At what point were the Ulster loyalists forced to abandon their ambitions of sovereignty and embrace English dominion to save themselves from the Irish?

I don't buy the paddy lie that millions of people got duped into fighting this war just to be under the UK

>>17815503 (OP)
>abandon their ambitions of sovereignty
They didn't have ambitions of sovereignty.

Their goal was to prevent Home Rule, because they believed it would bring a final end to the privileged position Protestants held in Irish society. Sovereignty aka independence was never really on their cards; the furthest the "plan" went was to try and indefinitely prevent Home Rule through threat of rebellion. The outbreak of the Irish War of Independence changed that. Where before it was;
>okay, we just have to stop home rule
>or maybe, we can get our own parliament and then a second one down south?
it suddenly became
>there is a fight for the entire island right now and britain is not winning
so when the whispers of a "Northern Ireland" as a distinct political entity emerged, they decided to grab as much land and power as they could-to the frustration of Britain.

There were widespread protests and meetings amongst the rest of Irish Unionism (most notably in the border countries) who noted that;
>if all of us unite in an Irish Parliament, Unionism will be an incredibly powerful political bloc which is potentially kingmaking
>we will also retain our strong ties to britain

>but if you split off with this random patch of land, all Unionism outside that land will immediately become irrelevant
But Craig and Co. did not care; they adopte their "what we have we hold" attitude and then accepted Northern Ireland-a harsher and more servere home rule than anything that was ever previously on the cards. Most of the people involved (British or Irish) saw it for exactly what it was, but with the Civil War in full swing nobody really knew how to solve it.
>>17815778
If you mean WW1, that's exactly what happened. That's the Redmondites pushed the Volunteers to mass-enslist too.

>>17816131
Before someone swings in to talk about religious discrimination and so on, it is clear to anyone with even a basic grasp on the history of partition that the very worst instances of sectarianism in the Free State/Republic of Ireland paled in comparison to the everyday reality of Northern Ireland.

In the infamous "Catholic years" of "the south", the reality is that it wasn't really a Catholic state as much as it was a conservative one; it was liberals, socialists and republicans that struggled, not Protestants.
>1926; Protestants are 7% of the population
>1926; Protestants accounted for 40% of lawyers, 50% of bankers, and the vast majority of large farmers were owned by Protestants
The population decline that most point to had two main factors;
>military families
who emigrated, obviously. many to northern ireland, most to Britain.
>mixed marriages
Douglas Hyde (Protestant) became the first President of Ireland.

10 years later, Unionist politicians were openly boasting about refusing to hire or work with Catholics-despite warnings from Carson and others that this attitude would lead to the ruination of Northern Ireland. They were right.

In 1942, an English Protestant (W. L. Allen) was hired to be Town Clerk of Belfast-but then had the offer taken back when it was discovered his wife was Catholic. In Fermanagh, a majority Catholic county, of 77 school bus drivers only 3 were Catholic.

Of the 370 people employed to Fermanagh government offices, 8.6% were Catholic; with 100% of the Housing Department being Protestant, and 98.6% of the Welfare Department being the same. When it was realised that no social housing was built in Fermanagh between 1921 and 1945, the Unionist MP for Enniskillen said in 1948
>"I would ask the meeting to authorise their executive to adopt whatever plans and take whatever steps, however drastic, to wipe out this nationalist majority."

absolute shitshow from day 1.

>>17815778
>this war
Ah, I realise I may have been very stupid and not realised you meant the War of Independence.

If so, I wouldn't call it being duped, and I certainly wouldn't call it millions. Sinn Féin's manifesto for the 1918 election was crystal clear;
>Withdraw Irish Representation from the British Parliament and opposing any attempt by Britain to legislate for Ireland
>To make use of "any and every means available to render importent the power of England"
>Establish our own constituent assembly
>Appeal to the Paris Peace Conference
They won a landslide victory, and did all 4 of these.
At its absolute maximum size, the IRA was never more than 13,000-15,000 people. Yes, they were bolstered by Cumann na mBan and the ICA-but both of those were much smaller.

Most of the people the IRA killed were British Security Forces, and the vast majority of civilians killed were killed by those Security Forces. Exceptions exist, of course, typically through the killing of suspected informers (or failing that, those close to them). Most of the "action" of the war was in fact simply rendering as much of Ireland "ungovernable" as possible, at which point Republican alternatives to local institutions were set up. Ironically, it was people like De Valera who moaned and cried about it not being an "honourable" war, only to then do a 180 and declare unilateral support for infinity IRA raids when he realised he was gonna get sidelined.

