[Retour
à la page Question d'agrèg']
[Ireland
and the First World War: the Historical Context]
By Keith Jeffery, University of Ulster
Between
August 1914 and November 1918 considerably over 200,000 Irish served
in armed forces engaged in the First World War. They fall into three
main categories. In the first place a fair number were serving soldiers
at the start of the conflict. For example in August 1914, in the
British army there were 28,000 Irish-born regular soldiers and 30,000
reservists who were immediately called up back to the colours. Secondly
there were what were known as 'Kitchener's men', people who responded
to the urgent call for volunteers made by Lord Kitchener, appointed
Secretary of State for War in August 1914, and most dramatically
represented in the world-famous 'Your Country Needs You' poster.
Between August 1914 and February 1916 (more or less when conscription
was introduced in Great Britain, and just before the Easter Rising
in Ireland) about 95,000 men joined up. Thirdly, there were those
who joined up during the rest of the war, after the initial recruiting
'surge', up to November 1918. These men total about 45,000, including
nearly 10,000 recruits in the last three and a half months of the
war alone.
These figures do not include all the Irish people who joined up.
They do not include officers, nor do they include all of the Irishmen
in the Royal Navy, and they do not take into account Irishmen serving
in formations raised outside the United Kingdom-in Canada, Australia,
New Zealand and South Africa, for example-or in foreign armies (most
notably that of the USA), nor even those in non-military services
like the Merchant Marine, which participated and suffered in the
Great War. I have four great-uncles from Ireland who served in the
First World War. Each one of them emigrated to Canada before 1914,
and each of them served with the Canadian forces (two perished),
thus they do not appear in the statistics already quoted. This is
surely not unique, and there must be many similar cases among families
in our emigrant Irish society.
We can break down the statistics by location and religion, though
not quite for the whole war. The figures for recruitment by religion
and province from August 1914 to January 1918 (which is the period
for which we have more-or-less reliable figures) are as follows:
Province
Catholics Protestants
Ulster
17,092 45,798 62,890
Leinster 25,357 4,989 30,346
Connacht 4,316 410 4,726
Munster 17,842 1,168 19,010
Totals
64,607 52,365 116,972
|
What
these figures show, overall, is that more Catholics than Protestants
(and hence we can assume more nationalists than unionists) joined
up in Ireland during the First World War. Only in Ulster (nine
counties) does the number of Protestants exceed the number of
Catholics. But these figures are largely meaningless without some
idea of the proportionality of enlistment, and the following table
shows the recruiting response as a proportion of the religious
group, again by province and again over the period from the start
of the war to January 1918 (% of population first; % of recruits
in brackets):
Province
Catholic Protestant
Ulster
44 (27) 56 (73)
Leinster 85 (89) 15 (11)
Connacht 96 (92) 4 (8)
Munster 94 (93) 6 (7)
Ireland 74 (55) 26 (45)
|
What
these figures show us is, as we might expect, that, overall, a
higher percentage of Protestants joined up than Catholics. In
Ulster, for example, where the population was just over half Protestant,
nearly three-quarters of all the recruits came from that section
of the population. But in the other provinces the figure was by
no means so clear-cut. While in Munster, the proportions of population
and religion were more or less equal, in Leinster, which includes
Dublin and which we have seen from the previous table supplied
more recruits than any other province except Ulster, Catholics
were slightly more likely to join up than Protestants. Thus, we
cannot easily come to any simplistic conclusions about which group
was more likely to join up than the other.
To put the numbers into some sort of context, we can relate the
200,000-odd to the total number of young men living in Ireland
at the time. According to the 1911 census there were just over
700,000 men between the ages of 15 and 35 in Ireland. The great
majority of the recruits fell between those ages. We can say,
therefore, that between a quarter and a third of the available
young men in Ireland-a very strikingly high proportion-joined
up to serve in the First World War.
And of those who enlisted, many did not return. The casualty statistics
are as imprecise as those for recruiting, but one careful calculation
of the dead has come up with a figure of 29,779 'born in Ireland'.
Even this, apparently very precise, figure is only a start, and
the compiler has suggested that we add 'approximately 5,000' more
to allow for Irishmen in British imperial armies and that of the
USA.
