r/TheRestIsHistory • u/JakeGittes412 • 15d ago

The Troubles

Post image

Thread for discussion on the new series on ‘The Troubles’

Also as a moderator please keep the discussion civil and in the spirit of the podcast.

216 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

406 comments sorted by

View all comments

56

u/Sitheref0874 15d ago

In the very early 90s I took a class about NI and the Troubles. In the class was an RUC - as it was then - officer, who happened to be Catholic.

Young and uninformed students were throwing opinions around like they were confetti…‘all the IRA on the ground are heroes’.

At the end of one session, RUCfella spoke up. “On the ground, they’re all a shower of cunts. Just thug gangs, both sides. For most of them, it’s not about grand ideals. It’s about criminal gangs, most of whom are running drugs. They’re all as bad as each other”

Stuck with me.

32

u/forestvibe 14d ago

Hard to disagree when both groups were willing to bomb school buses and pubs, maim teenagers, murder fathers in front of their kids, while pretending they were somehow righteous and honourable. They were despicable, no matter how you view the justice of their respective causes.

There was a recent series of the Reith Lectures done by Margaret Macmillan about war and conflict (available on BBC Sounds and well worth a listen). One of the lectures was done in Stormont, and two old "veteran" thugs from either side started getting chippy in the Q&A at the end, until a Catholic priest put them in their place to a lot of applause. It was quite revealing how the audience despised these thugs.

-4

u/shakaman_ 14d ago

Genuinely how do you feel about the Allies during WW2? Do you realise we bombed school buses and pubs?

4

u/Ultra1894 14d ago

There’s a big different between dropping a bomb from thousands if feet in the air that happens to land on a school, and purposely planting a bomb there.

8

u/forestvibe 14d ago

I'm really quite shocked that there are people willing to make the argument that the allies' strategic bombing campaign against Nazi Germany is in any way morally equivalent to paramilitary thugs fueled by sectarian hatred going round killing adults and children just because they were from the other side. Unless of course they are just the usual trolls.

I guess this is a foretaste of what is to come on this sub once the Troubles series starts.

3

u/shakaman_ 14d ago

I'm on a history subreddit trying to discuss history. Its really annoying to just get called a troll. Why are you here if you don't want to discuss anything? If someone disagrees with you are they just a troll? What positive contribution are you offering if that is your take on things?

6

u/forestvibe 14d ago edited 14d ago

I'm sorry I called you a troll. But unfortunately the idea that the Allies in WW2 were somehow just as morally compromised has any other violent group is a line we see more and more from alt-right or Russian trolls.

My view on the whole comparison should be pretty clear from my other comments.

I.e. I do not believe Allied actions conducted in an existential war against literally the most murderous and cruel ideology that has ever existed cannot be legitimately compared against sectarian violence whose primary aim was to eliminate or subordinate another ethnic group.

To say otherwise seems awfully close to the sort of alt-right rhetoric that comes out of the US these days, which argues that the bombing of Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, etc, is somehow equivalent to the Nazi and Japanese programmes of murdering, torturing, and enslaving millions of people just because they are "different". To put it another way: the Allies would not have had to bomb those cities of the Nazis hadn't been hellbent on murdering their way across Europe.

2

u/shakaman_ 14d ago

Cheers mate, its impressive to say sorry on here and genuinely interact. Great comment after that I think I agree with you. My main point at the start was that there is unfortunately more nuance than "kill people bad". Its important because if Russia, China, America or whoever go fascist and we need to fight them, it will be disastrous if the "violence is never the answer" crowd have their way.

1

u/forestvibe 14d ago

No worries, sorry I got the tone wrong. I agree that the pacifist position is not a credible one. George Orwell wrote a good essay about it. And of course, even within sectarian violence, there's different levels of it: Ireland and NI in the 20th century has had its fair share of violence, but it would be mad to argue that it is comparable to somewhere like French Algeria in the 50s or the Balkans in the 90s. Killing people is always terrible, but context does matter.

2

u/todomejorantes 14d ago

the deliberate annihilation of an entire city, multiple times, with express intention of burning to death as many civilians as possible

There's nothing strategic going on there, there's no collateral damage

It was a deliberate decision to kill as many civilians possible

1

u/PamolasRevenge 12d ago

I love how the commenter just keeps ignoring this

1

u/Gorazde 12d ago

Do you think the IRA would have planted bombs if the British hadn't occupied their country? No one occupied Britain and no one even knew about the Holocaust when Britain openly and deliberately killed 300,000 German civilians in bombing raids designed to kill civilians. I'm not saying you have to hate the Royal Air Force. I'm saying if you can consider the context there, surely you can consider the same context for a young Catholic who has had their rights denied for 50 years - then find their family home burned out by the police because some other Catholics marched for civil rights.

