Another key factor which led to a change in the levels of tension between the Unionists and Nationalists was the introduction of internment in 1971. The main reason for the introduction of internment was to cripple the IRA and to reduce the violence between the Unionists and Nationalists. However, internment did not calm things down; it actually increased the tension between the Unionists and Nationalists. The main reason for this was that internment was only used against the Nationalists. This would have angered the Nationalists as they would have thought that they were being treated unfairly by the government. This would have led to many Nationalists supporting the IRA. This is because the unfairness by the government would have led to the Nationalists believing that the IRA was indeed fighting for equal rights between Unionists and Nationalists. In fact, it wasn’t only the Nationalists that increased support for the IRA-the USA also increased support. This shows us that the USA were also on the Nationalists side and that they also though that the Nationalists were being treated unfairly. This support would have allowed the IRA to raise funds and to obtain weapons from the USA. This would have certainly made the IRA a stronger force and would have made the Unionists feel more threatened by the IRA so, in this way, the levels of tension between the Unionists and Nationalists must have increased.
Another result of internment was the Bloody Sunday event in 1972. The Civil Rights Movement had organised a protest march against internment. Although all of the marchers were seemingly unarmed, the British army opened fire on the marchers, killing thirteen of them instantly. The inquiry which followed accepted the British army’s version of events; that they had been fired on first by IRA gunmen. Unsurprisingly, this angered the Nationalists as they would have had even more evidence that the government was indeed treating the Nationalists unfairly. This would have led to increased support for the IRA, which would have increased the levels of tension. Source 3 (page 123) shows the reaction of the USA to the report of Bloody Sunday. “…the slaughter at Londonderry is being compounded by the arbitrary limits of the scope of the inquiry being held by Lord Widgery.” This source shows us that the Americans, just like the Nationalists, believed that the result of the inquiry was established by the judge, and not on the actual law itself. The source then goes on to say that “Bloody Sunday is Britain’s My Lai.” The My Lai massacre shocked and angered many Americans in America after it happened. The fact that Kennedy can even compare the Bloody Sunday event to the My Lai massacre shows that Kennedy felt really angry by the events of Bloody Sunday. This source is reliable as it was written by Senator Edward Kennedy, whose views were widely shared in the USA. This anger by the USA would have led to the US giving more support and weapons to the IRA. From source 1 (page 88), we can see that the highest number of deaths during the troubles was in 1972. A possible reason for this is because of the increased support for the IRA after Bloody Sunday. This means that, as a result of Bloody Sunday, the IRA may have carried out more violence. This increased violence would have led to an increase in tension between the Unionists and Nationalists.
An obvious but major factor which changed the levels of tension was the role of the paramilitaries. Throughout the troubles, the paramilitaries used violence against the other side. Source 14 (page 96) is an extract from a novel. It says in the novel “The only thing you’re [The paramilitaries] doing is making people hate each other worse than ever.” This source shows us that the violence caused by the paramilitaries resulted in greater hatred between the Unionists and Nationalists so, in this way, there would have been even more violence. This increased violence would have led to an increase in the levels of tension between the Unionists and Nationalists. However, some historians may argue that this source is unreliable as it was written in a novel, which was a work of fiction. However, I would argue that this source is indeed reliable as, even though this source was written in a novel, there have been many cases in history where violence leads to more hatred. For example, in the USA, the Black Panthers used violence which resulted in more hate for black people. Therefore, in my opinion, this source is reliable and so it is fair to say that the violence used by paramilitaries increased tension and led to even more violence and hatred between the two sides.
Another key factor which changed the levels of tension between Unionists and Nationalists was the reforms passed by O’Neill in 1968. Following the civil rights marches in 1968, there was an increase in the levels of violence between Unionists and Nationalists. The marches increased tension as they caused Loyalist outrage. The loyalists were angry because they did not see the marches as
Civil rights campaigns; they saw them as Republican marches. As a result of the increased levels of violence, the tension increased. This increase in tension was so much that it led to British Prime Minister Harold Wilson put pressure on O’Neill to act and do something to reduce the discrimination against the Nationalists. This pressure resulted in O’Neill passing a few reforms. The reforms that O’Neill passed did not please the Nationalists or the Unionists. The Unionists were not happy with the reforms as they believed that these reforms were favouring the Nationalists and they felt that O’Neill was taking Ireland towards a United Ireland. This led to the Unionists believing that they were being treated unfairly by the government, so this may have increased support for paramilitaries as they would have believed that the paramilitaries were fighting for their rights. This would have increased tension. Similarly, the Nationalists did not feel happy with these reforms. This was because the Nationalists heavily criticized O’Neill for not bringing in certain reforms, such as “One man, One vote.” This made the Nationalists think that O’Neill passed his reforms reluctantly and that he didn’t want these reforms to take place. Again, this would have angered Nationalists as they would have believed that the government was not introducing these reforms because they were against the Nationalists. Again, this would have led to an increase in the support for the paramilitaries. This, just like the events explained previously, would have threatened the other side, so the tension would have increased.