Why did these men join up? This is one of the most tantalising
questions we can pose about the First World War. We know-with
the benefit of hindsight, to be sure-how terrible it was on the
Western Front, and how futile and hazardous it seemed to be. And
yet many thousands of young Irishmen continued throughout the
whole war to join up. The popular view we have of enlistment in
the war is that of huge crowds of men surging to the recruiting
offices in August 1914, like lambs to the slaughter, or lemmings
heading for a precipice. But we also know that recruitment continued
throughout the war, even after it had certainly become clear to
those back home that the war was no simple adventure. No-one in
Ulster, or any other part of Ireland, could have been misled about
the risks of joining up after the terrible casualties of the Somme
in July 1916, and yet many, many more young men continued to join
up after then. And we must remember that throughout the war, unlike
in England, Scotland and Wales, all the Irish recruits were volunteers,
they did not have to go, and yet many decided so to do. What we
have to try to do is recover the rationality of recruiting: individual
men made individual decisions to join up, and although they may
have been swayed by the kind of patriotic fervour we no longer
experience, they nevertheless evidently had good reason for doing
what they did. Any theory (or theories) which we come up with
for enlistment must not only explain the thousands who joined
up ain August and September 1914 (the 'easy bit'), but also the
thousands who joined up in 1918 (which may not be quite so straightforward).
The standard, public reason for joining up was the moral purpose
of the war. At the time it was widely seen as a kind of crusade
against 'Prussian militarism'. Tom Kettle, an Irish nationalist
who had actually been in Belgium buying guns for the nationalist
paramilitary Irish Volunteers, argued that men went because the
cause was a just one. It was, said Kettle, the cause of small
nations threatened by large ones, of Belgium and Serbia, which
Germany and Austria had outraged, and Britain and her allies had
taken up. This made it right for Ireland to fight on England's
side, especially since England had (at last) granted Home Rule
for Ireland. Kettle himself joined up and died on the Somme in
September 1916.
Home Rule had been the aspiration of Irish nationalists for fifty
years and, finally, in 1914 it appeared that the deed was done.
On 18 September 1914 the third Irish Home Rule Bill became law,
although its operation was suspended for the duration of the war.
No-one (at least on the nationalist side) thought that this would
be for very long, but the passage of the legislation was crucial
for John Redmond, the leader of the Irish nationalist movement.
On 20 September he made a celebrated speech at Woodenbridge, county
Wicklow, in which he said that 'the interests of Ireland, of the
whole of Ireland, are at stake in this war'. He drew out the high
moral purpose of the struggle against the Germans and Prussian
militarism: 'This war is undertaken in defence of the highest
interests of religion and morality and right, and it would be
a disgrace for ever to our country, a reproach to her manhood,
and a denial of the lessons of her history if young Ireland [note
the allusion here to 1848 and the traditions of Irish nationalism]
confined their efforts to remaining at home to defend the shores
of Ireland from an unlikely invasion, and shrinking from the duty
of proving on the field of battle that gallantry and courage which
have distinguished their race all through its history'. Stirring
words indeed, and words which clearly found a response among many
young Irishmen.
But high patriotic duty was not the only possible reason why men
might join up. Another factor was a simply desire for adventure.
For many at home the war offered excitement and the chance of
glorious opportunity. Tom Barry, later to become a leader of the
IRA in Cork, enlisted in June 1915. Seventeen years old, he said
he 'had decided to see what this Great War was like
I went
to the war for no other reason than that I wanted to see what
war was like, to get a gun, to see new countries and to feel like
a grown man'. This was nearly a year after the war had started,
and provides some evidence that the recruiting rush of the early
days does not tell the whole story.
And if Irish nationalists were responding to their 'patriotic
duty' as articulated by John Redmond, so Irish unionists, too,
in Ulster and elsewhere, also joined up for patriotic reasons.
Having pledged their loyalty to the Crown and the link with Great
Britain, they could hardly stand back when the 'Mother Country'
was in its hour of need. 'We do not seek to purchase terms by
selling our patriotism', said Carson. 'England's difficulty is
our difficulty.'
