Partition: How and Why Ireland was Divided

Partition: How and Why Ireland was Divided by Ivan Gibbons

Ireland was one of the earliest British colonies. It is close to England and had been tightly integrated into Great Britain. However, there is also an ocean gap and a different (mostly Catholic culture.) Conflicts in Ireland had become a drain on British resources and various attempts were made at granting autonomy. However, Ireland was not unified. The north was mostly protestant, while the remainder was overwhelmingly Catholic. Both parts of Ireland wanted greater autonomy. However, the northerners wanted to remain part of Britain, while the southerners wanted full independence. Resolving this conflict proved to be difficult. The English public was also becoming tired of the conflict in Ireland. As a compromise, Britain drew a border and gave the two parts of Ireland separate control. There remained various conflicts and civil wars. After World War I, a complete boundary commission was set up to fix the boundary. They went through detailed analysis and moved certain areas around. However, this was pretty much ignored and the boundary remained as is. There has been an understanding that Northern Ireland could join with Ireland whenever the public voted for it, however, they have remained part of the UK.

Today, Ireland is an independent country, member of the EU and not a member of the Commonwealth. Northern Ireland is part of the UK and not a member of the EU, but in a special situation that allows free movement of goods to the EU. Northern Ireland is becoming more Catholic. However, Northern Ireland continues to receive significant financial assistance from Britain. Joining with the Republic of Ireland would result in the loss of tens of thousands of government jobs. Northern Ireland have a bit of both worlds, being able to be part of Ireland and the UK. Ireland was one of the first of the European powers "geographic partitionings". The impact is still felt.

The book focuses on the partition. The resultant civil wars and unneeded deaths are mentioned in passing. The focus is instead on the politics and process that lead to the partition. It feels that something is lacking, but does make for a much more readable book on the event it is covering.

Blood and Ruins: The Last Imperial War, 1931-1945

Blood and Ruins: The Last Imperial War, 1931-1945 by Richard Overy

This is a very long book on World War II. It presents as a thesis that this war was the end of imperial battles. Then it goes on to cover just about every aspect of the war from this view. Japan thought they were civilizing Asia, and thus wanted to exert control everywhere. Italy wanted to have an empire because everyone else dead, and thus had some disastrous adventures in Africa. Germany's imperial ambitions were curtailed by World War I peace. These exploded in their land takings in the war.

It is interesting to hear about agreements among China, Russia, US and Britain. They were all somewhat united in the war - only to split significantly afterward. (Though Russia did seem to be upset with the priorities during the war. Maybe this was a sign of things to come.)

The book goes through various different themes of warfare and uses that to provide an entire history of World War II. The different belligerents had their own culture that they brought with them. The "rules of war" were different from one to another. The desire for empires was also different.

There was some interesting discussions on Jews and Israel from an imperial point of few. The Jews were among others that were scapegoated. They also lacked their own homeland. Britain had domain over Palestine and was concerned with the impact the Jewish homeland would have on their empire. Britain also had concerns throughout the world with the impacts on their empire.

The book concludes with the "long tails" of empire. Imperial powers reluctantly gave up their interests in ruling over vast areas of land. However, they continued to have a desire for influence. Wars in Korea and Vietnam were fought over former colonies making the "wrong" ideological concern. Both the USSR and USA exercised significant influence, yet the states still maintained their independence (aside form the ones included in the USSR) Today many groups of people have sought to seek their own land and have their own nation state.

Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire

The title says it all. This long book catalogs violence in the British Empire. It goes on and on and on. It does not attempt to provide any balance. The author assume some familiarity with the earlier histories with patriotic stance. This book is all about the dirt. It does get tedious. At first, it feels like the British Empire is just a violent source of brutality. However, you then realize that there is a heavy cherry-picking of the bad events. Could this be a few bad events in something that was overwhelmingly positive? Or were things as negative as portrayed. The one sided portrayal makes it hard to tell. The history does attempt to go back to show earlier violence in the British Empire. However, the details are heavily skewed towards recent history, especially in the time from World War II until decolinization.

Outposts

[From June 2009] I started by listening to the audiobook. In the intro to the audiobook, the author describes how he abridged the book by simply skipping whole chapters. He omitted Hong Kong, Bermuda, British West Indies and the Falklands. This of course, led me to the paperback to complete the missing chapters. I'm glad I read the extra chapters, but don't think I would have missed much if I hadn't. The Hong Kong chapter is the weakest, and the most irrelevant now that it has spent a decade in the PRC. The Bermuda chapter is a little better. The West Indies chapter has nuggets of interest, though would probably need some updating (such as a volcano on Montserrat). However, it quickly jumps from Island to Island so can be a little difficult to follow. The fact that he was in the Falklands as the war was breaking out makes that the most interesting of the omitted chapters in the audiobook.

As for the remainder of the audiobook, it is always nice when an author reads his own books, especially when he does it well like Simon Winchester. He has 'updated' it, primarily by reminding us that these exploits did take place a few decades ago. (I also found it useful to read the updated introduction after completing the book, helping to remind myself that these are 25 year old exploits.) The book reads as part travelogue, part history. The journey gets equal weight with the destination. I found myself with a strong interest in learning more about these places that had been nothing more than dots on the map.