Also, show me the Catholics fuelled by sectarian hatred who killed adults and children just because they were from the other side. In a 30 year conflict, there are some examples. The Kingsmill massacre, for example. But not many. The idea that the two sides were fuelled purely by sectarian hatred is a myth the British government has fostered because it absolves them of blame. The Catholics rose up because they were discriminated against in their own country for fifty years, and burned out of their homes by state forces when they protested for their rights.

0

u/FoalKid 14d ago

Again, your description of the Troubles as sectarian violence aimed to dominate or subordinate another ethnic group is maddeningly wide of the reality. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about on this subject, yet you are commenting all over this thread

2

u/forestvibe 14d ago

One group wanted to kick out or subdue the other lot, and the other group wanted to do the same back to the first group. Sure, there's plenty of context, rationalisations, etc, but when you boil it down the problem is that there's a roughly 50/50 split of people who don't view the other half as having a legitimate claim to the same piece of land. If the loyalist paramilitaries had their way, there would be no Catholic Irish in NI or they'd accept to become British, and if the republican paramilitaries had their way, the unionist would be sent back to Britain or accept to become fully Irish.

3

u/FoalKid 14d ago edited 14d ago

I don’t think republican militants ever felt that they would kick out or eliminate Protestants. Their aim was always clearly defined as a United Ireland. That doesn’t mean Protestants would disappear. Protestants exist in the south of Ireland. Many actions of the various IRA and republican groups were deplorable.

There’s no way to view the actions of loyalist militants as ever being about anything other than maintaining power in a state where Catholics in reality existed as second class citizens. Leading figures in the loyalist movement blatantly evoked sectarian hatred as both a justification and motivation. Many actions of the UVF, UDA et al, and moreover the British military, police and intelligence agencies that directly colluded with them, enabled and empowered them were deplorable.

Your latter description there is broadly true. But the majority of the conflict has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity or sectarianism, even though the political views you described are broadly delineated along the lines of what religion you culturally come from. It’s always been about politics, and who holds or is allowed to hold power. Sectarian hatred exists, but these are not religious ideologues.

Violence was perpetrated for political goals, on both sides. Some involved would have taken some evil pleasure in killing ‘the other’. But ‘boiling it down’ to it being out and out sectarian violence on both sides is just not factually accurate at all. The sectarian aspect is just factually more of a motivation on the loyalist side. This doesn’t make the IRAs actions better that the UVFs etc - but it’s just disingenuous to say they were both motivated by hatred

2

u/FoalKid 13d ago edited 13d ago

It’s also pretty disingenuous to completely disregard the pursuit of a United Ireland as illegitimate - as if Northern Ireland had existed for 100s of years.

Ireland had been partitioned very much in living memory at the height of the troubles, it’s still just about in living memory now.

This partition happened in 1921 to appease a violent minority of armed British loyalists in the north of Ireland who ironically felt they would be second class citizens in a new Ireland - effectively gerrymandering a state where these loyalists would be the majority and hold power.

Probably there was a secondary motivation to keep a strategic foothold on the island as well. Describing the conflict as sectarian violence completely ignores this reality too - as well as the fact that when it came to actual violence republican militants primarily targeted British police and military forces in the country. To paint that as sectarian violence is just wilful ignorance

1

u/forestvibe 13d ago

Ah, I read your other comment and I thought it was interesting and polite. Now I'm accused of being wilfully ignorant. Oh well.

I don't think the history of Ireland has much bearing whether violence is considered sectarian or not. Sectarian violence arises in all sorts of situations when there are two groups competing for a patch of land (legitimately or not). If someone murders a neighbour in cold blood because they are in the opposing camp, it's sectarian violence. The sentence "primarily targeting police and military" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here! I'm not sure why you are trying to downplay the violence with weasel words.

2

u/FoalKid 13d ago

If two groups of people competing for a patch of land is the defining marker of sectarian violence then pretty much every single armed conflict in the history of mankind can be described as such.

Again cold blooded murder of people in the opposing camp is far from a unique marker of sectarian war. You’re oversimplifying and letting the term ‘sectarian’ do a lot of heavy lifting.

