New BBC documentary asks ‘Who Won the War in North?’

[Maguire01]

At the time the primary focus of the republican movement was the unification of Ireland. It was was obvious at the time that they could not achieve that aim by military means. As obvious then as it is now. Now that mainstream republicanism has caught up with that fact they need to find other ways of justifying their futile "war". That justification needs to dwell on a wrong that was put right during the same timeframe. Civil rights is theri obvious go-to for that. The discrimination/mis-rule within NI was real and it has been addressed so there will always be an opportunity for republicanism to link this progress to their campaign of violence. This is not an argument that will go away.

It is impossible to determine what progress a peaceful civil rights campaign would have made and what timeframe it would have delivered this progress. But I don't think we should let republicanism get away with an automatic conclusion that such a peaceful campaign, if not forced to operate in a "war" backdrop could not have achieved real progress by 1997 or any milestone between then and 1969.

The reality is that the onus is on republicans to prove that their campaign of violence delivered greater levels of equality and delivered them more quickly becasue their campaign came at a greater cost in terms of deaths, injuries, trauma, inter-community distrust and wider criminality.

no one wants to 'justify' death.
the proof is there that after decades of pleading and trying to highlight the persecution etc the unionists/loyalists were not entertaining dialogue that would actually result in any concession and equality.
look at today - they are still of the same mindset and are keeping to the old stick in the mud mentality.
...and that is what you think would have yielded equality from the 60's to now?
sounds great, but in practicality you are completely 100% incorrect about it.

as for republicans motives for fighting
the 'call to arms' was not under the banner of re-unification, that was the headline.
but I know a few relatives and friends of theirs who were members/locked up on long kesh who joined up due to the treatment they and their families were getting from the b specials, ruc, udr, then the british army etc etc - unprovoked stuff.

the civil rights people in the USA had the same hassle at the outset, but their oppressors were not as bitter as the unionist/loyalist overlords as bad as these American persecutors were- they at least conceded to human rights after a couple of years.
the aggressor mentality still remains in the unionist/loyalist main today.

I don't suppose anybody does want to have to justify death. I mean, where would you start? Thankfully its not something I have to do.
Just becasue you announce something as proof does not actually make is proof.

its more factual than the 'what if's' of the (non) progress that was not or ever going to be made (sadly) by dialogue.
when you have ex brit gov ministers grudgingly stating that violence assisted the fast tracking of things to gfa - then there might be something in it. he's hardly a pro republican (prior) ...though he and politicans are in general not to be believed !!

But the biggest achievement of the GFA was peace itself, so to suggest that the violence achieved the GFA is ludicrous.
And Prior didn't suggest that "violence assisted the fast tracking of things to gfa" - he suggested that Republicans had won the war. Maybe his interpretation of victory is McGuinness sitting as dFM. But again, that's one opinion, and one that you'd disregard out of hand if it didn't suit.

What else did the GFA achieve?
Well it cemented the principle of consent and allowed for a referendum if there looks like it's likely there'll be a Catholic majority. In reality, that was always the case.
It provided for power-sharing at Stormont. Maybe that's some kind of political equality, but really, how has it improved the lives of nationalists (or anyone for that matter)?
It got people out of prison (again, just like the peace itself, all that did was reverse some of what had happened during the conflict - in itself it advanced nothing).

The fact is, the GFA's biggest achievement was peace itself, so to suggest that violence fast-tracked peace...

[lynchbhoy]

....and what fast tracked things to the GFA??

Hint - it wasn't dialogue and the kind hearted benevolence of the unionists/loyalists!!

Sorry maguire, I know you want to espouse the sdlp agenda and that the reality of violent resistence having fast tracked the required change - but that's the reality of it.
It's not arrogance , it's what happened prior to your on the ground first hand knowledge of the six county situation .

Sad to say it took violence in the mix to escalate things - but it did. Violence alone also did not and would not achieve anything. As dialogue alone ( with people not willing to listen) was not getting us anywhere.  It took many things and unfortunately violence was one of them.
If you'd been where we were and experienced what we did - then you'd understand.
Also this was not experienced in all parts of the six counties. Do just speaking from personal exp.
What if's are grand - but not the reality.

