Essay on Why Is the Battle of the Somme So Important to Political Identities in Northern Ireland

Within this essay I will assess why the Battle of the Somme is important to political identities in Northern Ireland and explore how the relevance of the First World War has changed since 1918. This essay will be subdivided into two sections. The first will evaluate why the Somme is important to Unionist and Nationalist identity. The second will explore how the role of the First World War has changed within political identities. I will focus on changes hypothesised by Graham and other scholars. Firstly, that it has become a symbol of reconciliation; secondly that it has aided the formulation of a Loyalist identity separate from Unionism. I will also explore the argument that the role of the war has not changed.^[1]

Until recently few scholars studied the realities of Ireland’s engagement in the war.^[2] An increase in academic publication may have been generated by the 1998 Ceasefire. However Grayson argues that there are still limited publications about significant aspects of this study, for example Irish war remembrance.^[3] There appears to be a consensus of opinion amongst scholars who investigate why the Somme is important to political identities. Gallaher argues that Unionists legitimise their existence by providing a historical connection with the 36^th (Ulster) Division.^[4] Grayson concurs, adding that the 36th involvement in the Somme and their commemoration were central to the British element of Unionist identity.^[5] McIntosh also correctly attributes the Somme as aiding the formulation of interwar Unionism, stating that it has as much significance as the Easter Rising in moulding Nationalist identity.^[6] Orr elaborates, arguing these events were perceived as the loss of life for a cause, be it a Unionist cause in the case of the Somme, or Easter for Nationalists. This aided their entrenchment into the identities of the two competing ideologies.^[7] This view is emphasised by Porter, who states that the Somme aids the creation of an exclusive Unionist identity, enforcing a divide between themselves and Nationalists.^[8] I concur with the ideas hypothesised, and will elaborate and critique these views within my argument.

Controversy arises when historians consider the changing role of the war in identities. Longley and Jeffrey argue that the war is now an event which reconciles political differences through the creation of a common history. Switzer and Grayson cite this change as occurring due to the 1998 Ceasefire.^[9] Whilst I agree that attempts are being made to utilise the memory of the war for reconciliation, I do not wholly conform to this theory. I do not believe this has been fully integrated into the political culture of the majority. Denman also disputes this argument and is sceptical about whether the role of the war has changed.^[10] Barritt develops this idea; arguing that the war continues to legitimise the separate historical narratives the two ideologies possess. Admittedly, Barritt’s views were published before the Ceasefire and the contemporary context of Northern Irish political occurrences are not taken into account; however they still represent beliefs held throughout the majority of the post 1918 years.^[11] I must concede that ‘memory of the war was woven from different strands’,^[12] and that possibly from 1998 the role of the war has changed. This has manifested through an event which can reconcile, and as a foundation for a Loyalist identity.

Context

The Ulster Volunteers, later the Ulster Volunteer Force, (UVF) was formed in 1912 by Carson and Craig in response to the perceived threat of the third Ireland Home Rule Bill. Their intention was clear from the Ulster Covenant, which pledged to use ‘all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland’.^[13] By 1914 the group had around 100,000 members, half of which were already part of the Orange Order.^[14] The UVF had also already begun organizing unofficial military training and acquiring arms. On the 25^th April 1914, 24,000 rifles and 3 million rounds of ammunition were purchased illegally by the UVF from Germany and distributed amongst members.^[15] However the outbreak of the First World War meant the question of Home Rule was temporarily delayed. The UVF instead enlisted in the armed forces, creating a division of Kitchener’s New Army known as the 36^th (Ulster) Division. Ironically the UVF were now fighting alongside the British Army, when their original intention was to violently resist them if necessary. Although the 36^th were involved in other engagements such as Cambrai and Messines, the Somme became the archetypal battle within political identities in Northern Ireland.

Unionists

During the first two days of the Somme the 36^th suffered 5,500 casualties.^[16] One West Belfast battalion suffered 90% loses.^[17] Casualties of this proportion from a single community were destined to leave some reminisce upon their identity.^[18] Although original reports presented the early days of the Somme as victorious, news of the tragic reality soon reached.^[19] Stories of mothers in Belfast nervously looking out for Telegram Boys are particularly poignant.^[20] The high number of casualties suffered meant the Somme came to symbolize Ulster’s entire war experience. The nature of the close community meant that the casualties of the Somme were now ‘etched into their consciousness and political culture’.^[21]