>>17815503 (OP)
they should have just done a population swap like Greece and turkey did

>>17815503 (OP)
It honestly seems the UK crippled itself on behalf of the Ulster whatever, Churchill was right giving up the treaty ports was retarded.

Honestly the best thing for Britain would've been to give Southern Ireland Northern Ireland in exchange for having the treaty ports in perpetuity, they have all the advantages of holding Ireland and it's strategic military value without having to tardwrangle Irish mfs, the loyalists could have been supplied by their british brothers at the treaty ports with guns bombs and weapons and inflicted terrorism onto irish instead of innocent brits suffering, also unlike cowardly micks refusing to vote or politick in parliament the loyalist minority will unapologetically partake in electoralism

Genuinely giving away the military bases/treaty ports but keeping hold of the sectarian racewar terrorism shithole was Britain's biggest mistake.

>>17816917
>Honestly the best thing for Britain would've been to give Southern Ireland Northern Ireland in exchange for having the treaty ports
the best thing that Britain could have done would have been a full genocide of the Irish after their war of independence began, followed by the forcible relocation of a few million bongs into Ireland to occupy the now depopulated land. Of course nobody in Britain would have stood for such measures, but the truth is if you want to truly win a war on your terms you have to learn to set aside things like morality which only get in the way of victory.

>>17816917
>Honestly the best thing for Britain would've been to give Southern Ireland Northern Ireland in exchange for having the treaty ports in perpetuity

Never would have happened. Britain did believe that the Free State and Northern Ireland would unify in the future. They underestimated both the sheer malice and incompetence of the Ulster Unionists, and also failed to anticipate the rise of Fianna Fáil as an alternative to the "friendly" Cumann na nGaedheal.

Can't really be overstated how ludicrous a decision it was to decide to try keep the Ulster Unionists since most of the blame for the destabilisation of Irish politics can be placed at their feet. Had Britain listened to the Irish Parliamentary Party instead of seething about Sinn Féin (a political irrelevance until 1917+1918) then Ireland today would probably be an even friendlier version of Canada or Australia. Even as things are, the Redmondites continued to exist in the Free State and there was a powerful pro-British bloc.

It died out in the end, of course, partly because all the other Unionists wanted a retarded Orange fiefdom of their own to fuck around with for 50 years until their own autism caused it to explode-at which point they yet again called Britons to come die to save them.

>>17816921
People like you should be skinned alive.

>>17817013
not if YOU were skinned alive first alongside your family of course

>>17816921
This really isn't true either.

Following the initial attacks by the IRA-carried out by Dan Breen and Co. on the their own accord, many were outraged. The papers will filled with condemnation of *murders*, not celebrating a victorious first strike against the Empire.

The Dáil too was divided; the reality that a fight for independence meant a *fight* for independence dawned on them. It wasn't until March 1921 (over a year later) that the Dáil formally "declared war" on Britain; most of the war had been fought by that point, and the logistics of it well underway. However, it did escalate massively from that point on. The point here being that the Dáil-basically the only thing holding the entire revolution together-was very clearly not working hand in hand with the IRA, but rather many key figures within it played two roles; politcal and military. Had Britain seen the writing on the wall and immediately invited the Dáil to negotiations, it isn't difficult to imagine a much more moderate outcome.

Instead, Britain took the attitude of "we must destroy these evil rebels" and proceeded to lose and lose and lose until suddenly half the country was de-facto independent with day to day normality and life carrying on as if Britain had already left. Had pragmatic voices in Britain actually prevailed, most of the violence could have been avoided. But then again, if there were pragmatic voices controlling Britain, none of this would have happened because Home Rule would have been granted in the late 19th Century.

>>17816939
>It died out in the end, of course, partly because all the other Unionists wanted a retarded Orange fiefdom of their own to fuck around with for 50 years until their own autism caused it to explode-at which point they yet again called Britons to come die to save the-ACK!

>>17817112
I don't know if you're some seething fag from /int/ but I genuinely dunno what your point is.

Northern Ireland didn't collapse because of anti-Irish sentiments in the US? Huh?

>>17817119
>I don't know if you're some seething fag from /int/ but I genuinely dunno what your point is.
That ulster loyalists are based and that the land is ultimately theirs by right
>called britons died to come save them
They literally are british?

