(1972) uk gov had plan to expel 500,000 Catholics !

gurramok

from Irish Examiner


The British government was seriously considering repartitioning the North in 1972 to create a Protestant state.

Cabinet papers released today under the thirty-year rule also reveal the British government greatly underestimated the loyalist potential for violence.


The Cabinet papers show the then British Prime Minister, Edward Heath, discussed re-drawing the border to hand over parts of Fermanagh and Armagh to the Republic and then removing 500,000 people south. The papers say this would have required a completely ruthless use of force and the idea was scrapped.


They also show that within ten days of Bloody Sunday, a British government official met an IRA man who demanded the end of internment and for London to assume responsibility for security, law and order from Stormont.


The British government at the time underestimated the UDA's potential for violence although it murdered 100 people in 1972. UDA men were joining the British Army but the official response was that the UDA was channelling Protestant energies, which might otherwise have been disruptive, in a constructive and disciplined direction.

---

What do people think of this ?
Surely its ethnic cleansing that hitler/milosevic would of been proud of ?
Thank god the plan was scrapped for humanity sake but the fact that it was seriously considered shows how naeive the uk gov was at the time in dealing with the 'troubles'.

mike65

Interesting you highlight this story with a sectarian headline....

Its was obviously an "If all else fails" notion, it would also have meant forcibly moving Prodestants/unionists in the other direction into an enclave.

I wonder would the government down here have gone along with the idea for a second? I doubt it.

Mike.

rien_du_tout

Doesnt Typedef agree with something like this in principle. The repartitioning part anyway, maybe not the ethnic removal. But it is an example of what the British government were thinking at the time and kinda shows their want for a quick and clean solution which as we've seen isnt going to happen. Some republicans may probably try to use it to say "look what they were going to do to us" but I dont think even if it had been agreed to that it would have been implemented. or maybe it woulda been the spark for ireland to rise up together again?? probably not

seán

Typedef

Doesnt Typedef agree with something like this in principle

Doesn't he just. The repartitioning part, not the mass exodus part. Obviously expulsion of 500,000 people from the Northern State would never have worked, but a reworked border is not such an illogical proposition. Tell that to the Northeners though. I suppose when you grow up in a warzone, a siege mentality is all that you can understand and compromise is akin to capitulation.

Lets be real about this, the British & Irish governments were never really the obstacle to peace in Northern Ireland, it was the Northeners themselves, some of whom, don't seem to have moved on from Cromwell, let alone joined the rest of humanity in the 21st century.

Regards
Brian (my granny was Scots Presbyterian and I work with two English blokes) O'Donoghue.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

Originally posted by daveirl
Didn't they try the repartitioning thing way back in the 1920's? I thought that's what the Border Commision's intent was. I know the report was never released let alone implemented but wasn't that the intention?

That was the general idea. And it's the reason Collins et al supported the idea - they were cocksure that at least parts of Derry, Fermanagh and Armagh would be passed to the Free State, leaving the North in a position where it wouldn't be economically viable. In the end the commission recommended only small changes, including passing some of the south back to the statelet.

Everyone decided to sit on the report and forget all about it. Which was probably a good thing given their recommendations.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Originally posted by daveirl
Just like it is now! €4.5 billion in subvention per annum.

Well if we were in the Republic of Ireland to do, what we did in the past 30 years without E.U funds, perhaps, the IMF would have been called in to cope with our impending bankruptcy.
My view on that point as stated before, would be that the Norths infrastructure has been built up well also in the last 30 years , indeed much better than here in the South.
The UK's new found liking for regionalisation means that from now on, they are getting E.U funding to invest in regions like NI and Wales, Cornwall and such.

A lot of the UK spending in the North has been, "Troubles" related, ie huge security costs and compensation for bombed out business etc.

This is something thats reducing all the while, that the IRA are on Ceasefire and should that continue,most of the infrastructural funding there, will be EU related in one way or another.
mm

PHB

So much trouble would have been avoided if the Boundry commision had been sorted

How effective would it be to transfer border locations which have a large catholic majority to the republic and vice versa

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Scruff

i remember reading a couple of years back in the Irish Independent how a plan like this was found in the hand of Loyalists and was thought at the time to be their "doomsday plan" it included maps of the areas to be given to the republic, etc. in fact it was the exact same report as the British one.

Was shocked at first when i read it again the other day that it was actually a British government plan and not a Loyalist one. But then remembering all the collusion going on in those days between the Loyalists and the British Army etc i wasn't surprised at all that it would up in Loyalist hands

Typedef

It's interesting looking at the UK sometimes.

On the one had you have collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries and on the other hand you have right wing English nationalists like Margeret Thatcher making the Anglo-Irish agreement at the height of the 'troubles' (read war) an agreement which in effect dispels the notion of the UK being the soverign and ultimate power in the six counties, as it give the Republic a 'say' albeit small, in Northern affairs.