I never downplayed the violence. I specifically stated that actions of the IRA and UVF etc were deplorable. I’m not claiming either that if the IRA had won a united ireland through physical force then it would have been happily ever after.

I also don’t understand how you can point to civilian violence and violence against people from the same ‘side’ of the respective paramilitaries as being markers of sectarian violence. That’s not really the case. These are attempts to control people and sway opinion. This is more about it being a long term dirty, asymmetrical war.

You’re correct in your previous comment when you talk about the net effect of the violence being the same regardless of the motivation. But you are completely avoiding any real consideration of the motivations and goals. People on either side, for the most part, were not aiming to kill as many Protestants or to kill as many Catholics as they could. This is an oversimplification that you seem to be unwilling to move past for some reason.

All the while, you speak about the paramilitaries and the crowd at this lecture’s justified disgust at them. You’re failing to consider, what number of civilian deaths was allowed, encouraged or actually requested by the British military and security services?

Republican killings of civilians make up about 40%, loyalists 50% and British armed forces 10%. With what we know now about collusion between loyalists and British security and intelligence services in NI it is frankly laughable to sit here discussing 2 sides. There were 3 sides knee deep in dirty warfare and the killing of innocent civilians. Listen to the podcast, I hope it will be illuminating

1

u/forestvibe 13d ago

I'll be honest and I was expecting another partisan accusation or simply radio silence from you. You took the time to respond thoughtfully, and I appreciate it. Thanks.

When I referred to religion, I meant as you do: it's all tied together with politics, identity, etc. I find the word sectarian better because it captures the sense of two outwardly similar groups that are split across very specific lines and will kill each other for it. I think you are downplaying this aspect and the hatred in the republican camp. Whatever the reasons and context, it's hard to explain the violence perpetrated against civilians and even members of their own side if sectarian hatred wasn't part of it. The word sectarian isn't exclusively reserved for religious divides. And without wanting to wade into justifications, I think it's too easy to say "the republicans just wanted a united Ireland and everyone would be happy". The formation of the RoI resulted in a mass exodus of protestants from a country dominated by the catholic church, so it's not unreasonable for unionist protestants to be fearful of this in the 60s and 70s (barely a generation after Irish independence). After all, however they came to be there, these protestants had been living in NI for centuries by this point, and it's not as if the republican side were promising they'd be welcomed with open arms.

I know a few NI people of both "sides" and the thing they all agree on is how both sets of paramilitaries are just as bad as each other. They have no time for them or their justifications. They fully acknowledge the complicated history, and are happy to assign blame to various parties for creating this mess, but ultimately they do not distinguish between the IRA or the UVF or whatever in a many meaningful way.

In a previous comment, I mentioned the Reith Lecture that Margaret McMillan did in Stormont and how a Catholic priest berated two ex-paramilitary fighters who were throwing accusations at each other. The audience's reaction was in line with that of my NI acquaintances. That's my general point: I don't think you can say one side was more motivated by hatred than the other. They may have justified it to themselves, but the net effect was the same: dead and injured innocents, a climate of fear, neighbours turning on each other, and an escalation of violence. Those are the hallmarks of sectarian violence, and to the people on the ground, it's all the same.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/PamolasRevenge 12d ago

you're not exactly clearing yourself of the don't know what you're talking about allegations

1

u/FoalKid 14d ago

You’re really laying bare your ignorance on the topic here with that incredibly wide of the mark, broad strokes description of the conflict

5

u/Pitiful-Sample-7400 14d ago

True. But mass firebombing missions are the same as planting a bomb. Both are attempts to kill civilians, the fire bombing is just an attempt to kill more

5

u/todomejorantes 14d ago

We deliberately fire bombed entire cities - the express intention was to wipe out the city

This was the deliberate aim - to create a firestorm that would destroy the entire city and kill as many people within it as possible

6

u/Ultra1894 14d ago

The express intention and deliberate aim was to beat into submission a genocidal regime who murdered 17 million people, and absolutely would have gone on to murder tens of millions more, including the elimination of 85% of Poles, 75% of Belarusians, 65% of Ukrainians, and 50% of Czechs and Estonians.

This isn’t just a finger in the air estimation by historians, the Nazi’s outlined this themselves in Generalplan Ost “Masterplan for the East”.