As the majority of the 36^th was composed of UVF members, their ideologies became assimilated into the popular perception of the Somme. The UVF was formed to prevent Home Rule. Their exploits in battle became associated with Ulster’s fight for freedom and the Ulster Unionists right to be able to govern their own polity.^[22] It was also a manifestation of the loyalty the 36^th, and in extension the UVF (and Unionists in general) had to Britain, particularly as the 36^th were volunteers as conscription was not introduced in Ireland.^[23] This is reflected in a number of memorials that state the soldiers ‘willingly gave their lives’.^[24] Shortly after the wars conclusion a Belfast Newsletter complimentarily described those who fought as an ‘imperially minded race’.^[25] On the battles first anniversary Protestant churches specifically focused on the ‘sacrifice’ made.^[26] Those not involved in the battle were able to display their affiliation with the Somme and its symbolism through commemoration. For example the Orange Order abandoned their commemoration of the Battle of the Boyne on the 12^th July 1916 for a 5 minute silence for those who had fallen at the Somme.^[27] The Somme became particularly important to identities as it was a prominent example of the sacrifice made in defense of Britain and British identity.

The Somme allowed soldiers to ‘subsume their efforts into a wider national enterprise’.^[28] Unionists could cite this event as evidence that they had been useful members of the Empire who deserved their place. It also helped them gain legitimacy and notoriety throughout the Empire. Captain Wilfred Spender, (an English Officer) stated that ‘he’d rather be an Ulsterman than anything in the world’ after witnessing their performance at the Somme.^[29] The Somme became a source of pride for Ulster Unionists.

Poignantly the Somme began on the same day as the Battle of the Boyne 1690, where the victory of King William ensured the continuation of Protestant domination in Ireland. Individuals within the 36^th were aware of this historical significance, as noted within letters from Nugent to UVF commander Richardson.^[30] Many 36^th members wore Orange sashes into battle to show their political allegiance.^[31] Unionists drew parallels between the two events. Shown in 1919, when Orange Order 1067 revealed a banner representing both William III and the Somme.^[32] Both were displayed as Protestants fighting against potential Catholic rule. Both battles are arguably successful, as the performances at the Somme meant the British government was under pressure not to include Ulster within Irish Home Rule. This subsequently led to the formation of the Northern Irish State in 1921, which was dominated by Protestants. This meant the Somme was important to political identities as it added to the Unionist histiography which gave the group legitimacy, prestige and was justification of their ideology.

Nationalists

Nationalists cited the war as further evidence of British imperialism,^[33] as well as demonstrating that Irish claims would always be sacrificed for British self interest.^[34] A number of Irish Nationalists served in the British Army, however their reasons for enlisting were not for the sake of the Union. Kettle stated that Belgium was in agony and needed help; he even drew parallels between Irish struggle for political autonomy and the allied campaign against German aggression.^[35] Redmond appealed for volunteers on the basis that it would inevitably aid their own quest for home rule,^[36] Nationalist M.P O’Brien concurred.^[37] However, some individuals such as Tom Barry, (later an IRA leader in West Cork), were indifferent to these reasons and joined up out of curiosity.^[38] Despite Nationalist involvement in the war, there were refusals by Nationalists to participate in war commemoration. This was noted by the Guardian, who reported that at the 1918 Armistice, no Nationalist houses in Belfast displayed flags or Bunting.^[39] Abstaining from commemoration allowed Nationalists to display their own political allegiance.

Nationalists often commemorated the Easter Rising rather than the Somme. Those who died during and because of the uprising were viewed as martyrs for the cause of independence.^[40] Those who died at the Somme were merely viewed as traitors, Kettle was aware of this, stating that whilst those at Easter died as heroes, he would die ‘a bloody British Officer’.^[41] Easter is an archetypal event for Nationalist sacrifice and identity, as the Somme is for Unionists. Commemorating the Easter Rising was hazardous, as it could reveal an individual as a potential rebel, incurring the wrath of state law.^[42] Choosing to commemorate Easter rather than the Somme was a dangerous display of political allegiance. The ‘Draconian’ response the British had to those involved in Easter reinvigorated Nationalist sentiment, leading to Sinn Fein electoral success in 1918. Before this incident they had been relatively unknown and confined to Dublin.^[43] Easter 1916 is an important date in Nationalist histiography, as individuals perceived to have died for independence, reinvigorated Nationalism. The Somme is generally absent from Nationalist histiography, this does not mean it is unimportant to their identity, rather it is intentionally omitted as an acknowledgement that it is part of Unionist history. This shows the Somme is important to political identities as it acts as an event in which commemoration or non participation will indicate political allegiance and culture.