[Maguire01]

....and what fast tracked things to the GFA??

But as per my previous post, the GFA's biggest achievement was peace itself, so the idea that violence fast-tracked peace is illogical.

If you'd been where we were and experienced what we did - then you'd understand.

You persist with this line, but ignore the fact (not opinion) that many who DID live in the middle of it all DID oppose violence.

[lynchbhoy]

....and what fast tracked things to the GFA??

But as per my previous post, the GFA's biggest achievement was peace itself, so the idea that violence fast-tracked peace is illogical.

If you'd been where we were and experienced what we did - then you'd understand.

You persist with this line, but ignore the fact (not opinion) that many who DID live in the middle of it all DID oppose violence.

Ok
You are not making any sense at all now

Yes, absolutely people opposed violence - I don't think anyone wanted to resort to it
But
And to tie in your first piece
That in no way disproves that the violence helped and fast tracked the final decision to peace ( when it was shown dialogue wasn't working AND even now unionist/loyalists don't want to talk or agree with anything )
You just don't get it.
I can't keep repeating this - it's there in historical fact.
Oppression, civil rights and attempts at dialogue not working, the violent retaliation, the eventual ceasefires and peace/gfa - no matter what parallel universe or history misunderstanding you have.

Maybe it's an issue with your own arrogance!?

[glens abu]

Interesting article from Danny Morrison first published in 2007





         



145 Divis Street


It wasn't supposed to be like this, thought one of Ian Paisley's lieutenants as he looked out across the front lawn of the City Hall. Above him the Union Jack flew, but before his eyes were thousands of St Patrick's Day revellers; dancing and singing; children on their fathers' shoulders applauding Girls Aloud. A sea of green - but worst still were flags coloured green, white and orange: the hated Tricolour.

What had gone wrong?

There was a time when 27,000 occupied houses in Belfast were unfit for human habitation. There was a time when in West Belfast male unemployment reached fifty per cent in places like Ballymurphy. In Enniskillen figures showed that Protestants were being allocated public housing at the rate of 11 to 1 over Catholics who made up half the population. There was a time when the IRA border campaign had fizzled out, when republicans were demoralised and were prepared to try new tactics, including participating in politics.

In Britain in September 1964 the Tory government called a Westminster general election for October 15. Sinn Fein was proscribed but for election purposes it stood as the Republican Party. On September 6, the republicans put a Tricolour in the front window of their election headquarters at 145 Divis Street.

The campaign got off to a slow start for all parties. Ulster Unionists were united and were standing in all twelve constituencies. The nationalist vote was badly divided – though in West Belfast Harry Diamond of Republican Labour was quietly confident that there was some unionist apathy and he could beat James Kilfedder for the seat, even though the intervention of former IRA prisoner Billy McMillan would split the vote.

The first scare came on Saturday, September 26, in a screaming front-page headline, when the 'News Letter' announced: "The Dollars Roll In – 'Plenty' in Sinn Fein election coffers". The main lead in its Monday edition was: "Paisley to march against Tricolour". Ian Paisley, Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church, called upon Protestants to assemble in their thousands at the City Hall that evening to march on Divis Street. It was a call that sent a chill through the nationalist community, which had been subject to loyalist and police incursions in previous decades.

The RUC told the Minister of Home Affairs that it regarded the display of the Tricolour and Paisley's proposed protest as 'provocative acts'. (The flag had been in the window for three weeks without a complaint being made.) The Minister met Paisley and appealed to him. He agreed to call off the march but not the rally.

Later that day fifty RUC men, using pick axes and crowbars, smashed their way into the republican offices, seized the Tricolour, put it into a patrol car and drove off at high speed, whilst a sullen crowd of several hundred nationalists looked on. A notice was served on Billy McMillan, under the Flags and Emblems Act, which referred to the illegal "display of the Tricolour flag or flags of the Irish Republic, or any other flag or anything purporting to represent the Irish Republic."

From the street nationalists began shouting abuse at those in the republican office and demanded that a new Tricolour be displayed. The election directorate assuaged the crowd by issuing an ultimatum to the RUC that if the flag wasn't returned by Thursday it would be replaced.