>>17817131
>That ulster loyalists are based
I guess if you base everything on LARPing on the internet.

In truth, Ulster "Loyalism" as opposed to Unionism came apart at the seams in the 1980s with even the likes of Gusty Spence realising they'd fucked it.
>They literally are british
If you actually knew anything about Ulster Loyalism rather than shadowboxing on the internet, you would know that while they do consider themselves British-they see people in Britain as very different and separate to them.

They have a deep seated mistrust of Westmisnter that goes back a long time, and a general mistrust of England that dates back to the reformation. Presbyterian ministers used to denounce the snakes in Anglicanism as only slightly less evil than the Pope.

But whatever, anon. I know you are not here for history, and that you see these things like Marvel Superhero films.

>>17817141
Ulster Loyalists weren't the ones bombing english pubs and town centres
They are based.
>If you actually knew anything about Ulster Loyalism rather than shadowboxing on the internet, you would know that while they do consider themselves British-they see people in Britain as very different and separate to them.
They are indistinguishable culturally from lower class britons
>They have a deep seated mistrust of Westmisnter that goes back a long time, and a general mistrust of England that dates back to the reformation
No they don't lmao
If they had le mistrust of england then why did englishmen serve alongside them and become Ulster loyalist folk heroes? Ulster loyalists really distrust england which is why they celebrate englishmen like george walker and john mitchelburne
>Presbyterian ministers used to denounce the snakes in Anglicanism as only slightly less evil than the Pope.
Do you think all english people now and historically were anglican? Do you not know what dissenters are? are you retarded?
And presbyterian scots allied with the english in the english civil wars and were seen as english

>>17817163
>Ulster Loyalists weren't the ones bombing english pubs and town centres
They were setting off bombs in Northern Ireland years before the Provos existed, though.

The IRA took their campaign to Britain to force them to talk. It worked.
>They are indistinguishable culturally from lower class britons
Lower class? What are you, some ponce from London? It's a point of pride that Ulster Protestants are culturally distinct; does the 12th of July get a front page spread and a 4 page pullout in newspapers in England? Yes, they are British-but they aren't English.
>No they don't lmao
Yes, they do. That's where the UDA's doomsday plans in the 90s came from. It's where the UVF came from. It's where the entire ideology of Ulster Unionism comes from.

I didn't say they hated all English people. I said they deeply mistrusted Westminster and knew full well that England doesn't really care about them. This is entry-level stuff, lad. Have you ever read a single book on Unionism written by a Unionist?
>Do you think all english people now and historically were anglican?
No, but since dissenting Protestants in Ulster faced a limited imposition of the penal laws and had their own strong theological disagreements with Anglicanism in the 17th and 18th Centuries it isn't that hard to understand.
>Do you not know what dissenters are?
See above. The fact that most Ulster Protestants are dissenters is a key root of where many of the "dissenter politics" such as Grattan's Patriots, Tone's United Irishmen, and indeed the later Ulster Unionists come from.
>And presbyterian scots allied with the english in the english civil wars and were seen as english
Probably because most of them had literally only arrived in Ulster from Britain in the last 20 years you absolute spanner.

Are you getting all your knowledge from wikipedia or something? I would be happy to give you some really good books on Unionism so you stop embarassing yourself.

>>17817184
>They were setting off bombs in Northern Ireland years before the Provos existed, though.
Wasn't against englishmen so it's really not my problem
>The IRA took their campaign to Britain to force them to talk. It worked.
Not really seeing as northern ireland still belongs to britain
>Lower class? What are you, some ponce from London? It's a point of pride that Ulster Protestants are culturally distinct; does the 12th of July get a front page spread and a 4 page pullout in newspapers in England? Yes, they are British-but they aren't English.
You are free to search up any city or town in the northwest of england accompanied with the terms 12th july and orange parade and you will find marchers there
>Yes, they do. That's where the UDA's doomsday plans in the 90s came from. It's where the UVF came from. It's where the entire ideology of Ulster Unionism comes from.
Having a distrust of the government is not the same as hating the country the government is supposed to represent
Far right englishmen hate the government yet they don't consider themselves not english
>No, but since dissenting Protestants in Ulster faced a limited imposition of the penal laws and had their own strong theological disagreements with Anglicanism in the 17th and 18th Centuries it isn't that hard to understand.
So did dissenters in england you spastic