For me, I think that the Loyalists in the North, paint a picture that only the most rabid 'mainland' Unionist would agree with and it is only by virute of the fact that the UK is a larger entity then the Republic, that such pressure and international hostility can arise from such a minority view of Anglo-Irish relations.

Talliesin

The wording is interesting here. The fact that the plan would also have meant the expulsion of a large number of Protestants from the areas that were to be ceded to the Republic is being largely ignored.

One of the other proposals considered by the British Cabinet at the same time was to completely abandon any claim to the North-East and allow a united Irish Republic (indeed that seems to have been the only alternative to direct-rule seriously suggested when Stormont was suspended).

I hate selective reading. It's poor propaganda and completely useless history.

gurramok

Another proposal(from Sunday Independent) was if the irish gov of the time did not agree to the partition plan, the way to put pressure on the irish gov was to expel irish workers from uk !!

This idea was eventually dropped because of the logistics involved, like how could they tell if you are irish or not especially if you have an english accent on ya

DeVore

Sorry I thought this was relevant until I realised its from 30 years ago.

We should have a history Board I s'pose.

DeV.

mike65

Originally posted by DeVore
Sorry I thought this was relevant until I realised its from 30 years ago.

We should have a history Board I s'pose.

DeV.

Not a bad idea Dev! A forum open to all flamethrowers!

Mike.

gungho

hang on , we are talking about a plan here or more probably one of several possible plans - this never actually happend.
what did happen however was that after partition the southern statelets prodestant population - and they made up 25% of the population in the south was mysteriously reduced to a mere 3% approx. in a few years.

what happend to em ?

Meh

Originally posted by gungho
after partition the southern statelets prodestant population - and they made up 25% of the population in the south

More like 10%. But you're right, there still was a major reduction.

was mysteriously reduced to a mere 3% approx. in a few years.

what happend to em ?

There's nothing mysterious about it. One of the major factors in Southern Protestantism's decline was the Catholic Church's Ne Temere decree, which stated that all children of a mixed marriage must be brought up as Catholics. Another important factor was the higher Catholic birth rate, again due to Catholic doctrine. These two factors more than outweighed the higher emigration rate among Catholics in the Republic.

mike65

Originally posted by gungho
....what did happen however was that after partition the southern statelets prodestant population - and they made up 25% of the population in the south was mysteriously reduced to a mere 3% approx. in a few years.

what happend to em ?

The Catholic Church happened to them, that and lets face it they often did'nt feel welcome in they're own country so left for the US, Canada, Britain, Oz, New Zealand, South Africa...It took more than a few years though.

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

I do not normally look at a thing in the way that I have, to post the following.
But, Protestants on the whole, were and are treated the same as any other citizen of the "statelet" ROI, free state or whatever.
Unlike what happened in the North.
Locally though, there was the influence of the Catholic church, and the famous incident in south Wexford where all protestant business's were boycotted, back in the 50's due to a mixed marriage dispute....
But it was condemned and eventually stoped.

I'm sure, the protestant population of Iran, is suffering too, in terms of, what way the kids have to be brought up in mixed marriages.

The RC decree mentioned above applied worldwide, but of course it would have had a severe effect, in Ireland, what with young protestant males being seduced by the overwhelming fenian female population:p
mm

mike65

Originally posted by daveirl
Did Southern Protestants really have a hard time??? I know the Catholic Church had that rule about kids having to be brought up Catholic, but I know loads of Protestants and they never talk of any discrimination.

Perhaps in the initial days of the state, I don't know.

I suspect many Prodestants felt pressure that may not have been
there, but then things like the Fethard-on-Sea boycott did happen...

Mike.

gungho

well , i only ever worked in dublin for 6 months, ( being from co.down and living in england / canada for 15 years) and out of 12 of us one was a member of the church of ireland . and yep this dude never had no probs. but what he did say was that he never felt able to be , lets say , open about being a prodestant. of course most people assumed he was rc by default.
also, to hold a civil / government position in the republic ( until quite recently i think ) you had to speak irish - was this not a deliberate attempt top exclude prodestants ?
im just asking the question people , after all, most traffic on this subject is usually coming from the other direction.

cheers.

gungho

this is a point man - i could never resist those irish girls , though they seemed to be well able to resist me - i wonder why.

Victor

Given that, in particular, the (UK) civil service and military had a higher percentage of non-catholics, many of these appear to have left in the period 1911-1926 (whether due to WWI, the War of Independence or wanting to be part of the "mother country").