That Monday night Paisley held a triumphant rally in the grounds of the City Hall where he welcomed unionist candidate, James Kilfedder. Kilfedder told the crowd: "The republicans must not be allowed to fly the Tricolour, and when the last vote is counted on polling day we must show the world that there was no wavering in the determination of the people to keep the Union Jack flying over West Belfast."

Unionist voters in the constituency were now galvanised.

In Ballynahinch, prime minister Terence O'Neill, surrounded by members of the Apprentice Boys, the Black Preceptory and six Orange bands, commenting on the seizure of the Tricolour, ridiculously declared that Sinn Fein was the main challenge and described the republicans as "nothing more than modern anarchists who refuse even now to abjure the discredited policy of violence." He ignored the fact that the threat of violence came from Paisley and the actual violence from the RUC under government instruction.

On Tuesday night Paisley held another rally at the City Hall and called upon the Minister to prosecute those responsible for displaying the flag. Over in Divis Street there was a standoff between a large nationalist crowd and riot police. On Wednesday night there were more scuffles, followed by RUC baton charges and stone throwing. On Thursday, after lodging their nomination papers, the republican candidates returned to the election headquarters and once again placed a Tricolour in the window to the cheers of supporters.

Shortly after 2pm a column of RUC men, backed up by a tender, arrived at the offices. They tried to break down the reinforced door and when that failed they simply smashed the pane-glass window, stepped in and seized the flag. Immediately, fighting broke out and by evening rioting was widespread throughout Divis Street and the Falls Road, and continued for the next two nights. Hundreds were injured and scores of people, including a mother of eight, were arrested and subsequently imprisoned for up to six months.

Calm was eventually restored but at the cost of nationalists biting their tongue: the Tricolour was never replaced in the window of 145 Divis Street - though the RUC didn't interfere either with the flag when it was carried in a parade from Beechmount to Hamill Street, which concluded in an election rally.

During the election campaign the British Labour leader (and subsequent prime minister) Harold Wilson issued a pledge to the Campaign for Social Justice that as PM he would outlaw racial and religious discrimination in the North. His remarks drew this page one headline from the 'News Letter': 'Interference in Ulster housing – Wilson bombshell'.

On October 15, James Kilfedder defeated Harry Diamond to become the Unionist MP for West Belfast. Billy McMillan lost his deposit. After the republican split in 1969 he became a leader in the 'Official' Republican Movement and was later assassinated by the INLA during a feud.

Kilfedder was carried shoulder-high at the City Hall amid cheers and the singing of 'The Sash'. He was greeted by an ebullient Ian Paisley who said: "I am absolutely satisfied. Sandy Row and Shankill did their stuff. They are well able to answer the Falls any day."

Last Wednesday, on St Patrick's Day, thousands of young people carrying Tricolours swarmed down Divis Street, past where 145 once stood, but oblivious to its history, through Castle Street and up Donegall Place to a concert outside the City Hall. It was the very route, in reverse, that 38-year-old Ian Paisley had threatened to take from the City Hall to Divis Street forty years earlier to remove from a window one Tricolour.

What, indeed, had gone wrong.

< Prev ... Next >

[ back ]

© 2007 Irish Author and Journalist - Danny Morrison

[foxcommander]

Interesting article from Danny Morrison first published in 2007





         



145 Divis Street


It wasn't supposed to be like this, thought one of Ian Paisley's lieutenants as he looked out across the front lawn of the City Hall. Above him the Union Jack flew, but before his eyes were thousands of St Patrick's Day revellers; dancing and singing; children on their fathers' shoulders applauding Girls Aloud. A sea of green - but worst still were flags coloured green, white and orange: the hated Tricolour.

What had gone wrong?

There was a time when 27,000 occupied houses in Belfast were unfit for human habitation. There was a time when in West Belfast male unemployment reached fifty per cent in places like Ballymurphy. In Enniskillen figures showed that Protestants were being allocated public housing at the rate of 11 to 1 over Catholics who made up half the population. There was a time when the IRA border campaign had fizzled out, when republicans were demoralised and were prepared to try new tactics, including participating in politics.