War as a tool of reconciliation

Over the past two decades the role of the war has significantly altered. Rather than being exclusively utilized by Unionists to affirm their historic loyalty to Britain, the war now represents a time when Nationalist and Unionist combined for a joint cause. This common history can aid reconciliation. This notion began in a less successful form immediately after 1918. Prominent nationalists theorized that a joint military service would unite Ireland.^[44] Attempts were made to use the joint offences, (such as at Wyntschaete), as propaganda to encourage unity.^[45] The idea that joint service could unite Nationalists and Unionists was reiterated at the unveiling of a memorial plaque at the War Memorial Institute (1924) and the opening of the British Legion in Omagh.^[46] Arguably this idea failed to hold mass appeal, as demonstrated by the violence which occurred between the two factions during war commemorations in the 1920s and 1960s. However it does show that a minority were attempting to use the role as a commemorative tool post 1918.

Within recent decades this role has become more accepted. Various prominent politicians made public gestures involving the war, in order to unite the two political ideologies. Hartleys presence (with Sinn Fein permission) at a Second World War commemoration in 1995 was a major sign of change, previously the party boycotted such events.^[47] Although this was not about the First World War it showed an attitude shift. A number of recent events demonstrate the change from an exclusively Unionist dominated historical event. In 2001 Molloy held a reception for the local British Legion at Remembrance Sunday.^[48] Maskey took part in commemorations on 1^st July 2002, laying a wreath of laurels; he also acknowledged that the war was a part of Nationalist Irish history.^[49] Maskey also took part alongside the British Army in Belfast’s St Anne’s Cathedral in a 2003 service for First World War casualties. His participation was partly to, ‘build a relationship between Republics and the Unionist Community’, as his actions were, ‘efforts to promote reconciliation’.^[50] Gestures were not confined to Sinn Fein. Pat McCarthy (SDLP) also led the 90^th anniversary of the Somme commemoration event.^[51] The party had a formal role in commemoration events in 1997, contrary to 1994 when they were still deliberating boycotting.^[52] The recent gestures represent a change, the war can now help unite Northern Ireland, rather than justify its divide.

Out of 60 war memorials, 34 do not inscribe what individuals died for, preferring to say individuals ‘fell’.^[53] Jeffrey asserts this is connected with the confusion about what people thought the war was for,^[54] however I argue that it was an attempt to remain politically neutral, as phrases such as ‘for crown and country’ would evoke exclusively Unionist sympathies. Similar sentiments can be noted with the use of obelisk memorials, which are religiously neutral, ^[55] rather than a Celtic cross which has Nationalist undertones. The Peace Tower, completed 1998 commemorates efforts made for various Irish army divisions, such as the 16^th (Irish) Division, which was primarily made up of Nationalists who had followed Redmond’s call to enlist. This was an acknowledgement that the war was fought by Unionists and Nationalists. Fitzgerald believes this meant individuals no longer had to identify with Redmond or Pearse, as both had valid roles in Irish pantheon.^[56] The prime supporters for the creation of the Tower were also individuals from Nationalist and Loyalist parties.^[57] This demonstrates the war can be part of both Nationalist and Unionist narratives. This is in complete contrast with the former role, which exclusively legitimized Unionist identity and antagonized Nationalists.

Recent changes in histiography also demonstrate the changing role of the war. Historians like Grayson have published works highlighting joint offences undertaken by the 36^th and 16^th Divisions, for example at Messines Ridge.^[58] This helped educate Unionists, aiding awareness of Nationalist involvement, as well as showing Nationalists that their past is not confined to the exploits during the Rising. Hoppen also discovered that on ratio, the number of Catholics who volunteered for service was greater than that of Protestants.^[59] This shows the event does not represent one identity. Various group projects, such as Connaught Rangers Research Project invite soldiers to discuss their past, whatever their political or religious affiliation.^[60] The Somme Association established in 1990 ensured that different communities could learn more about their joint heritage.^[61] The Somme Museum in Newtownards opened in 1994 embraces the memories of all soldiers.^[62] The way in which historical institutes in Ireland treat the war shows it is now an event which belongs to a joint narrative.

Since the 1980s Sinn Fein has reevaluated their views of historical events, since the mid 1990s this has included adjusting their opinion of the war. It is now seen as an event jointly suffered by soldiers of both political ideologies.^[63] Recent interviews with Sean O’Hare revealed he no longer viewed First World War soldiers as traitors.^[64] O’Hare stated he is no longer ashamed of his Grandfathers role in the British Army.^[65] Meehan had similar philosophical changes, visiting his Grandfathers grave in 2002, who had died fighting for the British Army.^[66] There also appears to be a change of opinion generally within the Catholic community, noted in the increase in their involvement in war based ceremonies since 1998.^[67] Arguably, as there is no longer a British Army presence in Ireland, it is easier for Catholics to embrace the war as part of their heritage. This joint past has the potential to foster peace and unity between the communities.

