logo
Civil War was won using local knowledge and very good political and military leadership, new book argues.

Civil War was won using local knowledge and very good political and military leadership, new book argues.

Irish Times26-05-2025

In April 1923 the Irish Civil War was effectively over. The anti-Treaty IRA's commander-in-chief Liam Lynch, who had sought to prolong the war long after it was a lost cause, was shot dead in the Knockmealdown Mountains on April 10th. Some days earlier most of the anti-Treaty executive had been rounded up and incarcerated.
A secret National Army missive from the time concluded that it was the 'beginning of the end as far as the irregular campaign is concerned'.
It is an established historical fact that the Free State could not have won the Civil War without British aid. It was two British 18 pounder guns that started the war when they were fired on the anti-Treaty garrison occupying the Four Courts in June 1922.
Serving Irish colonel and author Dr Gareth Prendergast discovered details in Winston Churchill's gargantuan archive about the scale of British military aid to the pro-Treaty side.
READ MORE
A note dated September 2nd, 1922 details the inventory sent to the Provisional Government (it wasn't the Free State Government until December 1922) down to the last bullet, 4,745,848 to be precise along with 27,400 rifles, 6,606 revolvers, 246 Lewis machine guns and nine 18 pounder guns with 2,160 shells. In addition, the Free State forces were given nearly 15,000 rifles which belonged to the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC).
Even that was not enough with the Free State side demanding 10,000 more rifles in February 1923 complaining that many of the RIC weapons they received were 'very much used' and they were down to a bare inventory.
Churchill, as secretary of state for the colonies, was in charge of ensuring the Anglo-Irish Treaty was implemented. Supplying the National Army from the mountains of surplus equipment left after the first World War was a much cheaper and more politically palatable way of enforcing the Treaty than the alternative which he contemplated in the aftermath of the assassination of the former head of the British army, Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson MP, in June 1922.
Then Churchill was seized with a 'feverish impetuosity', according to accounts while erroneously blaming the anti-Treaty side for the assassination. He contemplated shelling the Four Courts from Royal Navy guns. He was talked down from his high dudgeon by General Sir Nevil Macready, the officer commanding British forces in Ireland, who recognised that restarting the War of Independence would only suck his country into a morass from which it had extracted itself with great reputational damage.
Freedom, though, isn't free. With the war moving towards its inevitable conclusion, the British thought it prudent on April 16th, 1923 to send what might be considered in modern parlance as a 'gentle reminder' to its Free State equivalent that it owed it money for two Rolls Royce armoured cars and a pair of Vickers guns and equipment.
The sum involved £5,301,19,10d is the equivalent today of €435,000. The invoice was sent by Lord Devonshire, Churchill's successor as secretary of state for the colonies, who assumed the role in October 1922.
He reminded the Irish governor-general Tim Healy that the cars had been delivered in October of the previous year by 'special arrangement' and on the basis they would be paid for in cash.
Rolls Royce armoured cars were a valuable addition to the National Army's arsenal. They were ideal for urban environments as the anti-Treaty IRA's small arms fire were ineffective against them. One, the Slievenamon, accompanied Michael Collins on his fateful last trip which ended at Beal na Bláth. It was rescued, refurbished in 2011 and put on display at the Curragh Military Museum.
There is no evidence that the invoice was ever paid, according to Prendergast whose book Clear, Hold, Build: How the Free State won the Irish Civil War is an examination of how the National Army successfully defeated the anti-Treaty IRA in just 11 months.
The received historical wisdom is that the Pro-Treaty side won the war because of British support and the National Army's ability to very quickly recruit ex-first World War servicemen to the cause.
Prendergast posits that it is not as simple as that and that the Civil War was won by very good political and military leadership. History is replete with examples where dominant powers lose despite superior manpower and equipment mostly because, without the support of the people, they are bound to fail.
Though the military doctrine of counter-insurgency of clear, hold, build wasn't properly formed at the time, he believed the National Army adopted an exemplar of it by clearing areas of anti-Treaty fighters, holding those areas against counterattacks and at the same time building a consensus in favour of the Irish Free State.
This was achieved despite the evident brutality of much of the Free State government's actions which included the execution of 81 Republican prisoners.
The National Army succeeded where the British had failed in turning the rebels out of their strongholds because, unlike the British, they knew the terrain, the hideouts and the people involved. The anti-Treaty IRA had alienated the people by its destruction of vital infrastructure most notably roads and railways; the National Army won the confidence of the people by repairing the damage.
The book has attracted a lot of interest in the US military which is still developing its counterinsurgency strategy after its disaster in Iraq when it won an easy military victory, declared mission accomplished only to be a hit by an insurgency which lasted years.
None other than General David Petraeus, who orchestrated the 'surge' in Iraq in 2007 that was deemed a success after years of chaos has endorsed the book as an 'exceptionally readable case study'.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Is Conor McGregor really the only person who wants to be President of Ireland?
Is Conor McGregor really the only person who wants to be President of Ireland?

