermining caused by the treaty. The weak Weimar Republic government was unable to react against these threats. German resentment of the treaty never subsided- as Foch had predicted. The climate for strong, nationalistic government promising to restore German pride and power was ripe, and grew on this resentment. Finally, it swept the Nazi party to power, and they set about rebuilding German military strength, and reoccupying lost lands. Protests from France and Britain were ineffectual, as they too were weak from the depression. The League of Nations proved a failure, as key nations withdrew, including the USA when Wilson lost the Presidency to the Republicans; Russia was banned because of the growing fear of communism. Consequently, there was no serious resistance to Nazi policy, and, in fact, the growth of nationalist politics in Italy and Spain offered succour and support.

Britain attempted appeasement of German territorial claims, in return for peace and assurances that expansion would cease. The only British military pledge in defence of these assurances was the guarantee to respond to any invasion of Poland. Germany reneged on its assurances and occupied Czechoslovakia, but it was only when Germany occupied Poland in 1939, and so gained substantial sea ports, that war was declared. 

THE VIETNAM WAR and THE FLOWER POWER PROTEST

Reiterating my overview of the 1960s and 70s era.

I abhor the caricaturing of the 1960 and 70s era by people who look back at it in the comfort of the freedoms which were campaigned for and won by the generations of that era. I detest the dismissal of the whole era as a meaningless, hedonistic drugs and sex orgy, inhabited by unthinking drug zombies simply out to avoid their responsibilities to ‘the Establishment’ and ‘the system’…

This era MUST, I contend, be understood in terms of being a mass demonstration AGAINST the Establishment system. While the populations of North America and Europe cringed under a ‘peace that is no peace’ (George Orwell: 'You and the Atomic Bomb' (1945)), poorer countries in the developing world were ‘used’ by these established powers to slug-out their ideological battles – and to reap the death, destruction and devastation that resulted from that...

While the developed world beat the drum and claimed to be defenders of freedom, the reality was that prejudice, bigotry and oppression were freely practiced against people on the grounds of ethnicity, religion, colour, gender, sexuality and politics.

These were the wrongs that the generations of the 60s and 70s campaigned against. They did not create ‘Utopia’, but they DID succeed, and they set in motion the social and political changes that led to the establishment of many of the freedoms that people enjoy today…

Protesting against war was a major part of this new ideology…

The main war - in all these many wars that were the killing fields of The Cold War – was in Vietnam. This conflict started in 1945 as rebellion against French colonial rule. Almost immediately after Japan’s surrender brought about the ends of WWII, resistance leader Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam an independent republic. This was rejected by the WWII allies (including the USSR), who supported French rule. They responded by arranging British occupation of South Vietnam (until French troops could be re-armed and deployed), and Chinese occupation of North Vietnam. To cut short the details – this arrangement was changed in 1949 by the USSR backed Chinese People’s Revolution, which led to the establishment of the communist People’s Republic of China. Vietnam descended into civil war: the communist backed North Vietnam was at war with the restored French powers in South Vietnam…

By 1954 the French had quit Vietnam and left it to the South Vietnamese government to resist North Vietnamese territorial ambitions. The North was by now heavily backed by the USSR with finance, military equipment and advisors. The USA backed the (equally undemocratic and despotic) regime in South Vietnam in kind.

It wasn’t until 1965 that – despite election assurances to the contrary in 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson – the USA made a full deployment of ground troops. Earlier that year the USA had commenced the blanket bombing of North Vietnamese cities, in an attempt to bomb North Vietnam out of the capability of waging war. The Viet Cong responded by focusing their attacks on U.S air bases in South Vietnam. This was the USA's reason for sending troops: to defend their air bases against intensified attacks. It was later in 1965 that the U.S military remit was extended to one of aggressive action, which resulted in the massive deployment of troops…

(In the year by year ‘Chronicles’ on this page (see photo albums) we highlight the key events of the conflict).

From the early 1960s anti-war protests were active: specifically against the very concept of nuclear war, but they were fairly low key and the preserve of the Beatniks and the educated intelligentsia (of which the Beatniks were, you could say, the youth protest wing).

In the U.K and elsewhere in Europe, Left Wing political parties and Trade Unions became increasingly involved in this struggle, and this added great impetus, but the 'vibe' was that this was political in-fighting within the Establishment fold, rather than a social and cultural paradigm shift: a revolution against Establishment 'normality'.