The war within Loyalist identity

The role of the war also evolved to become part of a working class Loyalist identity, separate from Unionism. Loyalists argue the working class was most affected by the war and this suffering ‘owes nothing’ to Unionism.^[68] Parallels have been drawn between the war and the Troubles, as both concern working class Ulsterman suffering for Britain.^[69] This is demonstrated through murals in Belfast which commemorate working class soldiers, rather than higher class and ranking military personnel.^[70] The war is said to have had little to do with middle class Orange Sectarianism, a movement many loyalists wish to disassociate from.^[71] The role of the war now contributes to a working class identity, allowing loyalists to form their own narrative, separate to Unionism. Loyalists prefer to legitimize themselves through recent events such as the Somme, rather than distant events such as the Boyne Unionists commemorate.^[72] A Loyalist from Ulster stated that the heroism of the 36^th allowed the working class from Ulster to travel through Europe with pride.^[73] This shows the war has evolved into an event which contributes to a working class loyalist political identity, rather than its traditional role within an exclusive Unionist narrative.

Many Loyalists became disillusioned from British politics and are less enthusiastic about the Union. This is largely due to events leading up to the Ceasefire. The manner in which Crown forces protected disloyal Catholics at the expense of Loyalists at a Somme commemoration event in Drumcree caused controversy. An individual stated that loyalists ‘had laid down our lives. We fought for freedom and liberty and we paid our rates. Now we can’t walk down the road. It’s a bloody disgrace’.^[74] A former UDA member argued that they were only unable to defeat the IRA as they were ‘shackled by the British’, ^[75] some Loyalists also saw the Belfast Agreement as a prelude to Dublin Rule.^[76] This resentment led to Loyalists arguing they would no longer be Britains ‘puppets’.^[77] This ‘revisionism’ meant that those who conformed to these views saw Northern Ireland as being more Ulster than British or Irish; the war was used to legitimize these claims.^[78] Paisley’s supporters used Ulster’s war performance as an example of why the British government owed Ulster freedom.^[79] Rather than being a source of Unionist loyalty, the war was now an event legitimizing resentment for Britain. The war was used as an example of an occasion when the Loyalist commitment had not been repaid, particularly with reference to the poor housing, wages and educational facilities Britain provided post war.^[80] As opinion towards Britain changed, so did the role of the war. The war is now used as evidence to support loyalist grievances against Britain.

Nothing has changed

The role of the war has altered since 1918; however this is mainly applicable to events post Ceasefire. Prior to this the wars role had not changed. During the immediate post war years Nationalists distanced themselves from any association with the war, whilst Unionist embraced its commemoration. Trimble of the War Memorial Committee claimed that around 99% of donations were from Unionists and that ‘there is not one penny of Sinn Fein money’ given.^[81] An estimated 3000 Nationalist soldiers also boycotted Peace Day due to the Unionist symbols prominent within celebrations.^[82] The link between Unionism and war commemoration was evident; scenes on Shanklin Road on 1^st July 1919 were similar to that of Orange Parades.^[83] In 1924 at Colerain, many veterans wore medals atop of Orange sashes,^[84] representing the link between Unionism and the war. Protestant churches expressed pride in war and Somme veterans.^[85] Nationalist’s participation in the war was often overlooked; the 16^th Division was not invited to the 1929 unveiling of the Cenotaph.^[86] This demonstrates that the war and its commemoration was an exclusively Unionist event. Nationalists avoided these commemorations, preferring to formulate their own dates for remembrance, such as the 29^th July and the 12^th October.^[87] Particularly in the 1930s Nationalists affirmed their links with the Easter Rising through commemorations and monuments. This helped to further disassociate themselves from the war.^[88] Violent clashes between the two political factions occurred at Official commemorations, such as an Armastice Anniversary event in 1924.^[89] Prominent nationalists, such as MacBride linked the war to British imperialism and did not want to be associated with it.^[90] This shows that in the immediate post war years, the role of the war in political identities remained unchanged.

The 1960s saw a continuation in the role of the war in identities. The UVF was revived in 1966 and began the systematic murder of Catholics. These were the first acts of violence during the Troubles.^[91] The UVF and prominent Unionist politicians linked the 1966 Somme commemorations with loyalty and sacrifice to the Union.^[92] Paisley also argued that ‘our forefathers suffered from bullets and bombs and won, we will do the same’, in reference to the fight by Unionists against Catholics, showing Unionists were still comparing the war to their own struggle.^[93] The Unionist rhetoric at the 1966 Somme commemoration correlates with increased supporters of Unionism; it also caused an increase in IRA membership.^[94] Nationalists again demonstrated their disassociation from the war and its imperialist connotations through zealous commemorations of the Rising, which were unsupported by the Northern Irish State.^[95] During Easter commemorations the Rising was argued to be a fight for independence, Gillespie stated that those who died had done so for the unity of Ireland, consequently there should be a breakaway from Britain.^[96] The 1966 Easter celebrations were used by individuals such as O’Bradiaigh as an opportunity to unite Nationalist.^[97] The commemoration of the Rising was an opportunity for Nationalists to display their disdain for the war as part of Unionist identity.