Irish Times

time18 minutes ago

  • Irish Times

Is Conor McGregor really the only person who wants to be President of Ireland?

The election for the next President of Ireland must take place before November 11th. It's June, so where is the list of Áras hopefuls? It's a job with status and prestige, a place in history, a large salary and a list of perks that includes generous expenses and fine accommodation in the Phoenix Park. None of the political parties have put forward a candidate – yet. And some might not bother. The way the system works is that a candidate nominated by a political party goes straight on the ballot paper. For independents, it's more complex. They must present themselves before county councillors, make their case and persuade four local authorities to allow them to run. READ MORE As of now two independents have declared their intention to run, MMA fighter Conor McGregor and former candidate and businessman Peter Casey. They have yet to get local authority approval. So what is the job of President of Ireland and why, with just months to the election, are there no declared candidates from the political parties? When can we expect the race to get going and what qualities make for an ideal president? Harry McGee from the Irish Times political team, explains. Presented by Bernice Harrison. Produced by Suzanne Brennan.

EPA projections require a frank reassessment of Irish climate policies
EPA projections require a frank reassessment of Irish climate policies

Irish Times

time32 minutes ago

  • Irish Times

EPA projections require a frank reassessment of Irish climate policies

Judging by the EPA's latest greenhouse gas projections , Ireland's climate policies are in urgent need of an overhaul . The projections issued annually relate to likely carbon emissions across the Irish economy up to 2030, but also for following decades up to 2050. It is clear existing policies are failing to deliver significant emission reductions or are being overtaken by increases in energy demand or economic growth. At best, Ireland might achieve a 16 per cent reduction in agricultural emissions compared with the 51 per cent that is required under law, which is reasonably aligned with our Paris Agreement commitments. This would be with full implementation of measures in the Government's climate action plan. READ MORE But even that 16 per cent is not guaranteed: the EPA reports that emissions under an 'existing measures' scenario might even increase by 2030 above their 2018 levels. That must not be allowed to happen. Why is Ireland failing in climate policy , you might wonder. Don't we have a gold standard climate law? While it's true that our 2021 Climate Act is well designed from a governance point of view, any law – even a good one – is no substitute for political will. That the political will has waned is obvious from a reading of the Programme for Government and the choice of rural independents as coalition partners. But other decisions and non-decisions, delays and prevarications suggest that the Government has little interest or commitment to acting on the recommendations of its climate experts , and prefers to bend to the will of major exporters and a highly self-serving reading of public opinion. Though the policy framework has been considerably improved, it seems to take an age to implement what should be straightforward decisions (and I'm not even speaking of major infrastructure projects). [ Q&A: What should we do about multiple climate risks threatening Ireland? Opens in new window ] The Departments of Finance and Public Expenditure still dictate the pace of investment, and administrative delays in making decisions of any kind are common. Public bodies are notoriously cautious and risk-averse, but that mindset means that we are not getting the decisive actions that the public was promised to clean up our energy system and put Ireland on a path to climate neutrality – ideally, before 2050. The director general of the EPA, Laura Burke, remarked last week at a conference in Dublin Castle that 'additional measures and accelerated implementation' are required if we are to even get close to the 2030 targets. She stated that 'scaling up' efforts will be necessary across the board. But what does that actually mean? For you and me, scaling up our efforts might mean an additional journey by bike or a meat-free dinner once a week, or installing solar panels (if you're privileged enough to own a roof). Worthy actions taken voluntarily make us feel better but they won't put a significant dent in Ireland's emissions. Systemic change requires a different set of levers – the use of regulations, mandates, incentives, subsidies and enforcement. The truth is that our public representatives and policy experts seem unwilling to discuss the big decisions that will be needed to dramatically transform our energy system and land use and prefer to rely on policies and measures that the EPA now acknowledges will not be sufficient. [ The 'foot may be coming off the action pedal': Climate plan fails to build on ambition Opens in new window ] For instance, the Dáil hardly ever debates climate policy though the actual words are mentioned frequently. When the numbers are going in the right direction (eg, chemical nitrogen use) everyone wants to claim the credit (good policy, good farmers, etc). When the numbers are going in the wrong direction (chemical nitrogen figures have increased in 2024 again, which will be confirmed by EPA inventories in coming weeks), no one accepts responsibility. When the pressure mounts to make a decision, policymakers revert to default and recommend another report or a new consultation. And meanwhile we are blowing through the first carbon budget by between 8 and 12 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which adds up to the total annual emissions of countries like Armenia or Nicaragua. And whenever a negative news story comes out about emissions or climate science, the Government is quick to report Ireland's stellar progress in renewable electricity, even though this, too, is but a small flicker (excuse the pun) of what we will actually need to deliver by 2050. The kind of bold interventions we now need would restrict the energy consumption of large energy users like data centres , restrict urban private car use, and deploy effective, catchment-based limits on nitrogen, ammonia and greenhouse gas pollution from agricultural sources . [ Tech giants' indirect emissions rose 150% in three years amid AI growth, UN says Opens in new window ] Imaginative and brave measures to accelerate the roll-out of renewables and to ensure that their environmental impact is properly assessed and mitigated will be essential. We are facing into a global climate emergency , with global temperature increases now heading well north of 1.5 degrees and the prospect of dangerous climate breakdown occurring within our lifetimes. Clearly the newly established Joint Oireachtas Committee on Climate, Environment and Energy doesn't view it as much of an emergency: following lengthy delays in setting up the Oireachtas committees, it has met just twice since the general election in late November 2024, and only to elect a chair and vice chair. Yes, scaling is hard to do, so we had better do what we know already works and what we are good at delivering. If the magic beans (small-scale nuclear reactors, feed additives, biomethane) don't deliver, then we have to consider more radical pruning. Everything should be on the table, including livestock herd reductions, transport hubs in every town and village, mandatory afforestation in suitable areas and urgent State investment in making heat pumps, solar panels, sustainable building materials and shared mobility services affordable and accessible to all as a priority over the demands of incumbent energy, water and land-hungry industries. And no one needs to be left behind. Sadhbh O'Neill is a climate and environmental researcher and activist