In Britain in September 1964 the Tory government called a Westminster general election for October 15. Sinn Fein was proscribed but for election purposes it stood as the Republican Party. On September 6, the republicans put a Tricolour in the front window of their election headquarters at 145 Divis Street.

The campaign got off to a slow start for all parties. Ulster Unionists were united and were standing in all twelve constituencies. The nationalist vote was badly divided – though in West Belfast Harry Diamond of Republican Labour was quietly confident that there was some unionist apathy and he could beat James Kilfedder for the seat, even though the intervention of former IRA prisoner Billy McMillan would split the vote.

The first scare came on Saturday, September 26, in a screaming front-page headline, when the 'News Letter' announced: "The Dollars Roll In – 'Plenty' in Sinn Fein election coffers". The main lead in its Monday edition was: "Paisley to march against Tricolour". Ian Paisley, Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church, called upon Protestants to assemble in their thousands at the City Hall that evening to march on Divis Street. It was a call that sent a chill through the nationalist community, which had been subject to loyalist and police incursions in previous decades.

The RUC told the Minister of Home Affairs that it regarded the display of the Tricolour and Paisley's proposed protest as 'provocative acts'. (The flag had been in the window for three weeks without a complaint being made.) The Minister met Paisley and appealed to him. He agreed to call off the march but not the rally.

Later that day fifty RUC men, using pick axes and crowbars, smashed their way into the republican offices, seized the Tricolour, put it into a patrol car and drove off at high speed, whilst a sullen crowd of several hundred nationalists looked on. A notice was served on Billy McMillan, under the Flags and Emblems Act, which referred to the illegal "display of the Tricolour flag or flags of the Irish Republic, or any other flag or anything purporting to represent the Irish Republic."

From the street nationalists began shouting abuse at those in the republican office and demanded that a new Tricolour be displayed. The election directorate assuaged the crowd by issuing an ultimatum to the RUC that if the flag wasn't returned by Thursday it would be replaced.

That Monday night Paisley held a triumphant rally in the grounds of the City Hall where he welcomed unionist candidate, James Kilfedder. Kilfedder told the crowd: "The republicans must not be allowed to fly the Tricolour, and when the last vote is counted on polling day we must show the world that there was no wavering in the determination of the people to keep the Union Jack flying over West Belfast."

Unionist voters in the constituency were now galvanised.

In Ballynahinch, prime minister Terence O'Neill, surrounded by members of the Apprentice Boys, the Black Preceptory and six Orange bands, commenting on the seizure of the Tricolour, ridiculously declared that Sinn Fein was the main challenge and described the republicans as "nothing more than modern anarchists who refuse even now to abjure the discredited policy of violence." He ignored the fact that the threat of violence came from Paisley and the actual violence from the RUC under government instruction.

On Tuesday night Paisley held another rally at the City Hall and called upon the Minister to prosecute those responsible for displaying the flag. Over in Divis Street there was a standoff between a large nationalist crowd and riot police. On Wednesday night there were more scuffles, followed by RUC baton charges and stone throwing. On Thursday, after lodging their nomination papers, the republican candidates returned to the election headquarters and once again placed a Tricolour in the window to the cheers of supporters.

Shortly after 2pm a column of RUC men, backed up by a tender, arrived at the offices. They tried to break down the reinforced door and when that failed they simply smashed the pane-glass window, stepped in and seized the flag. Immediately, fighting broke out and by evening rioting was widespread throughout Divis Street and the Falls Road, and continued for the next two nights. Hundreds were injured and scores of people, including a mother of eight, were arrested and subsequently imprisoned for up to six months.

Calm was eventually restored but at the cost of nationalists biting their tongue: the Tricolour was never replaced in the window of 145 Divis Street - though the RUC didn't interfere either with the flag when it was carried in a parade from Beechmount to Hamill Street, which concluded in an election rally.

During the election campaign the British Labour leader (and subsequent prime minister) Harold Wilson issued a pledge to the Campaign for Social Justice that as PM he would outlaw racial and religious discrimination in the North. His remarks drew this page one headline from the 'News Letter': 'Interference in Ulster housing – Wilson bombshell'.

