IRA activity in Laois/Offaly

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Derfil

Queens county for starters. Biffos would go hand in hand with the queens.

PatsytheNazi

Veles wrote: »

Would it be true to say the IRA during the war of independence weren't as active in counties Laois,Offaly compared to the flying columns in Tipperary,Cork etc?
And what reasons would be for this rather inactivity?

From what I remember from reading in books by Tom Barry, Dan Breen, Ernie O'Malley etc, they blamed lack of activity in certain areas to poor local leadership rather than the volunteers themselves. I think in Guerilla Days in Ireland Tom Barry writes how local leaders in these quiet areas were more interested in making speeches and getting charged under some public order act* and sentenced to 2 or 3 months and then coming out proclaiming themselves as ' heros ' :rolleyes: So this was probably the case in Laois/Offaly.

*Noticeably this never applied to British army officers and unionist politicans inciting the loyalists in the north east of the country ofcourse.

jonniebgood1

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

*Noticeably this never applied to British army officers and unionist politicans inciting the loyalists in the north east of the country ofcourse.

Was this common- violence following speeches by British Army officers? I am aware of much sectarianism (harland & wolff, etc) but would like to read more on the mentioned incitement speeches. I thought most of the violence in the north was reactionary, i.e. reprisals for actions by the opposing faction.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

cormacocomhrai

Aquila wrote: »

I know I'm bringing up an old thread again,but I often wonder why the local commanders never took the initiative against the British compared to other areas in the midlands such as Longford.

Would you? Outgunned in a major way, effectively untrained and not being able to rely on a large section of the local population not to betray you. Across the three southern provinces the five most active counties of Munster (non-Waterford) were exceptions not the norm. Maybe the question should be why were they so violent? The question is basically why was the midlads so average in terms of violence?Even Dublin county was quiet enough when you cut out the urban area.

Different reasons in different areas for a limit in the level of activity during the period including lack of local support, poor quality training, poverty, terrain, a late start and bad luck, a lack of a tradition of resistance to British rule.
While a combination of the above factors would influence the level of violence ultimately a lot of it came down to leaders. Areas could become increasingly active even if they didn't reach west Munster levels of violence. An example of that is Donegal where the IRA campaign really came to life in 1921 and the same happened in West Mayo.

There's also a danger in judging the War of Independence as a body count competition between different counties but the military side was only aspect of the conflict. In areas of the west where there was little violent IRA activity they were still effectively in control of vast areas in the summer of 1920 because of local support, the effectiveness of police boycotts and the collapse of the local judicial system and basically didn't need to kill people, police or otherwise, to enforce their local authority. That wouldn't hold as much in the midlands but it would have been an issue in parts of it.

Offaly would have been more violent that Laois as it happens. There as a couple of ambushes in Offaly where the police suffered fatalities and a major attack on Clara barracks so it wasn't the case that it was completely inactive militarily.

Farmer Pudsey

Laois/Offaly is relatively flat and good land the villages were close to each other not like West Cork where you have sparsly populated country. This allowed Tom Barry to move his flying column around, the same with Tipperary they had access to the Galtees as had the East Limerick column. Also not every area had a commander as resourceful and as lucky as Tom Barry.
The only sucessful flying coloumn in the midlands was the north Longford column led by Sean McEoin. It was based in north longford which is an area of poor land that was not densely populated.

cormacocomhrai

Off itself flat land wasn't a reason for a lack of military activity though. East Limerick is flat and had one of the biggest ambushes in Dromkeen. North Galway is quite flat and was probably the area with the most prolonged activity in Co. Galway.

The idea of the population being dispersed etc. is an interesting point.

Wicklow is mountainous with a fairly dispersed population and saw little acitivity.

Also nothing to stop people attacking or sniping barracks in flat land.

It basically comes down to leadership again as you pointed out about Tom Barry.

Fenian Army

Much of it was down, as has already been said, to the local commanders.