Events during the Troubles continued to affirm the war as an event which was exclusively Unionist. During the 1972 Somme commemoration, MP Molyneaux required protection from the UDA to prevent an attack by IRA forces.^[98] Unionist paramilitary willingness to protect the commemoration and Nationalist paramilitary plans to attack it, demonstrates the war was still part of Unionist identity. The IRA bombing at Enniskillen Cenotaph 8th November 1987 is further evidence.^[99] The IRA bombed this site as they were certain to predominantly kill Protestants, as Catholics would rarely participate, showing that the war was still seen as an event only celebrated by Unionists. Easter commemorations by Nationalists also continued into the 1990s, although less enthusiastically than in 1966. A survey in 1991 showed 65% of Nationalists still viewed the Easter Rising with pride,^[100] demonstrating the unchanging role of the war.

Even post Ceasefire evidence suggests the role of the war in political identities remained unchanged. Throughout Protestant regions of Belfast memorials continue to assert a link between Unionism and the war. Murals link the exploits of loyalist paramilitaries to soldiers of the First World War,^[101] as they are perceived as men fighting for the Unionist cause. The war and the present day violence are memorialized as events which are resistance against Catholicism.^[102] Murals concerning the war often contain Unionist symbolism, such as Union flags, crowns and poppies. This shows the link between Unionist identity and the war is still prevalent amongst present Northern Irish citizens.^[103] Other forms of iconography such as flags also support this notion. Flags flown from lampposts during July parade season link the war to Unionist identity. For example they specifically mention the 36^th Division, affirming that they are commemorating those who were formed of Ulsterman fighting for the Union.^[104] This shows the role of the war is still part of Unionist identity. Although politicians are attempting to use the war for reconciliation and joint heritage, this idea is still in its early stage of implementation, and has not been incorporated into the political identity of the entire populace. For the majority, the war still has the same role within identities. Even if the role has slightly altered, this has only been since 1998; meaning that around 90% of the time since 1918 has seen a continuation in the way the war is used by Unionists to assert their loyalty to Britain.

Conclusion

In an area as tight knit as Ulster the casualties during Somme came to symbolize the regions overall war experience and leave a long lasting impact upon its identity. As the 36^th was composed of UVF members, their cause became subsumed into the Somme myth. Fatalities were perceived to be casualties for Unionist principles. The Somme allowed Unionists to subsume their efforts into a wider cause alongside the Empire. The Somme also became part of Unionist narrative, this was another occasion when Unionists fought to remain part of Britain against Catholicism; this helped legitimize their ideology. The symbolism surrounding the identical dates of the Somme and the Boyne also meant the Somme was destined to become assimilated into Unionist narrative.

Nationalists also used the Somme to aid the formation of their own identity. Despite the involvement of Nationalist soldiers, Nationalists viewed the event as further evidence of British Imperialism. Nationalists were able to demonstrate their anti British ideology by abstaining from any participation in Somme commemoration, instead commemorating the Easter Rising as part of their histiography. Nationalists were able to reinvigorate and evolve their own identity through their dissociation with the Somme and the ideals it was associated with.

Although attempts were made to utilize the war as an event which could unite the two ideologies, the idea was largely ignored until 1998. Recent gestures by Nationalist politicians demonstrate the shift in how the role of the war has evolved. Sinn Fein has reevaluated their historical position on the war and is now incorporating it within their own historical narratives. Similar trends can be noted in the political neutrality of memorials, which do not allude to a political ideology. The 1998 Peace Tower equally commemorates the Nationalist 16^th Division, showing that the war was also endured by Nationalists. Historians have demonstrated that Nationalists and Unionists allied together, encouraging individuals to view the event as a joint history.

Since the 1990s the war also legitimizes Loyalists rather than Unionists. Loyalists often view the war as an event exclusively undertaken by the working class, owing nothing to middle class Unionists. Parallels are also drawn between the war and the Troubles as events which are part of exclusive working class historical narratives. Events preceding the Ceasefire left many Loyalists disillusioned with the Union. Instead Loyalists formulated a new Ulster nationalism separate from Unionism.