>le scottish presbyterians hated le english
>which is why scottish presbyterians were allied with the english in the marian civil war and fought alongside english troops
the absolute state of irish "historical enthusiasts"
The only reason scotland never went catholic is because the english helped scottish protestants

>>17817215
>Wasn't against englishmen so it's really not my problem
I can empathise with British people opposing the IRA on the basis that they suffered at their hands. I think someone would have to be underage or severaly retarded to not be able to flip that around.
>Not really seeing as northern ireland still belongs to britain
Don't be obtuse, you know what I meant; more or less immediately they opened channels with the IRA again after Thatcher tried to LARP as le epic iron lady and unsuccessfully ignore them to death.
>You are free to search up any city or town in the northwest of england accompanied with the terms 12th july and orange parade and you will find marchers there
There are marches in the Republic of Ireland, too. But I wouldn't say people in Cork are culturally indistinguishable from Ulster Unionists. Orangemen maybe-but that's the point. It's a culture. Not everyone is part of it.
>Having a distrust of the government is not the same as hating the country the government is supposed to represent
Did I say hate? No. I said they didn't trust them, and that this feeds into both their identity and their politics. Ulster Unionists don't consider themself English. In fact, most people in Northern Ireland don't identify as British; only 42.8% do. Most of the rest identify either as Irish, or as disticntively Northern Irish. (2021 Census)
>So did dissenters in england you spastic
Jesus, how are you still missing the point?

Ulster Protestants are dissenters, in Ireland-a place which was overwhelmingly Catholic. They (understandably) therefore adopt a siege mentality, and over time lose trust in Westminster's dedication to protecting their interests. We see this manifest multiple times through the centuries. In the 1920s, Presbyterian ministers rallied against the Anglican Church because over the border it was throwing its weight behind the Free State. "The Witness", one of the biggest Presbyterian Newspapers, is a great source for this.

>>17817218
>le scottish presbyterians hated le english
I didn't say this. I said the don't trust England to look after them.

I genuinely thought the Ireland Derangement Syndrome on /his/ had faded, but it seems people still love to scream and cry about this place kek

>>17817229
>I can empathise with British people opposing the IRA on the basis that they suffered at their hands. I think someone would have to be underage or severaly retarded to not be able to flip that around.
I don't really think ukranians care about russian civilians getting killed. Or vice versa. Simple as.
And it's not like i expect an irish catholic in northern ireland to feel sad about british people getting killed by ira bombs. From their point of view they are in the right.
>There are marches in the Republic of Ireland, too. But I wouldn't say people in Cork are culturally indistinguishable from Ulster Unionists. Orangemen maybe-but that's the point. It's a culture. Not everyone is part of it.
The idea that because one group of people doesn't celebrate something it doesn't mean they're a coherent group is retarded.
Are people from the west country not english because they celebrate wassailing while the rest of england doesn't?
>Did I say hate? No. I said they didn't trust them, and that this feeds into both their identity and their politics. Ulster Unionists don't consider themself English
Never once stated they did
But they also don't have some kind of seething hatred of england. They fly english flags at orange parades in northern ireland itself.

>anybody critcising /his/'s local paddy spergouts against ulster protestants has irish derangement
The absolute state
And to tell me that english people don't know what orange parades are while there are orange parades in my town in the north west is quite hilarious

>>17817251
>I don't really think ukranians care about russian civilians gettin
That's not what I mean. As you say; an Irish Republican would support action taken against Britain by the IRA. But here >>17817215 you completely ignore the context of how a conflict starts, because those guys didn't personally fuck you over. I think that's a bit reductive, is it not? Should England have just pulled out of Ireland completely in the 1500s because nobody in Ireland had any plans to invade England? Should Cromwell have not bothered coming here?
>Are people from the west country not english because they celebrate wassailing while the rest of england doesn't
That's not at all what I mean. Again; they would have no qualms calling themselves British, but they wouldn't consider themselves English. If we're painting with a very macro brush, I guess, but we aren't.
>But they also don't have some kind of seething hatred of england.
No, they don't. But ask 10 random Loyalists if they think England has their best interests at heart, and they'll say no.

The entire ideology of Ulster Unionism is rooted in their belief that if left to it, England would abandon them. This isn't some sort of craft Shinner lie; it's the attitude espoused by generation after generation of Unionists. They wish it wasn't like this, of course, but they know it to be and it's why they have the political identity and ideas that they have.
>>17817253
>english people don't know what orange parades are
didn't say this either. hard luck anon. but thank you for bumping the thread with a post that makes you seem incredibly dense. is the spergout in the room with us right now?

>>17816139
>pic
partition objectively saved these people and their culture, what's to stop the povvo irish overruning there more industrial and rich towns undercutting their labor and outnumbering them in their own homelands if even dublin an english city for english people got overrun and replaced the anglo-irish responsible for all the islands high culture now extinct, the normans and all other identities dead and buried what hope would the orangeman without autonomy, state protection and the british army?

More insidiously Britain being on the island forced co-operation kept them honest, kept them speaking English, so without that English dies.

Many of those Catholic areas were illiterate Gaelic speaking tribesmen, bullied into humanity and modernity by the genorous orangeman, but without partition they wouldn't be modernised but gaeltachts, indian reservations in the heart of britain subsidised, indeed gaelic could spread seemingly as something beyond religion, in actuality to assimilate all the civilized men on the isle.

Indeed, without partition civilization would be destroyed the island a monolingually gaelic speaking nativist tribal shithole isolated from the world, least of all britain or europe an albino papua new guinea off the coast of britain

>>17817267
>That's not what I mean. As you say; an Irish Republican would support action taken against Britain by the IRA. But here >>17817215 (You) you completely ignore the context of how a conflict starts, because those guys didn't personally fuck you over. I think that's a bit reductive, is it not? Should England have just pulled out of Ireland completely in the 1500s because nobody in Ireland had any plans to invade England? Should Cromwell have not bothered coming here?
Cromwell only came over to ireland because the irish massacred english and scottish protestants.
The Tudors only started invading ireland because it could be used (and was used) as a staging ground for their enemies.
So both of your points are wrong.
>That's not at all what I mean. Again; they would have no qualms calling themselves British, but they wouldn't consider themselves English. If we're painting with a very macro brush, I guess, but we aren't.
And they don't identify as welsh yet i've seen welsh flags flown at orange marches in northern ireland.
>No, they don't. But ask 10 random Loyalists if they think England has their best interests at heart, and they'll say no.
You realise by "england" they mean the english government, right?
>didn't say this either. hard luck anon. but thank you for bumping the thread with a post that makes you seem incredibly dense. is the spergout in the room with us right now?
You started it by sperging out about ulster protestants in your original reply to OP
Your hatred of ulster protestants is incredibly blatant in your posts despite your attempts to seem netural and academic.

>>17817279
I was about to reply quite sincerely to your post with information about how labour disputes between the existant Catholic and Protestant workforce was in fact happening long before partition-best seen in the linen trade around Lurgan/Portadown. Any attempt to actually foster cooperation between these workers was smashed by Unionist leaders in 1907, 1919, and again in 1932; the 1932 one being over something as slight as both Protestant and Catholic workers striking for outdoor relief.

But then I read the rest of your post. Your understanding of the role the Orange Order played in Ireland for most of its history is clearly lacking. The Orange Order still exists in the Republic of Ireland and isn't nearly as reviled as it is in Northern Ireland-because in the Republic of Ireland it is closer to a religious fraternity, while in Northern Ireland it remains interlinked with sectarian politics. I'd highly recommend Peter Gibbon's books if you can find them somewhere, they're great for this.

>>17817285
>So both of your points are wrong.
Only in both of those cases, the violence went both ways. The atrocities against Protestants stemmed from atrocities against Catholics, all of which stemmed from the failed coup in 1641, which itself stemmed from a failure to implement the Graces.
>And they don't identify as welsh yet i've seen welsh flags flown at orange marches in northern ireland.
You'll see all sorts of flags. As other anons have said, the Orange Order doesn't only exist in northeastern Ulster. Sorry if I'm not understanding what you mean by this.
>You realise by "england" they mean the english government, right?
Yeah. That's what I've been saying. Like when Republicans say "Brits Out", they don't mean everyone who's name doesn't have a fada in it needs to drown in the Irish sea. They see English people (and Scottish, and Welsh) as people they share a country with, but they don't see them as the same as them. They distrust the British government-that's why I kept saying *Westminster.*
>You started it by sperging out about ulster protestants in your original reply to OP
I think the word "spergout" has lost all meaning. I posted information which I believe to be relevant, since one of the first things people usually try to suggest is that Northern Ireland was founded on the principles of religious liberties or to prevent sectarianism against Protestants. Reality couldn't be farther from the truth.
>Your hatred of ulster protestants is incredibly blatant in your posts despite your attempts to seem netural and academic
I'm afraid you've completely made that up, anon. I wouldn't say I have any particular strong feeling of "Ulster Protestants" but I do absolutely love their history, which is why I have made so many posts and threads about it. Judging from your posts, it is you who harbours a very clear disdain for Irish Catholics which heavily influences how you percieve history.

>>17817313
>Like when Republicans say "Brits Out", they don't mean everyone who's name doesn't have a fada in it needs to drown in the Irish sea.
NTA but cope this is like saying when the kkk insulted blacks inbetween slaughtering them was just a civil disagreement with Washington DC against DEI or Wokeness, no the kkk were genocidal racists towards blacks as the Green supremacist IRA is to the British and White Europeans.

>>17817313
>Yeah. That's what I've been saying. Like when Republicans say "Brits Out", they don't mean everyone who's name doesn't have a fada in it needs to drown in the Irish sea. They see English people (and Scottish, and Welsh) as people they share a country with, but they don't see them as the same as them. They distrust the British government-that's why I kept saying *Westminster.*
Apart from when ulster protestants were subject to massacres. Like in scullabogue
>I think the word "spergout" has lost all meaning. I posted information which I believe to be relevant, since one of the first things people usually try to suggest is that Northern Ireland was founded on the principles of religious liberties or to prevent sectarianism against Protestants. Reality couldn't be farther from the truth.
Nope, I don't deny that northern ireland was founded as a protestant supremacist state.
>I'm afraid you've completely made that up, anon. I wouldn't say I have any particular strong feeling of "Ulster Protestants" but I do absolutely love their history, which is why I have made so many posts and threads about it. Judging from your posts, it is you who harbours a very clear disdain for Irish Catholics which heavily influences how you percieve history.
Maybe if they didn't immigrate and form seperate communities like they have done in glasgow and liverpool then maybe they wouldn't be the subject of my scorn. You didn't see french huguenots do this or flemish people. even wogs from jamaica do this less than the irish
The only reason scottish independence exists is due to irishmen using the issue of scottish nationalism (which was nonexistent for hundreds of years) as a proxy for their hatred of the british. same with them with the "scouse not english" shit they do.

>>17817326
But it isn't cope. The IRA do not want to wipe out all Protestants, and they never did.

If they did, they wouldn't have ruthlessly brutalised those who tried to take the group down that path; this isn't because they were golden idols of morality, but because as the literal first Chief of Staff of the Provos said-sectarianism is a dead end.

Most of the people the IRA killed were British Security Forces. The number of people killed in sectarian killings by the IRA during the Troubles was 130; aka, people killed simply for being Protestant. This is in comparison to 718 by Loyalists. Since Loyalist groups rarely took individual responsibility for these killings (for obvious reasons), we'll round up the IRA number to include all other Republican belligerents-which still doesn't even come close, barely scratching 200. Not insiginificant-but very telling.

>>17817337
they tried to kill english protestants with the chimpouts of the warrington bombings and birmingham pub bombings

>>17817330
>Apart from when ulster protestants were subject to massacres. Like in scullabogue
There were Catholics among the dead there too.

And in a strikingly similar case to the often mentioned 1641 atrocities; the truth is that massacres breed masscres. It was the 18th Century; people heard that a group of Catholics were slaughtered indiscriminately, and did the same. All of this is in the years following the years and years of agarian sectarian violence.

Strange example.
>Nope, I don't deny that northern ireland was founded as a protestant supremacist state.
Fair enough, anon.
>Maybe if they didn't immigrate and form seperate communities like they have done in glasgow and liverpool
I guess I get that, but on the other hand it does really just stem back to historical animosity. Irish immigrants were usually poorly treated-unsurprising, since they were often mongolot rural labourers with no skills that flooded any labour market and which inevitably caused tension.

I don't want to sit and wax lyrical about how everyone through all of history should have shrugged and simply gotten along without question, but as you say with the "scouse not english" it's usually just a case of local historical tensions between working class communities passing down the "us and them" to each generation.

I have quite a negative view of Scottish nationalism myself, but I don't think this is the board for it I guess.

>>17817341
We go go tit-for-tat all day here about incidents which killed civilians, anon. I'm afraid if we're tallying it up, the IRA do not come out as they guys who seem most intent on targeting them.

However, Warrington is not a good example because even on the Fall's Road people were scratching their head at how retarded it was. They gave a 30 minute warning to clear a huge area-which was far less time than was typical for the Provos. Britain doesn't shy away from collateral damage in its wars to this day, so I guess the Provos didn't either.

A far better example is Kingsmill; it was earlier in the conflict, prior to long war, and at a time when the Provisional IRA had lofty ambitions for Éire Nua. It was """revenge""" for the killigns in Whitecross and Ballydougan a while prior, but still showed that some in the IRA were very willing to shoot people because of their faith and thus assumed identity.

But I think judging causes/political movements or indeed even insurgent groups based on individual actions rather than the broader scope, that's a very fast way to have zoomers proudly and loudly declare that the Provos dindu nuffin.

>>17817343
>I guess I get that, but on the other hand it does really just stem back to historical animosity. Irish immigrants were usually poorly treated-unsurprising, since they were often mongolot rural labourers with no skills that flooded any labour market and which inevitably caused tension.
>I don't want to sit and wax lyrical about how everyone through all of history should have shrugged and simply gotten along without question, but as you say with the "scouse not english" it's usually just a case of local historical tensions between working class communities passing down the "us and them" to each generation.
>I have quite a negative view of Scottish nationalism myself, but I don't think this is the board for it I guess.
Irish immigrants weren't treated poorly
Arthur Conan Doyle was irish yet he was britain's most popular writer.
The idea of widespread anti irish sentiment never existed. The no dogs no irish signs have been proven as bullshit.
Catholics in glasgow will wax on about how scottish they are and about how their poor scottish ancestors suffered under the british redcoats while at the same time flying irish flag. All of it is a proxy battle against the british
They are scum and need to go back to ireland if they love it so much

>>17817361
I think that's a bit much.

The extent of anti-Irish sentiment is exaggerated (the "no blacks, no dogs, no irish shit was mostly a myth, for example) but to suggest there was none is silly.

There are exceptions, obviously, but where there are tensions there are tight-knit communities and tight-knit communities often pass that through generations. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, but it is what it is.

I do find it very funny that Scotland has this weird huge group that basically LARP as Irish Republicans. You won't see a single argument out of me about it. If they stuck to their broad identity sure, but they generally act like they are a direct extension of the Falls Road kek

>>17817019
Wouldn't be some faggot like you doing it anyway that's for sure. We all know the sort of phenotype and specimens behind the sort of comments like yours, weak mouthy little men.

>>17817422
>Wouldn't be some faggot like you doing it anyway that's for sure.
as long as the deed is done, is what matters. True strength is not in muscle but in determination and perseverance, the spirit if you will.

>>17816131
>Unionism will be an incredibly powerful political bloc
I think I've seen this before. Was there really much pro-British sentiment in Ireland after partition that it'd not have just been republicans and then ulster unionists? Seems like the 1918 elections paints a different story.

>>17819340
Absolutely there was. Firstly, there was the church; all of the major churches in Ireland favoured good relations with England. The Church of Ireland Gazette spent most of 1922 and the rest of the 1920s shilling for the Free State and how fantastic it was; they (like many other aspects of Irish society) believed that the scarier parts of the revolutionary movement could now be curbed and replaced with nice friendly home-grown conservatism.

Remember; Sinn Féin in 1918 was an umbrella party for all nationalists. It started off as a party that supported an Austro-Hungarian approach to Britain and Ireland, and it was only when it was scapegoated for 1916 that people from all sorts started flocking to it.

The Irish Free State attended multiple Imperial Conferences in 1923, 1926, and 1930; they completely embraced their role as a dominion and any notion of the republic was abandoned.

People forget there were the likes of Ernest Blythe-an Irish Nationalist from Ulster who supported Irish language revival but who was ruthlessly opposed to Irish Republicanism. He was against partition too, and was Sinn Féin's TD for North Monaghan in that election you posted. There was also the Redmondite leftovers in the National League Party, a broadly conservative party aimed at attracting both Unionists and old IPP members with Anglophile politics.

Most of its people and voters ended up with Cumann na nGaedheal, which became today's Fine Gael when it merged with the Blueshirts (Pro-Treaty military veterans toying with Mussolini inspired fascism) and the National Centre Party, which also inherited many old IPP politics.

Add to this mix a huge bloc of Anglophile Unionists in the northeast, and it's not hard to see how the political landscape of Ireland would have been very far from even having a "Republican" majority.