There were also economic motives for joining up, as there always
had been. Service in the army, after all, was a steady job, and
one with a pension at the end. Even in wartime, with the heightened
risks of military service, many men were undoubtedly attracted
by the rates of pay which the military offered (and the family
allowances which accompanied them). The August 1914 rush to the
colours was also boosted by the fact that across Ulster many factories
laid men off, or put them on short time, when war broke out because
of uncertainties in the economic situation. Irish linen mills
specialised in the quality end of the market-fine table and bed-linen,
high quality shirting and so on-just the sort of products which
people might stop buying (as they did) because there 'was a war
on'. Export markets in continental Europe and the USA were disrupted.
Thus, just at the moment when there was a stirring and insistent
call for troops, many workers were put out of a job, evidently
making enlistment more attractive than might otherwise have been
the case.
Nor were these the only possible motives for joining up. Some
men enlisted through family tradition, for others it was merely
a kind of emigration, though one which was not necessarily so
permanent as going to America. Looking especially at big urban
centres like Belfast, it is also evident that many men joined
up in groups, with 'peer pressure' carrying them into the army
with friends and work mates. By one account, Francis Ledwidge,
the poet from Slane (and a socialist and nationalist), enlisted
'on the rebound' from being rejected by a sweetheart. Whether
true or not, it adds another possibility to the wide range of
motivations to joining up.
Looking at the recruiting figures, and taking into account the
many possible reasons behind enlistment, it is impossible facilely
or glibly to generalise about these fellows, about who they were
or why they joined up. No single or simple explanation will do,
and in many cases it must have been a combination of factors.
Patriotic feeling might have been significant but not in itself
sufficient to impel a man to enlist. Yet combine it with uncertain
prospects at work and the urging of a next-door neighbour-'Come
on, John, it'll be great crack'-and the lure might be irresistible.
What, in any case, we can say about these men-who were both 'ordinary'
and extraordinary at the same time- is that they became victims
of circumstances well beyond their control.
Irishmen served in all theatres of the First World War, and in
all branches of the army and navy, not to mention the air force
by the end of the war. But if we concentrate on the volunteers
of 'Kitchener's army', we find the Irish serving in three main
divisions: the 10th (Irish) Division, the 16th (Irish) Division
and the 36th (Ulster) Division. The 10th Division was the first
to see action. In August 1915 it landed at Suvla Bay in Gallipoli
in Turkey, as part of the unsuccessful effort to open a way from
the Mediterranean to the Black Sea and force the Turks out of
the war. By the end of 1915 the division had been moved to Macedonia,
and in 1917 to Egypt and Palestine. In November 1917 they fought
in the battle of Gaza and participated in the capture of Jerusalem
in December that year. In March 1918 they were fighting near Nablus,
now in the occupied territories of the West Bank.
The other two divisions fought on the Western Front, in places
more familiar to us. The most famous engagement they were involved
in was, of course, the Ulster Division at the battle of the Somme,
where they suffered appalling casualties on the first day, 1 July
1916. This was the first major battle they were involved in. The
16th Division had, in fact, gone into action before the 36th.
In April 1916, during the same week as the Easter Rising in Dublin,
they had suffered a bad gas attack at Hulluch, north of the Somme.
The 16th Division also took part in the Somme battle itself, though
not until September 1916. Both divisions fought together, sometimes
alongside each other, at the battle of Messines in June 1917 and
at Langemarck, part of the battle of Passchendaele, in August
1917. The following spring both divisions fought against the great
German offensive in March 1918, which proved to be the last big
German attack of the war.
