I chose to read a book that was not on the list, but is a topic of interest for me in European History. The book called The Easter Rising: Revolution and Irish Nationalism by Alan J. Ward is an account of the Easter Rising of 1916 in what is now the Republic of Ireland. To read the book took just over a period of three hours.
             One of many questions that came to my mind is why does violent, forceful revolution often take precedence over the diplomatic, peaceful route to resolve a conflict in a nation? From my reading of the Irish people's attempt to free their nation from the rule of England, I have come to a few conclusions.
             The book provides the various perspectives of the parties involved the events that led up to and followed the Easter Rising of 1916. It seems that when a nation's cultural identity comes under threat of dilution or effacing the nation responds passionately. From this passion stems various ideas on just how to tackle this problem. On the one hand, a group will feel that continued political not physical pressure will solve the conflict. However, on the other hand a fanatical group who demands retribution or compensation immediately and by any means necessary. In the case of the Irish in the events leading up to the Easter Rising, there were three movements, a "constitutional nationalist", "revolutionary nationalist" and a "romantic or idealistic nationalist" group. Alan J. Ward states that had the three groups worked together as a unit they would have not only accomplished their ultimate goal, but bypassed the martyrdom and bloodshed still occurring today. The question still stands though, why did the people favor going to war and revolution than trying to find some peaceful alternative.
             Why did the revolutionary and romantic groups take the spotlight away from the constitutional movement? The theory that
             ...