In practice and in line with other countries (UK in particular), I suspect many people of a protestant background became "No Religion" and maybe "Not Stated" (certainly from the 1960s). I don't have the raw data to analyse.

http://www.cso.ie/text/principalstats/cenrel1.html
http://www.cso.ie/text/principalstats/cenrel.html

Originally posted by gungho
and they made up 25% of the population in the south was mysteriously reduced to a mere 3% approx. in a few years.

Perhaps 25% of the island's population?

Originally posted by gungho
also, to hold a civil / government position in the republic ( until quite recently i think ) you had to speak irish - was this not a deliberate attempt top exclude prodestants ?

this is a non argument as everyone was taught Irish in school. I suspect the rule is still there (not sure) for the civil service itself (probably not for all state agencies, not for semi-state companies and state-funded sector).

gungho

ok - i must say you are all very well behaved on this site - well, thats my first impression anyway. but i saw on one thread some guy called a moderator locked the thread for no apparent reason at all - who are these moderators, why do they do that and how can you stand it - its not what im used to on my regular site.

gurramok

also, to hold a civil / government position in the republic ( until quite recently i think ) you had to speak irish - was this not a deliberate attempt top exclude prodestants ?

I think you will find many people here are discriminated against by default because of the 'irish' requirement for any public sector type job, I myself would fall into that category plus many others who were in my leaving cert class all of 10 yrs ago.

For example, the rate of dubliners joining the gardai is very low because of the extremely bad teaching of irish in schools

Originally posted by daveirl
Did Southern Protestants really have a hard time??? I know the Catholic Church had that rule about kids having to be brought up Catholic, but I know loads of Protestants and they never talk of any discrimination.

My grandfather was a dubliner protestant who married a catholic, so i guess my birth religion(catholic) was determined by this rule

mike65

In response to daveirl point...

My grandfather was a dubliner protestant who married a catholic, so i guess my birth religion(catholic) was determined by this rule

gurramok, I guess that means your family has been ethnicly cleansed...

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Originally posted by mike65
In response to daveirl point...
gurramok, I guess that means your family has been ethnicly cleansed...

Mike.

Well, not really, free thinking adults, who have one protestant parent, will always be more aware of that tradition than those, with both parents being catholic.
It would be open, to any catholic, brought up in this way, to "turn" to protestantism if they so wish.
And to my Knowledge, the Church of Ireland used give a grant to any catholic that wished to do so.
mm

Typedef

Originally posted by mike65
I suspect many Prodestants felt pressure that may not have been
there, but then things like the Fethard-on-Sea boycott did happen...

Mike.

Most of my Anglican or Lutheran (variant (x)) friends are in fact nationalists of some form or another, which is wierd, because if one was to believe nutters like Dr Paisley, Protestants in the South are a besieged and persecuted people.

Ok, so for historic reasons my Anglican/Lutheran (variant (x)) friends would probably be more pro-British or pro-EU then say my Catholic friends, but, that is a generalisation, that is easily invalidated by the first exception to the generalisation that rears it's head.

Douglas Hyde (the first President of Ireland) was Anglican, but moreover was one of the principal exponents of the language revivalists.

In any case 'Relgion' is a handy band wagon, for a 'conflict' that is more about nations and soceities vieing for power and resources, in my admitadly biased opinion.

gurramok

Originally posted by mike65
gurramok, I guess that means your family has been ethnicly cleansed...

nope, more like religiously cleansed if the term can be tolerated.
Family was and is of nationalist background 'ethnic Irish', heck the grandfather even fought in war of independence against the english !
Religion was and is being used as a handy band wagon as Typedef stated.

Typedef

Being an athiest, I don't give a rats about religion.

Truth be told, I'd be just as happy if the clerics were expelled from Ireland, but let's not go there.

Again I take the view the whole national identity question is fundamentally a fallacy.

The elites who send thousands or millions to fight for a nation also glean support and credo from their followers for doing so. So in a sense a very cynical view of 'nationalism' is that it is an appendage by which the elite of soceity can keep the masses deluded with.

Marx said "Relgion is the opium of the masses", so what is so different about the Nation? If, for example the Irish or British or (any) State was such a wonderful thing for it's citizens, then why would it send it's citizens out to fight for it? Why would a State allow it's citizens smoke or drive motorcycles or do any potentially dangerous activity?

Why should the 'elite' benefit from the milk of the State and be protected by the throngs of the nation? You see the Northern situation is a very handy way for both the British and the Irish to have (an enemy) a convienent target to vent frustation at, as opposed to venting that frustration at the government.

So in this regard, having 'some enemy' at the doorstep, helps to keep the elite in power. This point I feel is one reason why the Bush administration has and is engaging in war. War in the American context helps to distract people from the mess the Republican party made of the American economy.