I suggest reading Ernie O Malleys book, On another mans wound, basically it seems that areas elected the wrong people as commanders, people full of talk and lacking nerve, popular folk who would then do fcuk all shaming everyone under their command with their ineptitude and cowardice.

cormacocomhrai

Discipline has something to do with it as well and whether members of the volunteers in the early days saw themselves as revolutionaries or soldiers etc. There was a tension between in the volunteers between the gunmen and officers. It has to be remembered as well that an awful lot of the early activity was activists defying local leadership as well as, sometimes, the National leadership. You had gunmen in Munster like Breen and Treacy and Michael Brennan in Clare who were hauled across the coals by GHQ. Because these fellas had the early start they were then in a better position later to up the ante. In other areas where they were possibly under better central control they didn't have the same early start, found it harder to get arms and were then berated for not being as active as areas that were problematic for GHQ earlier. Again the question is why did Munster prove so violent not why other counties weren't as violent. Munster is the exception not the norm.

In the early days people often elected prominent local people for reasons of prestige. A natural enough reaction in a movement trying to increase its popularity. A bit unfair though to describe someone as being cowardly when anyone of us could have behaved in the same way. From 1920 if you were prominent in the volunteers/ Sinn Féin there was a strong chance that your house would be burned, you could look forward to a severe beating or even torture if arrested and while there might be a thousand well-armed enemies in your area you could muster ten rifles (with ten or twenty rounds per rifle) and an assortment of shot guns. Easy to let the fear catch a hold of you in that situation.

As for ineptitude as more local studies are carried out we'll see far more cases of that even in areas that were active. Drink itself doesn't seem to have been a problem in many cases but inadaquate storing of arms, poor positioning of ambushes, premature firing, loss of nerve in gun fights will come to light for a lot of the ambushes.

Fenian Army

Its not harsh, when they sat on their hands and did not fight despite having the capability to do so and hid at home with their families while the British were able to concentrate their forces in areas where men fought as a result of the aforementioned inactivity it was simply cowardly.

Men of talk, not action, crippled the republican movement.

cormacocomhrai

Fenian Army wrote: »

Its not harsh, .

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. It's fair enough for Tom Barry or Ernie O'Malley to make that call. I wouldn't be comfortable making that criticism never having been under fire.

Your right about the consequences of it for the active areas. GHQ recognised it and tried to share the burden.

Fenian Army

cormacocomhrai wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. It's fair enough for Tom Barry or Ernie O'Malley to make that call. I wouldn't be comfortable making that criticism never having been under fire.

Your right about the consequences of it for the active areas. GHQ recognised it and tried to share the burden.

If I ever found myself in that position were I didnt have the bottle I would step down.

cormacocomhrai

Fenian Army wrote: »

If I ever found myself in that position were I didnt have the bottle I would step down.

That's a fair argument about stepping down as opposed to being cowardly. The ironic thing is though by stepping down they would have been putting themselves in far greater danger. British intelligence would still, most likely, have identified you as the local leader, if there was republican activity you would still have been a target and what was keeping you safe, the local network of sympathisers, would no longer be willing to provide you with shelter.

There was a local commandant in Galway who was, at one point, on the run from both the British (who identified him as being a dangerous gunman) and the IRA (who thought he was a British informer).

Fenian Army

cormacocomhrai wrote: »

That's a fair argument about stepping down as opposed to being cowardly. The ironic thing is though by stepping down they would have been putting themselves in far greater danger. British intelligence would still, most likely, have identified you as the local leader, if there was republican activity you would still have been a target and what was keeping you safe, the local network of sympathisers, would no longer be willing to provide you with shelter.

There was a local commandant in Galway who was, at one point, on the run from both the British (who identified him as being a dangerous gunman) and the IRA (who thought he was a British informer).

As I said, they were cowards.

cormacocomhrai

I phrased the first line of that badly. I'd agree officers could have stepped aside as opposed to your argument about them being cowardly, full stop.

As I said I'd be very reluctant to accuse anybody of being cowardly for not drawing the Auxiliaries down on themselves or their families.

The Volunteers themselves could also be forgiving towards people who lost their nerve. Before the Clifden ambush in March 1921 in Galway one volunteer who was to take part in an ambush on a police patrol lost his nerve and ran. He came back to the column, admitted what had happened was allowed back into the group, seemingly without comment. Was an active volunteer all the way up until his arrest in the Civil War.

Volunteers left a flying column in Monaghan and one of GHQ's policies was that men could resign "without further comment". That said the IRA in Tipperary were talking about shooting bad cases of cowardice and the IRA were actively opposed to emigration.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

Its not harsh, when they sat on their hands and did not fight despite having the capability to do so and hid at home with their families while the British were able to concentrate their forces in areas where men fought as a result of the aforementioned inactivity it was simply cowardly.