However these changes have only occurred during the past few decades. Immediately after the war Nationalists began to boycott memorial events, (or were not invited), whilst Unionists used the wars memory to demonstrate their loyalty to Britain. The 1960s saw the reforming of the UVF and violent occurrences during Easter and Somme commemorations. Unionist supporters such as Paisley continued to spout the same rhetoric concerning the war and loyalty which had been in existence pre 1918. Events during the Troubles, such as the bombing at Enniskillen demonstrated that association with the war was still considered exclusively Protestant. The murals within Belfast and flags flown during the July parade season also demonstrate an association between the war and Unionist rhetoric. There is still great continuity between the role the war played in political identities pre 1918 and the modern day.

Bibliography

Bartley, Brendan and Kitchin, Rob, Understanding contemporary Ireland (London, 2007)

Barritt, Denis P., Carter, Charles F., The Northern Ireland problem, a study in group relations, second edition with a new preface and postscript (London, 1972)

Bew, Paul, Ireland, the politics of enmity, 1789-2006 (Oxford, 2006)

Bourne, JM, Britain the Great War, 1914-1918 (London, 1989)

Brown, Terence, Ireland, a social and cultural history 1922-2002 (London, 2004)

Brown, Timothy, Carson’s army, the Ulster Volunteer Force, 1910-22 (Manchester, 2007)

Bruce, Steve, The red hand, Protestant paramilitaries in Northern Ireland (Oxford, 1992)

Bruce, Steve, The edge of the Union, the Ulster Loyalist political vision (Oxford, 1994)

Corrigan, Gordon, Mud, blood and poppycock, Britain and the First World War (London, 2003)

Cronin, Mike and Regan, John M., Ireland: the politics of independence, 1922-49 (Hampshire, 2000)

Daly, Mary E. and O’Callaghan, Margaret, 1916 in 1966, commemorating the Easter Rising (Dublin, 2007)

Denman, Terence, Ireland’s unknown soldiers, the 16^th (Irish) Division in the Great War (Dublin, 2008)

Dixon, Paul, Northern Ireland, the politics of war and peace (London, 2001)

Elliot, Marianne, The long road to peace on Northern Ireland, peace lectures from the Institute of Irish Studies at Liverpool University (Liverpool, 2007)

English, Richard, Irish freedom, the history of nationalism in Ireland (Basingstoke, 2007)

Gallaher, Carolyn, Loyalist paramilitaries, in post-Accord Northern Ireland (New York, 2007)

Grayson, Richard S., Belfast Boys, how Unionists and Nationalists fought and died together in the First World War (London, 2009)

Hanna, Ronnie, The Union, essays on Ireland and the British connection (Newtownards, 2001)

Hennessey, Thomas, A history of Northern Ireland, 1920-1996 (Hampshire, 1997)

Hoppen, Theodore K., Ireland since 1800, conflict and conformity (Harlow, Essex, 1999)

Jeffery, Keith, Ireland and the Great War (Cambridge, 2011)

Johnson, Nuala C., Ireland, the Great War and the geography of remembrance (Cambridge, 2003)

Kaufmann, Eric P., The Orange Order, a contemporary Northern Irish history (Oxford, 2007)

King, Alex, Memorials of the Great War in Britain (Oxford, 1998)

Lawlor, Sheila, Britain and Ireland 1914-23 (Dublin, 1983)

Lee, J.J., Ireland 1912-1985 (Cambridge, 1998)

Mansergh, Nicholas, The Irish question, 1840-1921, A commentary on Anglo-Irish relations and on social and political forces in Ireland in the age of reform and revolution (London, 1968)

McDonald, Henry and Cusack, Jim, UDA, inside the heart of loyalist terror (London, 2005)

Mitchell, Paul and Wilford, Rick, Politics in Northern Ireland (Oxford, 1999)

Moxon-Browne, Edward, Nation, class and creed in Northern Ireland (Cornwall, 1983)

Orr, Phillip, The road to the Somme, men of the Ulster Division tell their story (Belfast, 1987)

Porter, Norman, The elusive question, reconciliation in Northern Ireland (Belfast, 2003)

Ruane, Joseph an Todd, Jennifer, After the Good Friday Agreement, analysing political change in Northern Ireland (Dublin, 1999)

Santino, Jack, Sings of war and peace (New York, 2001)

Simkins, Peter, Kitchener’s army, The raising of the new armies 1914-1916 (Manchester, 2007)

Smith, Jeremy, Making the peace on Ireland (London, 2002)

Stewart, A.T.Q., The Ulster crisis (London, 1967)

Switzer, Catherine, Unionists and Great War commemoration in the north of Ireland, 1914-1939, people places and politics (Dublin, 2007)

Taylor, Peter, Provos the IRA and Sinn Fein (London, 1998)

Tonge, Jonathan, Northern Ireland (Cambridge, 2006)

Townshend, Charles, Easter 1916, the Irish rebellion (London, 2006)

Winter, Jay, Sites of memory, sites of mourning, the Great War in European cultural history (Cambridge, 2002)

Wood, Ian S., Crimes of loyalty, a history of the UDA (Edinburgh, 2006)

Internet Resources and Articles

Mural 3, Goldsmiths VLE, <https://learn.gold.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/148514/mod_resource/content/0/UVF_Then_and_Now.JPG> (Accessed, 29^th January 2012)

Mural 9, Goldsmiths VLE, <https://learn.gold.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/148520/mod_resource/content/0/UFF_Lower_Shankill.JPG> (Accessed 30^th January 2012)

Mural 10, Goldsmiths VLE, <https://learn.gold.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/148521/mod_resource/content/0/UVF_Then_and_Now_2.JPG> (Accessed, 29^th January 2012)

Mural 13, Goldsmiths VLE, < https://learn.gold.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/148524/mod_resource/content/0/East_Belfast_protestant_Boys.JPG> (Accessed 29^th January 2012)

Cairns, Ed and Lewis, Christopher Alan (1999) ‘Collective memories, political violence and mental health in Northern Ireland’. British Journal of

Psychology, 90: 1

Graham B. and Shirlow P. (2002) ‘Battle of the Somme in Ulster memory and identity Political Geography’, 21:7

Grayson, Richard S. (2010) ‘The Place of the First World War in Contemporary Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland’, Irish Political Studies, 25: 3

Appendix

^[1] Graham B. and Shirlow P. (2002) ‘Battle of the Somme in Ulster memory and identity Political Geography’, 21:7, p. 893

^[2] Terence Denman, Ireland’s unknown soldiers, the 16^th (Irish) Division in the Great War (Dublin, 2008) p. 5

^[3] Richard S. Grayson, (2010) ‘The Place of the First World War in Contemporary Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland’, Irish Political Studies, 25: 3, p. 326

^[4] Carolyn Gallaher, Loyalist paramilitaries, in post-Accord Northern Ireland (New York, 2007) p. 106

^[5] Richard S. Grayson, Belfast Boys, how Unionists and Nationalists fought and died together in the First World War (London, 2009) p. xiii

^[6] Grayson, Belfast, p. 171

^[7] Phillip Orr, The road to the Somme, men of the Ulster Division tell their story (Belfast, 1987) p. 285

^[8] Norman Porter, The elusive question, reconciliation in Northern Ireland (Belfast, 2003) p. 145

^[9] Catherine Switzer, Unionists and Great War commemoration in the north of Ireland, 1914-1939, people places and politics (Dublin, 2007) p. 155 and Grayson, Belfast, p. 184

^[10] Terence Denman, Ireland’s unknown soldiers, the 16^th (Irish) Division in the Great War (Dublin, 2008) p. 180

^[11] Denis P Barritt, Charles F Carter, The Northern Ireland problem, a study in group relations, second edition with a new preface and postscript (London, 1972) pp.1-3

^[12] Switzer, Unionists, p. 119

^[13] Jeremy Smith, Making the peace in Ireland (London, 2002) p. 37

^[14] Peter Simkins, Kitchener’s army, The raising of the new armies 1914-1916 (Manchester, 2007) p. 21

^[15] Simkins, Kitchener’s army, p. 22

^[16] Jeffery, Ireland, p. 56

^[17] A.T.Q. Stewart, The Ulster crisis (London, 1967) p. 240

^[18] Historians as well as other scholars often refer to Ulster as a tight knit community, for example within Stewart, The Ulster, p. 241

^[19] Jeffery, Ireland, p. 57

^[20] Stewart, The Ulster, p. 241

^[21] Paul Mitchell and Rick Wilford, Politics in Northern Ireland (Oxford, 1999) p. 8

^[22] Jeffery, Ireland, p. 133

^[23] All Irish soldiers were volunteers as conscription was never introduced, however Unionists often overlook non Unionist participation in the Somme

^[24] Jeffery, Ireland, p. 9

^[25] Nuala C Johnson, Ireland, the Great War and the geography of remembrance (Cambridge, 2003) p. 77

^[26] Grayson, Belfast, p. 168

^[27] Jeffery, Ireland, p. 57

^[28] Jeffery, Ireland, p. 15

^[29] Paul Bew, Ireland, the politics of enmity, 1789-2006 (Oxford, 2006) p. 382

^[30] Jeffery, Ireland, p. 56

^[31] Stewart, The Ulster, p. 239

^[32] Johnson, Ireland, p. 71

^[33] Terence Brown, Ireland, a social and cultural history 1922-2002 (London, 2004) p. 25

^[34] Smith, Making, p. 38

^[35] Mike Cronin and John M. Regan, Ireland: the politics of independence, 1922-49 (Hampshire, 2000) p. 19

^[36] Jeffery, Ireland, pp. 13-14

^[37] Jeffery, Ireland, p. 12

^[38] Jeffery, Ireland, p. 21

^[39] Switzer, Unionists, p. 44

^[40] Peter Taylor, Provos the IRA and Sinn Fein (London, 1998) p. 9

^[41] Charles Townshend, Easter 1916, the Irish rebellion (London, 2006) p. 314

^[42] O’Callaghan, 1916 in 1966, p. 89

^[43] Wilford, Politics, p. 7

^[44] Switzer, Unionists, p. 113

^[45] Denman, Ireland’s, p. 150

^[46] Switzer, Unionists, pp. 114-115

^[47] Grayson, Belfast, p. 180

^[48] Grayson, ‘The Place’ p. 333

^[49] Grayson, ‘The Place’ p. 334

^[50] Richard English, Irish freedom, the history of nationalism in Ireland (Basingstoke, 2007) p. 412

^[51] Grayson, ‘The Place’ p. 331

^[52] Grayson, ‘The Place’ p. 331

^[53] Switzer, Unionists, p. 96

^[54] Switzer, Unionists, p. 96

^[55] Switzer, Unionists, p. 75

^[56] Jeffery, Ireland, p. 142

^[57] Jeffery, Ireland, p. 143

^[58] Grayson, Belfast, p. 110

^[59] Theodore K Hoppen, Ireland since 1800, conflict and conformity (Harlow, Essex, 1999) p. 147

^[60] Grayson, Belfast, p. 183

^[61] Jeffery, Ireland, p. 137

^[62] Orr, The road, p. 281

^[63] Grayson, ‘The Place’ p. 333

^[64] Grayson, ‘The Place’ p. 337

^[65] Grayson, Belfast, p. 183

^[66] Grayson, ‘The Place’ p. 338

^[67] Grayson, Belfast, p. 899

^[68] Orr, The road, p. 287

^[69] Orr, The road, p. 288

^[70] Carolyn, Loyalist, p. 107

^[71] Kitchin , Understanding, p. 228

^[72] Carolyn, Loyalist, p. 107

^[73] Orr, The road, p. 289

^[74] Ronnie Hanna, The Union, essays on Ireland and the British connection (Newtownards, 2001) p. 143

^[75] Hanna, The Union, p. 146

^[76] Hanna, The Union, p. 138

^[77] Carolyn Gallaher, Loyalist paramilitaries, in post-Accord Northern Ireland (New York, 2007) p. 107

^[78] Brendan Bartley and Rob Kitchin , Understanding contemporary Ireland (London, 2007) p. 226

^[79] J.J. Lee, Ireland 1912-1985 (Cambridge, 1998) p. 447

^[80] Orr, The road, p. 288

^[81] Switzer, Unionists, p. 70

^[82] Johnson, Ireland, p. 65

^[83] Switzer, Unionists, p. 96

^[84] Switzer, Unionists, p. 107

^[85] Switzer, Unionists, p. 109

^[86] Johnson, Ireland, p. 107

^[87] Grayson, ‘The Place’ p. 329

^[88] Johnson, Ireland, pp. 157-165

^[89] Jeffery, Ireland, p. 115

^[90] Jeffery, Ireland, p. 131

^[91] Smith, Making, p. 69

^[92] Thomas Hennessey, A history of Northern Ireland, 1920-1996 (Hampshire, 1997) p. 124

^[93] Taylor, Provos, p. 27

^[94] Paul Dixon, Northern Ireland, the politics of war and peace (London, 2001) p. 71

^[95] Mary E Daly and Margaret O’Callaghan, 1916 in 1966, commemorating the Easter Rising (Dublin, 2007) p. 90

^[96] O’Callaghan, 1916, p.103 and 128

^[97] O’Callaghan, 1916, p. 113

^[98] Ian S. Wood, Crimes of loyalty, a history of the UDA (Edinburgh, 2006) p. 9

^[99] Steve Bruce, The red hand, Protestant paramilitaries in Northern Ireland (Oxford, 1992) p. 41

^[100] Johnson, Ireland, pp.141-142

^[101] Mural 3, Goldsmiths VLE, <https://learn.gold.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/148514/mod_resource/content/0/UVF_Then_and_Now.JPG> (Accessed, 29^th January 2012)

^[102] Mural 10, Goldsmiths VLE, <https://learn.gold.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/148521/mod_resource/content/0/UVF_Then_and_Now_2.JPG> (Accessed, 29^th January 2012)

^[103] Mural 13, Goldsmiths VLE, < https://learn.gold.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/148524/mod_resource/content/0/East_Belfast_protestant_Boys.JPG> (Accessed 29^th January 2012

^[104] See Appendix