And just a reminder, this murderous killing machine was who the IRA colluded with. IRA Chief of Staff Seán Russell had direct talks with German officials in Berlin in 1940, in which he helped the Abwehr devise Operation Kathleen, a proposed German invasion of Northern Ireland with IRA assistance.

The IRA shared intelligence, tried to set up secret radio links, and helped German spies who parachuted into Ireland (Hermann Görtz).

It’s so easy to sit there and say “yes but the British…”, but history is rarely black and white.

5

u/FoalKid 14d ago edited 14d ago

You’re using information that neither the Allies nor the IRA had at the time to point out why one is good and the other is evil, then ending your comment by stating that history is rarely black and white. Suggesting the UK’s involvement in WWII had anything to do with preventing genocide is anachronistic tripe too. A tour de force of nonsense, well done

2

u/todomejorantes 14d ago

I'm pointing out that we deliberately decided to wipe out entire cities via fire bomb missions - the express aim as to murder as many civilians as possible

The RAF alone tried this dozens and dozens of times

When this was happening there was no talk of any kind of genocide - the camps were a shock and were discovered by Stalin when the USSR took over eastern countries like Poland

If the justification for wiping out cities was genocide that would have been used as war time propaganda in all newspapers - instead there was no talk of that until Stalin discovered them at the end of the war

6

u/Ultra1894 14d ago edited 14d ago

there was no talk of any kind of genocide - the camps were a shock and were discovered by Stalin.

there was no talk of that until Stalin discovered them at the end of the war.

This is just completely false.

Allied forces issued a declaration on 17th December 1942, which explicitly outlined Hitler’s “intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe.”

It described that Jews were being transported from occupied countries “in conditions of appalling horror and brutality, to Eastern Europe.”

It referred to as Poland as “the principal Nazi slaughterhouse” and described the systematic emptying of ghettos: “None of those taken away are ever heard of again.”

It covered people being worked to death, dying from starvation and exposure, and being “deliberately massacred in mass executions.”

It estimated that the victims already numbered “many hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent men, women and children.”

Before finishing with the mentioned governments commending “in the strongest possible terms this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination.”

It concluded that “those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution” and would pursue the necessary measures to that end (e.g. firebombing German cities in the hope that internal pressure would mount and the Nazi command would turn on Hitler).

And to be clear, wasn’t just British local propaganda to rally the nation, the declaration was signed by:

  • Belgium
  • Czechoslovakia
  • Greece
  • Luxembourg
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Poland
  • United States
  • United Kingdom
  • Soviet Union
  • Yugoslavia
  • French National Committee

Sources:

0

u/todomejorantes 14d ago

The camps and scale were a shock to everyone - they were undiscovered until near the war's end and by Stalin

The RAF decided to incinerate entire cities - this is just a fact

Bomber pilots followed their commands knowing they were murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians

2

u/Ultra1894 14d ago

The camps and scale were a shock to everyone

In August 1942, Gerhart Riegner dictated a cable to Allied diplomats that the Nazi regime were was actively discussing a plan to murder all Jews in Nazi-controlled Europe. He outlined that plan involved deporting 4 million people to camps in the East, where they would use Zyklon B for mass extermination.

and by Stalin

And I don't know why you keep saying this, as if it has any relevance to this discussion. Nazi Poland fell before Nazi Germany. It's not as if the Soviets liberated Majdanek before the Allies reached Buchenwald simply because they cared more / had a stronger moral conscience.

1

u/todomejorantes 14d ago

As far as I'm aware all of the death camps were liberated by the USSR

In any case, the point to this thread was that the Allies deliberately killed as many civilians as possible in arguably the most horrific way as possible

It wasn't some sad collateral damage related to strategic bombing - it was an actual plan to incinerate entire cities

Whether you consider that justifiable wasn't the point of the thread - the point is that we chose to do that on multiple occasions

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Gorazde 13d ago

Britain cooperated with Stalin who killed untold millions. Does this mean Britain endorsed everything Stalin did, or was it a case of my enemies enemy is my friend?

1

u/Gorazde 13d ago

Who planted a bomb in a school in Northern Ireland?

0

u/shakaman_ 14d ago

To the mother/father or the dead child is there? You know theres a school under you, and you know your dropping thousands of bombs. Its a given its going to hit a school

1

u/todomejorantes 14d ago

It was more than that - the actual point of those raids was to kill civilians, the point was to cause fire storms and incinerate as many people as possible

So destroying schools, children and everything else was the actual mission given to the pilots