Now you can deride me for that opinion, but if the USA was not in the midst of a "war on *ism", then would it not be likely the citizens of the US would be looking around and saying : "Hey how come all these people are loosing their jobs?".

Thus national strife and conflict is simply an engine of repression, used by the elite of each soceity to entrench those elite's control of that soceity. So nationalism is simply an elaborate exercise in mob control.

Thanks, and please don't forget to vote.

Victor

Originally posted by Man
Well, not really, free thinking adults, who have one protestant parent, will always be more aware of that tradition than those, with both parents being catholic. It would be open, to any catholic, brought up in this way, to "turn" to protestantism if they so wish. And to my Knowledge, the Church of Ireland used give a grant to any catholic that wished to do so.

A freind and his siblings come from a mixed marriage, the boys are RC, the girls Greek Orthodox.

mike65

Originally posted by gurramok
nope, more like religiously cleansed if the term can be tolerated.

I'm not sure if thats any better...

Religion was and is being used as a handy band wagon as Typedef stated.

True enough, and like Typedef I dont have a religious bone in my body.

Mike.

seaghdhas

I had a reply but through the brilliant unintelligence of people who couldn't read a number if it was tatooed to their forehead, it's now entirely lost.

Basically;

Marx said "Relgion is the opium of the masses", so what is so different about the Nation? If, for example the Irish or British or (any) State was such a wonderful thing for it's citizens, then why would it send it's citizens out to fight for it?

Why would a State allow it's citizens smoke or drive motorcycles or do any potentially dangerous activity?

There is naivity to saying 'but the state does work for it's people' in every case, it can happen that a state does more good than bad for it's people. I agree with Typedef's overall point, and that a state allows to happen things that harms it's citizens, settling into a life where accepting there is no utopia is no harm. Or have I just pointed out the obvious?

Maybe but I just wanted to give out about that lack of grey stuff.

gungho

well this is great - cause i came to this site with a prejudice - that you would all be a bunch of , and please excuse my lingo - boston micks / plastic paddies of the fields of athenrye generation with all the assumptions that go with those names - i must apologise , sorry guys.
i had not really expected to stay here long but im totally wrong - this is a really good debate and its not one sided either. i usually reside on a music site , and its my only forum - so cool stuff.

gungho

yes - in response to some stuff up there a couple of points :

most of the catholics i know from northern ireland are unionist.

ian paisley spends most of his time attacking the presbyterian church in ireland than the rc church . ( you can get live ip sermons from this site called - sermonaudio - or something , ill find it - its actully quite interesting to be able to hear it live ).

a question : if we had a united ireland - what would the govt. be -cause it would kill all the established parties north and south. this is intersting cause after reunion the whole senario would change.

fisifan01

i agree with typedef 100% i was born an anglican or protestant(now atheist). i am fully proud to be irish so are my family who are devout to their faith. i am in no way pro unionist. i certainly do not consider myself to be british i am not a gers fan either. i am proud to learn the irish language. many of irelands greatest patriots were protestant. Wolfe tone, emmett, parnell, lady gregory, hyde. yeats our national poet was anglican. i dunno why there are ignoramoses who go around accussing us of being british invaders. and other stuff. but as typedef says religion is in many cases just a bandwagon which people use as an excuse for hatred and conflict

Originally posted by Victor
A freind and his siblings come from a mixed marriage, the boys are RC, the girls Greek Orthodox.

Today, that is actually, the most common solution, in mixed marriages.The Catholic churches edicts are generally ignored and rightly so imho.
It can be very difficult, I'd imagine though, to bring siblings, up in different religions, very confusing , especially, when the brother is being thought one thing and a sister, the other.
It would water down the "truth" thought in either belief, especially if the different religions had different views on God and how the bible in interpreted.
mm

Originally posted by fisifan01
i agree with typedef 100% i was born an anglican or protestant(now atheist). i am fully proud to be irish so are my family who are devout to their faith. i am in no way pro unionist. i certainly do not consider myself to be british i am not a gers fan either. i am proud to learn the irish language. many of irelands greatest patriots were protestant. Wolfe tone, emmett, parnell, lady gregory, hyde. yeats our national poet was anglican. i dunno why there are ignoramoses who go around accussing us of being british invaders. and other stuff. but as typedef says religion is in many cases just a bandwagon which people use as an excuse for hatred and conflict

Your views there sum up the evolution, that has occured since independence.
If by quirk of fate, your family were living in the six counties and protestant, they would most likely be unionist.
This whole unionism thing in my view has been hi-jacked over the last 80 years by protestant (catholic hating) religous Zealots.
They have propagated, their views on the masses, helped on by the atrocious IRA campaign up untill the GFA.
There was no room, due to those factors, in that time frame for the kind of evolution( in Protestant attitudes to the State ) that occured in the South to happen.
mm