This very sketchy outline of where the Irish New Amy divisions
fought cannot do justice to the Irish service in the First World
War, nor does it in any way do justice to the extraordinarily
wide range of experience on land, sea and in the air seen by volunteers
from all parts of Ireland. We should not forget that women as
well as men served. In St Anne's Church of Ireland Cathedral in
Belfast is a memorial to eighteen nurses who died while serving
with Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service. In the
same church, incidentally, there is also a huge memorial to the
printing tradesmen, Protestants and Catholics, who served and
died in the war. Across Ireland are local war memorials with their
own stories to tell of individual service and sacrifice, and including
both women and men. The names of two nurses, for example, will
be found on the war memorial in Dungannon, county Tyrone. At the
dedications of war memorials-an all-to-frequent occurrence in
the 1920s-some sentiments were expressed which we would do well
to recall today. Among the most striking is the speech made by
General Sir Oliver Nugent (who had commanded the 36th (Ulster)
Division at the Somme) at the dedication of the war memorial in
Virginia, County Cavan, in August 1923. 'The day', he said, 'is
not, I hope, far distant when the memory of all those of our country
who gave their lives for civilisation as we interpret it and in
obedience to what they believed to be their duty will be honoured
and perpetuated in every town and village in Ireland' (emphasis
added). These are signally tolerant and inclusive remarks, especially
for their time. But the call to remember all the fallen resonates
with us still today. Perhaps, after eighty years, we can rise
to Sir Oliver Nugent's challenge.
"Turning
11 November into 12 July?":
Commemorating
the Great War in Ireland
In
the centre of the Irish midlands town of Birr, there is a 15 metre-high
mid-eighteenth century Doric column, which was surmounted with
a statue of the Duke of Cumberland. It was erected to mark his
victory over Catholic Jacobite forces at Culloden in Scotland
in 1746, which secured the Protestant monarchy in Britain. In
the early autumn of 1919 this unusual and unexpected memorial-no
other monument to Culloden exists beyond the battlefield itself-came
under discussion in the town. By this time the statue of the duke,
who was popularly known as the 'butcher of Culloden', had been
removed, ostensibly because it was in a dangerous condition, and
only the pedestal remained. Looking to put up a war memorial,
the Birr Comrades of the Great War applied to the urban council
to use the site for this purpose. Simultaneously, and evidently
as a response, the local branch of the Transport Union applied
'for the site for the erection of a statue to the late James Connolly',
one of the leaders of the Easter Rising of 1916. Neither application
succeeded, nor has either a Great War memorial or a statue of
James Connolly ever been erected in the town. This illustrates
one theme which emerged in the years after 1918: the mutually
challenging commemoration of what might collectively be called
Irish war dead. The empty column, which survives to this day,
epitomises another Irish response to the painful legacy of 1914-18:
a willing, perhaps even a wilful, suppression of the public 'memory'
of those years. This national 'amnesia', however, contrasts sharply
with the fervent celebration of the war effort by Irish unionists,
especially those in the north of Ireland, for whom the losses
sustained by the Ulster Division at the battle of the Somme in
1916 represented a sealing with blood of the political union with
Great Britain.
In Ireland the political memory of the Great War has been inextricably
bound up with that of the conflicts at home. This is above all
exemplified by the strikingly different place of 1916 in the unionist
and nationalist traditions. But even here there are ambiguities.
While the Easter Rising serves as an iconic event for Irish republicans,
and the first day of the Somme, 1 July, when the Ulster Division
went over the top and suffered some five thousand casualties,
has become a sacred point of reference for Ulster unionists, 1916
also saw the first engagement on the Western Front of the nationalist
16th (Irish) Division, also in the battle of the Somme, though
not until September. The varying ways in which the service and
sacrifice of these different groups of Irish soldiers has been
marked and commemorated since the end of the war reflects the
broader political and social ambiguities of Ireland, north and
south, especially in the inter-war years, but also right up to
the present day.
The overlapping of existing Irish political divisions with the
commemoration of the Great War is demonstrated by the worry, expressed
both by British ex-servicemen and Irish nationalists (sometimes,
of course, the same people) that commemoration should not take
on an 'Orange and Green' dimension. In September 1926, General
Sir William Hickie, who had commanded the 16th (Irish) Division
in the war and was now the Chairman of the Southern Ireland Branch
of the British legion, told a British Legion meeting in Athy,
County Kildare, that he deplored those who were 'trying to turn
the 11th of November into the 12th of July'. The following year
Kevin O'Higgins, the Minister of Justice and Vice-President of
the Executive Council, told the Dáil that he deprecated
'profoundly the mentality of either side that would make of the
11th November a Twelfth of July'.