Nama chief makes good on Lenihan order not to ‘mess it up'
Nama chief makes good on Lenihan order not to ‘mess it up'

Irish Times

timean hour ago

  • Irish Times

Nama chief makes good on Lenihan order not to ‘mess it up'

The late minister for finance Brian Lenihan, who set up the National Asset Management Agency (Nama) in 2009, left five words ringing in the ears of agency chief executive Brendan McDonagh shortly before he passed away 14 years ago this week. 'Brendan, don't mess this up,' Lenihan told McDonagh in their last meeting before he died, the Nama chief recalled to reporters on Wednesday. When Nama took over €72 billion of mainly toxic commercial property loans from five banks for a discounted price of €32 billion, the fear was that it would lose billions. Even when Ireland was at the end of an international bailout programme in 2013, members of the rescue team told Department of Finance officials that Nama would likely end up with a €10 billion shortfall. READ MORE It wasn't helped by Nama overpaying to the tune of €5.4 billion for the loans in the first place – adhering to a long-term economic value method forced upon it by legislation to lessen the holes that Nama transfers would trigger in the domestic banks' balance sheets. Many objectives have been projected on to Nama over the years, such as fixing the housing crisis , by virtue of the swathes of land it controlled; contributing more to the common good; and providing more homes for social housing, even though local authorities ended up accepting only about 2,400 of the almost 7,000 units offered over the years. Nama's remit widened about 13 years ago to deliver thousands of homes and develop land in the Dublin docklands . But Nama's core objective, enshrined in the very Act that set it up, was to obtain the best achievable financial return for the State. It made enemies along the way. Try finding a developer that has much good to say about dealing with Nama officials over the years – even ones that it agreed to work with, while enforcing against others. It's not difficult to find critics, too, in the halls of Leinster House. But it is now on track to deliver a lifetime surplus of €5.05 billion – having upgraded its forecast on Wednesday by €250 million – by the time it is wound down at the end of this year. Adding the €5.4 billion it first needed to recoup to break even on the original overpayment actually brings the total financial gains for the State to more than €11 billion. Lenihan would surely have approved of that outcome.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store