Another important factor that changed the levels of tension was the Peace Movements organised by ordinary people in Northern Ireland. One of the most famous people who organised these Peace Movements was Betty Williams. Williams was the founder of “The Peace People” organisation. This organisation organised many rallies which protested against the violence in Northern Ireland. Source 9 shows a picture of a peace rally in Belfast. These types of pictures raised awareness of The Peace People and led to it gaining more support, especially from abroad. This would have increased the funds for the Peace People and so these funds would have allowed the Peace Peoples to set up community projects. This would have raised awareness of each side and so, in this way, it could be argued that tension decreased. On the other hand, some historians may argue that these rallies actually increased tension. They may argue that these rallies led to the paramilitaries becoming angry, as they would have thought that their paramilitary group’s existence was at risk as a result of these rallies. Source 9 shows a cartoon published in The Times. The man with glasses is asking a Loyalist paramilitary what he thinks about the IRAs refusal to come to peace. The Loyalist paramilitary replies by saying “Phew!” This shows that the Loyalist paramilitary is happy that the IRA is not resorting to peace, because if they do resort to peace, the existence of the Loyalist Paramilitaries would be at risk. This shows that the main thing the paramilitaries want is to just stay in existence. This explains why the Peace Peoples rallies may have angered the paramilitaries and increased tension. However, the reliability of the source could be questioned. This is because the cartoon was published in a newspaper, which may have exaggerated a bit to make some more sales and thus to gain higher profits. In my opinion, the Peace Movements did not result in an increase in tension. From source 1, we can see a bar chart. In the bar chart, the number of deaths each year decreased dramatically after 1976. What’s significant about this is that 1976 was the year that the year in which The Peace People started their rallies. The decrease in the number of deaths, therefore, may have been because of the Peace Movement Rallies. This led to a decrease in levels of tension.
The introduction of the Power-Sharing Executive in 1974 was another key factor which changed the levels of tension. The aim of the Power-Sharing executive was to weaken the support for the IRA by giving the Nationalist community a say in how Northern Ireland was run. Unsurprisingly, the Nationalists were very happy with the introduction of Power-Sharing as they believed that that it would give the Republic a say in how Northern Ireland was run. This would have led to less support for the IRA by the Nationalists as they would have believed that the government was being fair to them, so tension would have decreased a little bit. However, the Unionists were not happy with this. This is because the Unionists would have felt as though the government and the Northern Ireland Secretary wanted a United Ireland. This anger of the Unionists would have led to the paramilitaries becoming angry. Source (X) shows us that there was an increase in the number of deaths in 1974. A reason for this may have been because the paramilitaries used more violence after the introduction of the Power sharing Executive. This increase in violence would have increased tension. Some historians may argue that the IRA was also angry with the introduction of the Power-Sharing executive. This is because, as explained in the previous paragraph, the IRA may have just been fighting for their existence, so the introduction of the Power-Sharing Executive would have led to the IRA becoming angry as their existence was threatened. This would have increased the risk of violence, and so tension would have increased.
In conclusion, I would argue that the violence and the role of the paramilitaries in the Northern Ireland led to the greatest change in the levels of tension. All of the other factors (politic, role of the people and relationship between the UK and Dublin) resulted in the same thing: a change in the levels of violence or a change in the risk of violence. In my opinion, if these factors had not led to a change in the levels of violence, the levels of tension would have not changed. In fact, if there was no increase in tension because of violence, the other factors would not have taken place. For example, the Power Sharing Executive was introduced only to reduce support for the IRA, and thus to reduce violence. Had there been no violence, the Power-Sharing Executive would not have been introduced, as there would have been little tension. Therefore, I believe that violence was almost certainly the cause for the changes in the levels of tension in Northern Ireland between 1968 and 1998.