O'Higgins was speaking in a debate about the location of the Irish
National War Memorial and the problematic nature of Irish First
World War commemoration is particularly well illustrated in the
tortuous, and somewhat troubled, history of the Irish National
War Memorial, first proposed in principle in 1919. The design
and location was not settled until ten years later, it was only
partially completed within another ten years, but subsequently
fell into considerable disrepair, was restored in the 1980s and
not formally dedicated until some fifty years after its original
completion. Part of the difficulty with this memorial stemmed
from the very term 'national', which conveyed different meanings
to different people. Thus it was understandable that some veterans
at remembrance ceremonies sought to recover the reconciling power
of common war service, which the nationalist leader John Redmond
had so ardently desired. Two examples from 1925 illustrate this
point, the first at the eighth anniversary service in memory of
Major William Redmond, John Redmond's brother and also a nationalist
MP, who was killed in June 1917 during the battle of Messines.
Both at the time and since, much was made of the fact that the
nationalist 16th Division in which Redmond was serving fought
here alongside the unionist 36th Division. Delivering the oration
at Ennis, in the East Clare constituency Redmond had represented,
Thomas O'Donnell, another former MP, made the most of the fact
the Redmond had died in a 36th Division casualty clearing station:
Side by side with his Orange fellow-countrymen he fought in France-and,
strange irony of fate, or perhaps the guiding hand of Providence,
when a German shell laid that noble spirit low he was brought
by Orange stretcher-bearers back to the Orange camp and there
tended with all the solicitude and anxious care that could be
given to their dearest comrade. There in that stricken camp was
buried for ever the prejudice of ages
While O'Donnell might have been a shade over-optimistic in his
conclusion, the celebration of common service between 'Orange'
and 'Green' was frequently invoked at remembrance ceremonies.
At the dedication in November 1925 of the war memorial at Portadown,
County Armagh, Mr R. M. Cullen, a Catholic ex-N. C. O. of the
Connaught Rangers, said that joint participation was 'emblematic
of the brotherhood that was born in the gullies of Gallipoli and
cemented on the firing-steps of Flanders (Applause.)'
In post-partition Ireland, and bearing in mind the traumatic and
bitterly divisive experiences of the war of independence, the
civil war and sectarian violence in many parts of the island,
though especially in the north, it was understandable that many
should invoke a time of apparently unproblematic Irish unity in
the not-so-distant past. Not only their war service, but also
the mythic attractions of that military 'brotherhood', meant that
some ex-servicemen, far from trying to forget the war might actually
seek to preserve and sustain the military cameraderie and common
purpose they enjoyed during the 1914-18. This was certainly a
factor in the development of veterans' organisations in countries
across the world; while public opinion 'wanted to forget the war',
veterans, reflected one Canadian ex-serviceman charged with organising
the civil re-integration of soldiers after the Second World War,
'seemed to want to keep the memory alive'. The most recent manifestation
of this is the enlistment (as it were) of the First World War
into the Northern Ireland 'peace process', with cross-community
'pilgrimages' to the battlefields (and cemeteries) in France and
Belgium, and the building of a 'Peace Tower' at Messines in Belgium.
But there was (and is) also a religious and denominational dimension
to commemoration. Religious ceremonial was inextricably part of
remembrance services, and the broad identification in Ireland
of Catholics with nationalism and Protestants with unionism, meant
that any religious service could have a clear political dimension.
