Alex Massie writes:
As I wrote last week, I had not thought commemorating the
centenary of the First World War need be a matter of controversy. But one of
the reasons why it is worth doing – and worth doing properly and on a
large scale – is that the First World War is complicated.
Consider the photograph at the top of this post.
It was taken on Armistice Day in 1924. In Dublin.
Yes, Dublin. The Union Flag is flown. The
National Anthem – ie, God Save the King – is sung. A Celtic Cross is
erected on College Green prior to its transportation to France where it would
serve as a memorial to the 16th Irish Division.
Some reports estimate as many as 50,000 Irishmen attended the commemoration. (There is British Pathe footage of it here). The Irish Times proudly reported that “the display of Flanders poppies was not equalled by any city in the British Isles”.
Some reports estimate as many as 50,000 Irishmen attended the commemoration. (There is British Pathe footage of it here). The Irish Times proudly reported that “the display of Flanders poppies was not equalled by any city in the British Isles”.
Commemorations on this scale were not unusual in
the 1920s. Two years later some 40,000 Irishmen marched to the Phoenix Park for a service
of commemoration beneath the imposing Wellington Monument. (British Pathe were
present then, too, and you can watch their footage here.)
It is said that some years as many as 500,000 poppies were distributed in Ireland and even if this figure is exaggerated, half as many would still be a number worthy of remark. Even as late as the 1930s, the war was still being remembered.
Agreement on a site for the Irish National War Memorial Gardens was finally reached in 1929 and the gardens, at Islandbridge on the Liffey and designed by Edwin Lutyens, were not completed until, as it happens, 1939.
It is said that some years as many as 500,000 poppies were distributed in Ireland and even if this figure is exaggerated, half as many would still be a number worthy of remark. Even as late as the 1930s, the war was still being remembered.
Agreement on a site for the Irish National War Memorial Gardens was finally reached in 1929 and the gardens, at Islandbridge on the Liffey and designed by Edwin Lutyens, were not completed until, as it happens, 1939.
Which is just a means of noting that the history
of the First World War – and the history of its memory – is more complicated
than nationalists – of any stripe – would have you believe.
The poppy and remembrance fell from favour in
Ireland, elbowed aside by the rival story of the Easter Rising. A rebellion
thought contemptible by most Dubliners became the national epic (in large part
thanks to the British government’s obtuse reaction to the events of Easter
1916, a reaction that remains obtuse even if considered within the context of
the First World War).
But we can see more clearly now even if, paradoxically, also more darkly. This is Ireland, after all.
But we can see more clearly now even if, paradoxically, also more darkly. This is Ireland, after all.
The commemoration – and, yes, the celebration, –
of the Rising’s own centenary will be very different from the celebrations that
marked its 50th anniversary in 1966. Forty years of revisionist Irish history
has seen to that. Sometimes, these days, you even wonder if Irish history has
developed to the stage that the revisionists now need a spot of revising
themselves.
But, twenty years ago now, I remember President
Mary Robinson attending a service of remembrance commemorating the (southern)
Irish volunteers who sailed for France and Flanders. She wore a poppy too,
something then almost only available from the British Embassy.
And I remember, as well, the controversy that ensued. Newspaper columnists and radio phone-in programmes argued about Robinson’s revisionist provocation. Was this appropriate? Was it seemly? Was it even properly Irish?
And I remember, as well, the controversy that ensued. Newspaper columnists and radio phone-in programmes argued about Robinson’s revisionist provocation. Was this appropriate? Was it seemly? Was it even properly Irish?
The revisionists won. Five years later Robinson’s
successor, Mary McAleese was joined by Queen Elizabeth at the unveiling of a new Flanders monument to the Irish fallen. The Irish
volunteers, dead and surviving alike, were being written back into Irish
history, the beneficiaries of what Professor Roy Foster has called “a
more relaxed and inclusive definition of Irishness”.
John Redmond had called for Irishmen to serve “wherever
the firing line extends” and thousands, north and south, rallied to
the call. A majority, though only a slight one, of them were catholic though
this, in truth, reflected economic opportunity as well as martial enthusiasm.
Nevertheless, many of them thought they were fighting for Redmond and Home Rule and Irish enlistment rates before 1916, amongst non-agricultural workers, were nearly as enthusiastic as those pertaining in other parts of the British Isles.
Nevertheless, many of them thought they were fighting for Redmond and Home Rule and Irish enlistment rates before 1916, amongst non-agricultural workers, were nearly as enthusiastic as those pertaining in other parts of the British Isles.
That enthusiasm was not restricted to Unionists.
In 1919 Joe Devlin, the nationalist MP for West Belfast, declared that the 16th
Irish Division’s dead “died not as cowards died, but as soldiers of
freedom, with their faces toward the fire, and in the belief that their
life-blood was poured out in defence of liberty for the world”.
If England’s difficulty was, for some, Ireland’s opportunity there remained many others who saw the struggle for Ireland as a small part of a wider struggle to establish the rights of all small nations. Fighting for Belgium or for Serbia was a proxy for fighting for Ireland.
If England’s difficulty was, for some, Ireland’s opportunity there remained many others who saw the struggle for Ireland as a small part of a wider struggle to establish the rights of all small nations. Fighting for Belgium or for Serbia was a proxy for fighting for Ireland.
Perhaps that seems quaint now. The Irish soldiers
were not to know what would await them in France. Nor could they foresee how
their service overseas would be countermanded by events at home. Nevertheless,
when we remember the First World War at all and especially when we consider
plans for commemorating its centenary, we might remember that the war was, and
is, about rather more than the slaughter of the Somme.
Even when those commemorations are confined to
the experiences of the peoples of these islands we might be reminded that they
are more complicated than the Ladybird or Blackadder school of history
would have you imagine. Irish motives varied. There were some, such as Emmot
Dalton, who saw no contradiction between fighting for the British against the
Germans and for the IRA against the British. That is part of the story too.
Most of all, however, the remarkably history –
and historiography – surrounding the Irish First World War experience is a
reminder of how the story of the relationships between the peoples of these
islands is a complicated and nuanced one that is ill-served by a simplistic
reductionism that splits folk into camps labelled Good and Bad.
It is a history that contains multitudes and, being such a matter of nuance, one that is liable to easy misinterpretation. But that it might be so misinterpreted is no reason for failing to make an attempt towards recalling it as it was lived and understood at the time.
It is a history that contains multitudes and, being such a matter of nuance, one that is liable to easy misinterpretation. But that it might be so misinterpreted is no reason for failing to make an attempt towards recalling it as it was lived and understood at the time.
No-one celebrates the First World War.
How could you? But remembering it, in all its complexity, is one way of helping
to understand who we are and how we came to be who we are, wherever we happen
to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment