The lie that is 'Loyal Ulster' during WW2

darkman2

Its an old favourite of Unionism in the 6 counties that their population has been at the forefront of defending the British Empire throughout history. During WW2 this chesnut was bought up again and again specifically to highlight how different they were from 'those people' South of the border and to give the impression that Britain pulling out of Northern Ireland would be an act of unforgivable and monumental treachery.


There is some truth that Protestant Ulstermen did indeed play a signicficant role in WW1 - this is beyond dispute. However its harder to believe these harkings on following WW2. Churchill's War Cabinet was, during WW2, bringing in conscription. The Unionists in NI were desperate that this be extended to their part of the United Kingdom and that they should be treated no differently. However British military stragetists quickly realised that if conscription was extended to NI it would in fact not be Unionists that would be the majority conscripted but, in fact, poorer nationalists - a section of the population that had been coralled into a state they were hostile to. The problems were so obvious that not only the Irish government protested 'in the strongest possible terms' but the Americans were also deeply displeased about the prospect. Not to mention the British military who were against it from the start saying that the idea of going into the Falls road in Belfast for example conscripting people was just not on and would lead to 'problems'.

The Unionists persisted and it came down to Lloyd George having to tell Sir James Craig in London that -

'You say you want to help us? Then dont push for conscription'

But other then not wanting to be treated differently just why did Unionist politicians want conscription so badly?

Of course underlining Unionist indignation was the simple fact that Unionists in Northern Ireland were not signing up in numbers to fight at all - far from it. In fact when Belfast was bombed they 'ran for the hills in fear' of further bombings (rightly so many would say). This was known as 'ditching'. They were getting little help from the Unionist authorities. It is a matter of public record that Unionist politicians were more concerned about the 'protection of the statue of Carson' then they were of their own people who were running in terror.

Of course for the Unionist elite this is the real reason they wanted conscription. The fact their own popluation was by and large snubbing service in the armed forces (or afraid or just not interested) was giving the lie to 'loyal Ulster' - the line they had pedalled literally for centuries.

On reading many books and studying elements of Neutrality and Northern Ireland over the last 3 years I find it very difficult to find evidence during WW2 that Northern Unionism was little more then a hindrance to British objectives and that they, in theory at least, caused Britain a headache more that it could have done without.

The Unionist elite never got the conscription they wanted and many Unionist family's in the North would have been more then thankful for that.

It leads me to the conclusion that the association of Ulster's 'loyalty' with WW2 is simply a lie.

What do you think?

walrusgumble

darkman2 wrote: »

Its an old favourite of Unionism in the 6 counties that their population has been at the forefront of defending the British Empire throughout history. During WW2 this chesnut was bought up again and again specifically to highlight how different they were from 'those people' South of the border and to give the impression that Britain pulling out of Northern Ireland would be an act of unforgivable and monumental treachery.


There is some truth that Protestant Ulstermen did indeed play a signicficant role in WW1 - this is beyond dispute. However its harder to believe these harkings on following WW2. Churchill's War Cabinet was, during WW2, bringing in conscription. The Unionists in NI were desperate that this be extended to their part of the United Kingdom and that they should be treated no differently. However British military stragetists quickly realised that if conscription was extended to NI it would in fact not be Unionists that would be the majority conscripted but, in fact, poorer nationalists - a section of the population that had been coralled into a state they were hostile to. The problems were so obvious that not only the Irish government protested 'in the strongest possible terms' but the Americans were also deeply displeased about the prospect. Not to mention the British military who were against it from the start saying that the idea of going into the Falls road in Belfast for example conscripting people was just not on and would lead to 'problems'.

The Unionists persisted and it came down to Lloyd George having to tell Sir James Craig in London that -

'You say you want to help us? Then dont push for conscription'

But other then not wanting to be treated differently just why did Unionist politicians want conscription so badly?

Of course underlining Unionist indignation was the simple fact that Unionists in Northern Ireland were not signing up in numbers to fight at all - far from it. In fact when Belfast was bombed they 'ran for the hills in fear' of further bombings (rightly so many would say). This was known as 'ditching'. They were getting little help from the Unionist authorities. It is a matter of public record that Unionist politicians were more concerned about the 'protection of the statue of Carson' then they were of their own people who were running in terror.

Of course for the Unionist elite this is the real reason they wanted conscription. The fact their own popluation was by and large snubbing service in the armed forces (or afraid or just not interested) was giving the lie to 'loyal Ulster' - the line they had pedalled literally for centuries.

On reading many books and studying elements of Neutrality and Northern Ireland over the last 3 years I find it very difficult to find evidence during WW2 that Northern Unionism was little more then a hindrance to British objectives and that they, in theory at least, caused Britain a headache more that it could have done without.

The Unionist elite never got the conscription they wanted and many Unionist family's in the North would have been more then thankful for that.

It leads me to the conclusion that the association of Ulster's 'loyalty' with WW2 is simply a lie.

What do you think?

maybe the majority unionist groups taught their fight to remain united with britain was over after 1920, maybe many just got on with their lives did well career wise and grew content and lost the will to be loyal like they did in ww1? look how many in various threads when talking about a united ireland there are alot of people saying no solely on the ground of economic reasons (of course there are many others like respecting the gfa) people just grow more "mé féin". then again, the 1920-1930's was not all plain sailing in the streets of belfast etc with continuing secterianism, maybe people got sick of the sight of war etc particularily in a country that was not their fight.

unionists, or the elite wanted conscription, in my humble opinion, (not too hot on this era) simply to prove loyalty to britains cause, not be to isolated from the running on mainland britian. i would agree damn all was done by council to protect their people,particularily with the us navy/air force in ports in derry - but then again what can you do against the deadly german air force? cities in britain sometimes got a doing, why should britian allocate a sizeable portion of over for northern ireland when main threat came from the channel front? wasn't there plenity of british navy presence in ports like larne?

places like belfast supported main land britian with ships & guns, not to mention basic commodities like linen & food, belfast enjoyed, like in ww1,a bit of an economic boom.

naturally craig would not push for conscription as it would rock the boat in stormount, how is to say some form of sinn fein would not be given an opportunity knocks moment ala 1918 in the south - campaigning against conscription. how knows where that would have led?

good thread, but i argue that considering the british and american finally based themselves in the north, thus making it less of a priority for churchill to get the treaty ports back, what would have happened to those ports if the northern bases like larne or swilly were not suitable? would churchill have invaded ireland to retain them? i suppose considering that the ira in the north had not really gone away, and public disguist with the b specials, the north was a head ache for main land britian at the time.

well thats my 2 cent.

McArmalite

It's an old joke that the reason that conscription was not introduced in the six counties during WW2 was because the unionists feet were too sore form all the orange marhing

walrusgumble " Sinn Fein would not be given an opportunity knocks moment ala 1918 in the south - campaigning against conscription. " Yes indeed, the association of Ulster's 'loyalty' with WW2 is simply a lie. They were more than happy to stay at home and let the real british do the killing and dying for them.

I'd say the unionists/brit govt were afraid it would stir up a hornets nest trying to conscript the nationalists and become more trouble than what it was worth. (I remember seeing an anti conscription poster from SF during WW1 and it showing a single Irish man tied up by rope and 5 british soldiers pulling him, 5 pushing, and the caption underneath said " The Irish conscrpt " ).

But one thing walrusgumble, what this insistance of " main land britian ". Since Ireland is a 'mainland', therefore should we use the term mainland Ireland, or for that matter mainland France, mainland Norway, mainland Australia etc ??

walrusgumble

i was saying that from a british perspective in relation to the north and england being the ruling mainland of that union. heaven forbid surely you are not suggesting we good republicans were part of that mainland. maybe wrong words used by me, but i am sure you knew what i meant

gurramok

Another perspective which might have been used is social class WW1 style.

Conscription against the working class on the Unionist side would of been used by the upper classes to 'control their own' just like the WW1 slaughter of the English/German/French working class in the trenches.

Its the working classes that have fought in conflicts.
Just look from the loyalist side, WW1 sourced alot from the loyalist working class and especially the 'Troubles' where it was working class men involved primarliy in the various organisations including the BA itself

Just like the saying goes, 'a library card in the hands of a working class man is the most dangerous threat to society'

Just a theory

purple'n'gold

A total of 8 Victoria crosses were awarded to Irishmen in WW2. 7 of these came from the republic and only one from Northern Ireland. And he was a catholic from west Belfast who was not properly recognised by the bigoted unionists until very recently. Loyal Ulster my backside, an embarrassment to the UK is more likely.
http://www.sixgolds.com/irishvc.htm

Snickers Man

purplengold wrote: »

A total of 8 Victoria crosses were awarded to Irishmen in WW2. 7 of these came from the republic and only one from Northern Ireland. And he was a catholic from west Belfast who was not properly recognised by the bigoted unionists until very recently. Loyal Ulster my backside, an embarrassment to the UK is more likely.
http://www.sixgolds.com/irishvc.htm

That's an interesting list of Irish VCs. There's a few points about it.

1) How do you define "Irish" in the context of that list? I do note that several of the names mentioned there were not Irish born, although many would have had perfectly valid ancestral Irish connections.

2) You will note, that the conflict which yielded the most number of VCs for "Irishmen" was the Indian Mutiny of 1857-58. Nearly a third of all the VCs on the list there were won in that campaign.

And if you want to take pride in the service of IRishmen in the British Army, perhaps you don't want to look too closely at what they did there. They would have given the SS Einsatzgruppen of 100 years later a run for their money. The Indians called the actions of the British Army putting down that revolt the "Devil's Wind".

3) I see the name of the Guardsman Keneally who won the VC in WWII is missing and rightly so. He wasn't Irish at all, Keneally was not his real name and he was in fact a repentant deserter who bunked out of the army and then rejoined under a completely false name using ID he had obtained from an Irish building worker.

When Churchill gave his famous radio speech after the war in which he criticised De Valera for Ireland's neutrality he nonetheless paid tribute to the "many thousands of Southern Irishmen who hastened to the front to prove their ancient valour".

In particular, he listed three Irish VC winners whose bravery was particularly well known: Captain Fogarty Fegen of the Jervis Bay, killed when he distracted a German battleship with his converted pleasure cruiser to allow the convoy he was guarding to escape; Commander Eugene Esmonde of the Fleet Air Arm, shot down along with his entire squadron while attacking a German naval flotilla with antiquated biplane torpedo bombers; and Keneally who performed heroics in the dessert.

The irony is that none of these men were strictly Irish. Fegen and Esmonde were born and raised in England. Keneally was a complete imposter.

purple'n'gold

Eugene Esmonde was born in Yorkshire England in March 1909. Both of his parents were Irish, his father a Doctor from Co. Tipperary was on temporary assignment to Yorkshire. They returned home to Tipperary when Eugene was a year old.
All that sounds Irish enough for me