In a number of places Catholic ex-servicemen organised ostentatiously
Catholic ceremonies, perhaps deliberately to protect themselves
against accusations of 'West Briton-ism', or any lingering sympathy
for the ancien régime in Ireland. In Longford, for example,
a parade of ex-servicemen to St Mel's Catholic cathedral for high
mass, carried a banner 'bearing the inscription "The Supreme
Sacrifice" in large white block letters on a dark background,
underneath a painting in oils of a dying soldier beneath the cross
on which hung a life-like figure of the Redeemer, set upon the
roadside somewhere in France'. On the back of the banner were
the words 'Better love than this no man hath than that he lay
down his life for his friends'. Catholic ex-servicemen in Lurgan,
County Armagh, were equally anxious to commemorate their dead
comrades. Indeed, they sponsored one of the very few Great War
memorials in an Irish Catholic church. But they also seem to have
been keen to avoid becoming too closely involved in the main public
remembrance ceremonies, with (in Northern Ireland) their powerful
British and unionist symbolism. At first the Catholic ex-servicemen
paraded annually in July, sometime between the anniversary of
the signing of the peace (28 June 1919) and the day appointed
in 1919 (19 July) for the official peace celebrations. Whatever
the precise reason for the timing, on 9 July 1920 'over four hundred
demobilised Catholic soldiers of Lurgan' met to make arrangements
for a remembrance mass on the Sunday following, 11 July. But this
was plumb in the middle of the Orange 'marching season'. A local
priest, Father McGivern, 'made it clear it was to be a purely
religious function
He gave warning to all present to refrain
from giving or taking offence during the forthcoming July celebrations'.
He was 'glad to see toleration and comradeship between Catholic
and Protestant demobilised soldiers in Lurgan and hoped that nothing
would now occur to break it'. The Catholic ex-servicemen continued
to parade in July until 1923, but thereafter changed the date
to later in the summer, when the ceremonies became associated
(though not always coinciding) with the feast of the Annunciation
of the Blessed Virgin Mary on 15 August.
Remembrance in Lurgan, however, also demonstrated the extent to
which the commemoration of the Great War in Northern Ireland became
associated with the unionist political cause and confirms Neil
Jarman's observation that 'after 1918, the World War, condensed
into the single event of 'the Somme', was introduced into Orange
mytho-history as a contemporary equivalent to 1690'. From the
early 1920s annual 1 July parades were staged to mark the Somme
anniversary. There were Ulster Division memorial services, and
after the Lurgan war memorial was completed in 1928, wreaths were
laid at it on 1 July as well as 11 November. Orange banners quickly
emerged with illustrations showing the 'First day of the Battle
of the Somme' (generally reproducing the famous painting by J.
P. Beadle which now hangs in Belfast City Hall) as well as King
William III and the Battle of the Boyne. An unexpected linking
of the Boyne with the Somme occurred in 1919 when the 'Boyne Obelisk'
which had been erected in 1736 at the site of the battle was offered
for sale to the County Tyrone War Memorial Committee. The offer,
however, was rejected on the grounds 'that to remove so historic
a monument from the site which it commemorates would be an outrage'.
In fact the monument was soon removed, by republicans, who blew
it up in the 1920s. 'The elevation of the Somme', wrote Jarman,
'into the iconography of the Orange Order confirmed its near-sacred
status in popular memory' In 1923 the Lurgan Mail declared of
1 July that 'every Ulster man and woman should recall the fact
that their gallant sons, the sons of the victors of the Battle
of the Boyne, went to their death with the cry of the Boyne, No
Surrender, on their lips!'
In the 1920s, war commemorations were also often explicitly tied
in with the establishment and preservation of the new Northern
Ireland state and the loyalty of Ulster to the British crown.
Although the inscriptions on many Northern Ireland war memorials
were quite reticent about the reasons for men (as they mostly
were) having served, some, like those at Ballywalter, Comber and
Newtownards (all County Down), explicitly stated 'King and Country'.
At the unveiling of the Coleraine, County Londonderry, memorial
on 11 November 1922, Sir James Craig, the first prime minister
of Northern Ireland, told the assembled crowd that 'those who
passed away have left behind a great message to all of them to
stand firm, and to give away none of Ulster's soil'. In October
1925, at a meeting called to organise the erection of a war memorial
in Cookstown, County Tyrone, Captain Creighton, organising secretary
of the British Legion in Belfast, remarked on the sacrifices of
the 'men from Northern Ireland [which, of course, did not exist
before 1921] who went voluntarily to meet the foe'. They had volunteered,
moreover, 'not only for their own land, but for a far greater,
the British Empire. (Applause.)' Dedicating the war memorial in
Derry City in June 1927, Major-General Felix Ready, GOC Northern
Ireland District, remarked that the city's history 'was an example
to the whole Empire for its loyalty and devotion to the Crown'.