The USA has never had any organised mass grouping in politics or industrial relations that could be identified as ‘Left Wing’ – and the 1950s political and social persecution of anyone deemed to be sympathetic to socialist or communist politics: a campaign motivated by Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin - the so-called ‘McCarthy Witch Hunts’ - saw to it that this would remain so. However, anti-war protest there (and in Australia) was to become particularly focused on the conflict in Vietnam, as it became more and more apparent that the USA would inevitably respond to USSR backing for the communist regime in North Vietnam with a deployment of U.S troops: most of them conscripted youths.

1964 saw the first burning of ‘Draft Cards’ (conscription documents) by American youth. It started small, but escalated into a very proactive and very public protest against the Vietnam War – or at least against U.S involvement. Protests were staged in countries all over the Western world, and the anti-war movement played a major part in finally ending the Vietnam War when U.S troops were withdrawn in 1973.

The rise of the cohesive and coherent youth social and cultural revolution during the 1960s was to be the paradigm shift that challenged Establishment 'normality'...

The Flower Power Protest…

The theme was simple and direct: react against the ugliness, destruction, hate, killing and horror of war with expressions of beauty, love and peace. This was most simply and directly represented by the beauty of nature - and flowers became the main symbol of that.

It combined well with experimenting with psychedelic drugs (mainly LSD), which enhanced perception of colour and texture, and also with the use of cannabis, which was considered a herbal stimulant. It also complimented interest in eastern faiths and philosophies, which understood the nature of corporeal ‘reality’ very differently to the faiths (Judaism and Christianity) most widely practised in the West and upon which Western society (although largely secular) was still based. This was part of the Hippie quest to find an alternative to the Establishment 'reality' that had failed humanity and the world - and had brought the world to the brink of destruction... 🙁

All modern culture expressed Flower Power ideals. High profile figures identified with it in a way that got it across to mainstream society. The Woodstock festival of 1969 was the centrepiece and showcased Flower Power as a movement for peace in a way that captured the imagination. When ‘absorbed’ in conjunction with the televised horrors of the combat zones in Vietnam, Flower Power got into the ‘psyche’ of mainstream America – and the world - and played a very big part in ending the Vietnam War.

One aspect of the anti-Vietnam War protest needs addressing separately: the harassing of troops returning from their tours of duty… This was misguided, unfair – and plain wrong. It was, essentially, at odds with the ideals of ‘Flower Power’: it was neither peaceful nor loving.

The great majority of those called to serve in Vietnam did so. They did so for various reasons – possibly greatest of which being that, for most people, it is very difficult to disobey legally binding orders issued by government: whether or not they agree with them. Others will have felt an honest sense of duty - and belief in what they were doing. For many others military service was an escape from poverty.

They cannot be judged as mindless killers or wanton war mongers. They were simply caught up in a situation – and had to get on with the job, and do their best to survive it. No one has the right judge the actions of people who have been put in a horrific situation not of their own making or choosing, and who have to adapt and endure to survive.

Is that ‘heroic’? I personally say no, it is not. It is obligation; it is adherence to duty; it is compliance. But going armed to the teeth and backed up by hi-tech hardware to kill, or be killed, by others who are similarly (to a greater or lesser extent) armed for the same purpose, is not my idea of heroism.

People who, against adversity, campaign peacefully against injustice and inequality – that is heroic. People who have any disadvantage in life – but who strive and endure and overcome - and make the very best of their lives: that is heroism.

I am in agreement with those who condemn war en-bloc. War is the result of the age old failure of the established system of rule and governance (in all societies) to find an alternative to war and aggression as a means of settling differences.

John Lennon said: ‘Give peace a chance…’ As ever, this was ignored, and Joni Mitchell lamented: ‘That was just a dream some of us had…’ (From the song ‘California’)…

The pictures that goes with this posting (taken in 1967 by Marc Riboud) capture the essence of the best of what ‘Flower Power’ was about – and the attitude of the Establishment against it. U.S National Guard troopers stand firm with tight jawed determination – guns pointed; bayonets fixed (albeit sheathed)… Guarding against what? A peaceful protest fronted by a young woman (Jan Rose Kasmir) who is offering them a flower – and love… And they have no idea how to appropriately react. It’s as though Love itself is the enemy of the Establishment order…

(M).

Textual content:
© Copyright. MLM Arts ‘The Vietnam War and the Flower Power Protest’ 28/ 03/ 2012. Edited: 16/ 12/ & 2012. 21. 01. 2014 & 14. 01. 2015; 17. 09. 2015; 20. 10. 2016. Edited and re-posted: 07. 02. 2018. Edited and re-posted: 09. 02. 2019. Edited and re-posted: 23. 07. 2020

Share by: