Madam, - The recent extensive discourse on Easter 1916 in your Letters columns misses three vitally important points; the context in which the Rising took place, the motivation of its leaders and its subsequent influence on (particularly) Irish nationalist opinion.
Firstly, the Rising took place in the middle of the biggest and bloodiest war that had ever taken place in the world. In 1916 young men from Britain and Ireland, led by a largely incompetent officer class, were being slaughtered daily in their thousands in France and Belgium. An insurrection in Ireland could have called forth only one possible response: the crushing of the rebellion and the arrest and execution of its leaders. In view of the massive sacrifice being made by the soldiers fighting in the First World War and their families, no less a response would have satisfied public opinion in Britain or, indeed, in much of Ireland. This consideration alone certainly outweighed any countervailing ones, such as the likely effect of the execution of the leaders on nationalist feeling in Ireland. An astute leader like the British Prime Minister Herbert Asquith was certainly aware of the dilemma he faced.
Secondly, the leaders of the Rising were politically perceptive men who certainly knew what the consequences of their action would be: vigorous suppression of the Rising and the arrest of its leaders to be quickly followed by courts-martial and executions. They knew the Rising meant for them almost inevitable death. It seems also that they dismissed the granting of Home Rule not so much because they mistrusted the British but rather because they believed that independence achieved by armed struggle would be more valuable than that achieved by the tedious rigmarole of parliamentary procedure. In short, the element of blood sacrifice invested the cause of Irish separatism with a sacred and mystical quality that the tedium of constitutional politics failed to do.
Thirdly, not the least consequence of this was that any retrospections would be characterised much more by gush and emotion than by rational reflection; such as, that if the Rising had not taken place the partition of Ireland would have been less likely. To air such a thought in the decades following the Rising was to insult the memory of those who died. Viewed in this way the actions of the leaders of 1916 bear comparison with those of suicide-bombers and hunger-strikers. The motivation and intended effect on the feelings of people were similar in kind and different only in degree to that of suicide bombers. What is importantly common to both is the immense emotional appeal of martyrdom. It has the powerful effect of repelling rational discussion. The sacred quality is essentially manipulative and also undemocratic.
When I was a teenager growing up in Northern Ireland in the 1960s I was struck by both how the 50th anniversary of Easter 1916 was celebrated in a very uncritical way that ignored the loss of life involved and the effect that its celebration might have on relations between the two communities there; this was a time of peace in Northern Ireland when community relations were beginning to improve. President McAleese, who was also a young person growing up in Northern Ireland at the time, may have considered herself fortunate to be untroubled by such thoughts.
With the centenary of Easter 1916 now within 10 years the volume of recent comment leaves me with mixed feelings. While the commemorations may have begun early they may also be tempered by measured and rational discussion of the event and our attitudes towards it rather than the spirit of undiluted adulation and hero-worship that attended the celebrations of the 50th anniversary in 1966. - Yours, etc,
FRANK FALLS, Baldham, Bavaria, Germany.