In Northern Ireland the commemoration of the Great War and the
political legacy of 1916 became on the whole an exclusively Protestant
and unionist affair. Partly this was because nationalists, uneasy
and unwelcome in the new polity, for the most part absented themselves
from the public rituals of the province. In terms of war remembrance,
far from demobilising in any way, Ulster unionists remained rather
on a war footing, dwelling as they did in 'a state under siege'.
The struggle to remain within the United Kingdom 'was the Siege
of Derry and the Battle of the Boyne all over again, it was the
Great War continued'. Unionists' selective memory of the war,
which erased the considerable Catholic and nationalist participation,
was cast in materials arguably more enduring than bronze, for
it was firmly incorporated into the unionist/Orange mind-set.
The Somme was conflated with the Boyne, and annual ceremonies
on 1 July and 11 November, which embodied explicitly Protestant
rituals, were used to recall Ulster's ungrudging sacrifice in
the war and confirm its continuing loyalty to the United Kingdom
and (while it existed) the British Empire.
Naturally the nationalist memory of 1916-cum-1919-21 was rather
different and ever since 1919, republicans have provided a kind
of running commentary to the commemoration of the Great War in
Ireland. Again, this demonstrates the conflation of 11 November
with 12 July, and it is ironic that republican protests against
remembrance ceremonies might themselves have made those events
more loyalist than might otherwise have been the case. Inter-war
reports of Armistice Day ceremonies are invariably accompanied
by reports of republican counter-demonstrations of one sort or
another. Describing the official peace celebrations across Ireland
on 19 July 1919, the Belfast News-Letter also noted black flags
in Cork, 'a huge poster' in Athlone, bearing the words, 'Ex-soldiers,
you have fought for freedom. Where is it?', rioting in Limerick
'arising out of an attempt by Sinn Feiners to pull down flags
exhibited by Loyalists', and an inscription defacing the courthouse
in Dundalk reading: 'Peace now. The world is safe for hypocrisy.'
In November 1925 a local Foresters' Band was unable to take part
in the veterans' parade in Tullamore because their instruments
had been stolen or damaged. Shopkeepers in the town 'who had exhibited
the Flanders Poppy poster had their premises daubed with paint
and offensive letters'. A meeting in Dublin on 8 November 1927
heard the republican leader Eamon de Valera protest against 'imperialistic
displays' on Armistice Day. 'The time had now come', he said,
'when the citizens should make it clear that they would not countenance
this action by Imperialists, that they had the power to stop it,
and that it should be stopped'. One consequence of such views
is summarised by a subsequent headline in the unionist Londonderry
Sentinel: 'Wild Dublin Scenes. Poppy-Sellers attacked by Republicans.
Police Baton Charges.' On the eve of Armistice Day 1932 Frank
Ryan, editor of the republican journal An Phoblacht, declared
that 'no matter what anyone says to the contrary, while we have
fists, hands and boots to use, and guns if necessary, we will
not allow free speech to traitors'. The passions provoked among
republicans by Great War commemorations were perhaps sharpened
by the coincidence of two republican anniversaries falling in
November: Patrick Pearse's birthday on 10 November 1879, and that
of the execution of the 'Manchester martyrs' on 23 November 1867.
Another facet of Great War commemoration is the celebration of
an 'Irish military tradition', by which military prowess in general
(for whatever army) is believed to be part of the Irish national
character. This is reflected in some more recent types of commemoration
which suppress whatever political (or even moral) motives there
might have been for fighting, and, indeed, also perhaps even subordinate
the fighting itself to the 'heroic' or 'noble' suffering which
Irish people suffered in the face of battle. One example of that
is seen in the Irish National Day of Remembrance (in July each
year) for all Irishmen who have died in wars and in the service
of the United Nations. But in terms of this 'military dimension'
(and the military ceremonial which usually accompanies remembrance)
there was a difference in First World War commemoration after
1939, and a further change after 1969, specifically regarding
the commemoration of service in the British armed forces,. In
the former case, the events were affected by the awkwardness of
celebrating (to whatever extent) service in British uniform when
once again (in 1939-45) Irishmen were doing so, but while independent
Ireland remained neutral. In the latter case, after 1969, difficulties
arose because the British Army itself was a participant in the
'Troubles', so that remembrance in nationalist eyes became (or
could become) associated with the 'British military machine',
leading, thus, to such horrors as the 1987 Remembrance Sunday
bombing in Enniskillen.
This brings me on to some final reflections about the relationship
between the commemoration of the Great War and our more recent
communal conflict.
The first point concerns the notion of shared military service
transcending local Irish political and/or sectarian divisions.
What has undoubtedly happened over the thirty years or so of the
Troubles is an intensified polarisation of communities which has
helped entrench (a handy military metaphor) political attitudes.
One thing largely absent (to our great cost) from what one might
call the 'civil war' of the past 30 years is any powerful sense
that shared military experience on each side of the conflict might
have any sort of reconciling potential. If we are serious about
trying to extract some good from common suffering in 1914-18,
then we must also seriously contemplate the possibility that some
good might be extracted from an understanding of common suffering
and loss in more recent times. What has happened, though, is the
recovery-or attempted recovery-of a the more distant shared experience,
specifically that of the First World War, and its mobilisation
as part of the 'peace process'.
Some individuals-as we have seen-have been suggesting this since
the war itself, and the dedication of war memorials sometimes
gave an opportunity to make the reconciling case. A good example
is General Sir Oliver Nugent (who had commanded the 36th (Ulster)
Division at the Somme) at the dedication of the war memorial in
Virginia, County Cavan, in August 1923. 'The day', he said, 'is
not, I hope, far distant when the memory of all those of our country
who gave their lives for civilisation as we interpret it and in
obedience to what they believed to be their duty will be honoured
and perpetuated in every town and village in Ireland'. Nugent's
sensitive words were in fact strikingly more tolerant of difference,
more open and all-embracing that the memorial he was dedicating
which actually commemorates 'the willing sacrifice of [those]
who gave their lives in defence of king and country'.
But war memorials, however, well-intentioned, can still be divisive.
There is a recent example on Shore Road, Newtownabbey, dedicated
in September 1992 'in memory of the members of H.M. Forces who
gave their lives in the Two World Wars and in subsequent conflicts'.
The key words here are 'H.M. Forces', which can be construed to
include the state security forces, and 'subsequent conflicts',
which is sufficiently ambiguous to include (or not) the past 30
years in Northern Ireland. I do not suppose the designers of the
memorial actually meant to exclude those who were not members
of Her, or His, Majesty's Forces, who gave their lives-fireman,
air raid wardens, merchant seamen and the like. The monument undoubtedly
expresses deeply-felt and sincere emotions, but its effectiveness
is also limited by its political agenda. There is a parallel,
antagonistic, narrative in the erection of republican memorials
specifically to the events of the past 30 years (in Downpatrick,
Castlewellan and other places) which reminds us that we cannot
easily dismiss or side-step the costs of our own civil war, and
in this context, perhaps the resonance of the First World War
might most appropriately be found in the entrenchments, barbed
wire and no-man's land of Drumcree.
The fact, nevertheless, of the Island of Ireland Peace Tower at
Messines, and its dedication by President McAleese, Queen Elizabeth
and the King of the Belgians on 11 November 1998, suggests otherwise.
And, although criticisms can be made of the whole scheme, its
imaginative harnessesing of shared memory and shared experience,
and the drawing together of the now fairly distant past with the
altogether more contentious and hazardous present, provides an
opportunity, to paraphrase Sir Oliver Nugent, for differing interpretations
of what we may believe to be our duty to be accommodated in a
creative rather than destructive fashion. The recent past is so
painful that we may require the more remote experience of the
First World War to help us come to terms with it. Perhaps, indeed,
we need to turn the 12th of July into the 11th of November.
(A
fuller discussion of Ireland and the First World War and references
for the information contained above can be found in Keith Jeffery,
Ireland and the Great War, Cambr. U.P., 2000.)
[Retour
au haut de la page]
[Retour
à la page Question d'agrèg']
|
|
|