On October 15, James Kilfedder defeated Harry Diamond to become the Unionist MP for West Belfast. Billy McMillan lost his deposit. After the republican split in 1969 he became a leader in the 'Official' Republican Movement and was later assassinated by the INLA during a feud.

Kilfedder was carried shoulder-high at the City Hall amid cheers and the singing of 'The Sash'. He was greeted by an ebullient Ian Paisley who said: "I am absolutely satisfied. Sandy Row and Shankill did their stuff. They are well able to answer the Falls any day."

Last Wednesday, on St Patrick's Day, thousands of young people carrying Tricolours swarmed down Divis Street, past where 145 once stood, but oblivious to its history, through Castle Street and up Donegall Place to a concert outside the City Hall. It was the very route, in reverse, that 38-year-old Ian Paisley had threatened to take from the City Hall to Divis Street forty years earlier to remove from a window one Tricolour.

What, indeed, had gone wrong.

< Prev ... Next >

[ back ]

© 2007 Irish Author and Journalist - Danny Morrison

Great article.
Shows that at the time sitting back only allowed the status quo to continue. Try to defy them and you'll get locked up.
Talking is fine but actions speak louder than words.

[Applesisapples]

At the time the primary focus of the republican movement was the unification of Ireland. It was was obvious at the time that they could not achieve that aim by military means. As obvious then as it is now. Now that mainstream republicanism has caught up with that fact they need to find other ways of justifying their futile "war". That justification needs to dwell on a wrong that was put right during the same timeframe. Civil rights is theri obvious go-to for that. The discrimination/mis-rule within NI was real and it has been addressed so there will always be an opportunity for republicanism to link this progress to their campaign of violence. This is not an argument that will go away.

It is impossible to determine what progress a peaceful civil rights campaign would have made and what timeframe it would have delivered this progress. But I don't think we should let republicanism get away with an automatic conclusion that such a peaceful campaign, if not forced to operate in a "war" backdrop could not have achieved real progress by 1997 or any milestone between then and 1969.

The reality is that the onus is on republicans to prove that their campaign of violence delivered greater levels of equality and delivered them more quickly becasue their campaign came at a greater cost in terms of deaths, injuries, trauma, inter-community distrust and wider criminality.

no one wants to 'justify' death.
the proof is there that after decades of pleading and trying to highlight the persecution etc the unionists/loyalists were not entertaining dialogue that would actually result in any concession and equality.
look at today - they are still of the same mindset and are keeping to the old stick in the mud mentality.
...and that is what you think would have yielded equality from the 60's to now?
sounds great, but in practicality you are completely 100% incorrect about it.

as for republicans motives for fighting
the 'call to arms' was not under the banner of re-unification, that was the headline.
but I know a few relatives and friends of theirs who were members/locked up on long kesh who joined up due to the treatment they and their families were getting from the b specials, ruc, udr, then the british army etc etc - unprovoked stuff.

the civil rights people in the USA had the same hassle at the outset, but their oppressors were not as bitter as the unionist/loyalist overlords as bad as these American persecutors were- they at least conceded to human rights after a couple of years.
the aggressor mentality still remains in the unionist/loyalist main today.

They weren't moving anywhere fast, but that bit in bold is simply incorrect. Many Unionists were kicking and screaming, but the Housing Executive was formed in 1971 and the One Man, One Vote was legislated for by Stormont in 1969. That's two of the Civil Rights Association's 6 demands. It was nowhere close to being enough, but it was a start.

Not moving fast, now there is an understatement. 40 years on and those self same people are many camp Twadell, organizing graduated responses etc very progressive.

[orangeman]

Unionists are used to getting their own way. Like spoilt children they expect to get their own way and if. It, they'll toss the toys out of the pram. They don't know any other response.

[Hereiam]

Its worked for them in past so why would they do any different.

[orangeman]

Its worked for them in past so why would they do any different.

The eyes of the world are on them and people have copped on to their childish behaviour. They're being told to grow up now which never happened before and the stick has come out a time or two which again never happened before.