Men of talk, not action, crippled the republican movement.

Fenian Army wrote: »

As I said, they were cowards.

When they had capability (weapons & knowledge of how to use weapons) they could use them. Where IRA units did not have this capability most engaged in other forms of disruption which they were capable of. This includes destruction of roads, phonelines etc. Mostly the result of this was engaging their enemy to deploy troops throughout the countryside as opposed to allowing them to concentrate fully on the busier areas.

In its most basic form these people had very little means to make a difference in their era. Despite this they did what they could to disrupt the British army on behalf of their country. They had a command structure and whilst there work can be criticised for not being as noteworthy as that of Tom Barry, it is another thing entirely to call them cowards. Barry and O'Malley wrote of the larger engagements but you need to look in greater detail at local histories to see detail on this type of civil disruption. Saying they 'hid at home' disrespects these people and shows a lack of understanding of what they did and what they could have done.

Suffice to say, I don't agree with your sweeping statement that these people were cowards.

Fenian Army

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

When they had capability (weapons & knowledge of how to use weapons) they could use them. Where IRA units did not have this capability most engaged in other forms of disruption which they were capable of. This includes destruction of roads, phonelines etc. Mostly the result of this was engaging their enemy to deploy troops throughout the countryside as opposed to allowing them to concentrate fully on the busier areas.

In its most basic form these people had very little means to make a difference in their era. Despite this they did what they could to disrupt the British army on behalf of their country. They had a command structure and whilst there work can be criticised for not being as noteworthy as that of Tom Barry, it is another thing entirely to call them cowards. Barry and O'Malley wrote of the larger engagements but you need to look in greater detail at local histories to see detail on this type of civil disruption. Saying they 'hid at home' disrespects these people and shows a lack of understanding of what they did and what they could have done.

Suffice to say, I don't agree with your sweeping statement that these people were cowards.

They disrespected themselves with their unwillingness to engage the enemy. The IRA in inactive areas, ones which done very little, even didn't do much "disruption" were hamstrung by cowardly commanders.

Not the mens fault they were allowed to engage the enemy, I'm not calling the rank and file cowards.

cormacocomhrai

Trenching roads was a risky business as well at times. Houses nearby could easily be targeted if they were close to the trench. In my grandparents part of west clare a road was deliberately trenched beside a house that had given tea to the police during an eviction. The idea being that the household would then be compelled by the police to fill the trench.


On a couple of occasions lads trenching roads were shot dead. (Cases in Mayo and Cork). In one case in Waterford people were killed when a previously trenched road was being retrenched. British forces had filled in the trench but had also left explosives in it.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

They disrespected themselves with their unwillingness to engage the enemy. The IRA in inactive areas, ones which done very little, even didn't do much "disruption" were hamstrung by cowardly commanders.

Not the mens fault they were allowed to engage the enemy, I'm not calling the rank and file cowards.

They all had the same leader.
This sounds like you are saying that the IRA local commanders should have sent men into engagements against the British army despite lack of weapons.

An Irish version of gallipoli?

Fenian Army

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

They all had the same leader.
This sounds like you are saying that the IRA local commanders should have sent men into engagements against the British army despite lack of weapons.

An Irish version of gallipoli?

So in your version of history they didnt do anything because they didnt have enough weapons?

That is just bollocks.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

So in your version of history they didnt do anything because they didnt have enough weapons?

That is just bollocks.

Incorrect- I said "weapons & knowledge of how to use weapons" set out the capability of an IRA unit.

You referenced Ernie O'Malley already. You should read him again if you don't accept that weapons availiability and ability to work these weapons was not important. You have already called some level of IRA volunteers "cowards" so I'm not so sure I like your version of history either.



You also made reference to people who were all talk and no action before you then state

If I ever found myself in that position were I didnt have the bottle I would step down.

So I will allow others reading the thread decide what is " just bollocks".

Fenian Army

Why would you twist what I said?
I never said it wasn't important.

This sounds like you are saying that the IRA local commanders should have sent men into engagements against the British army despite lack of weapons.

That's what you said... I never said anything like that.

No wonder the best posters have left this forum with this nonsense.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

Why would you twist what I said?
I never said it wasn't important.



That's what you said... I never said anything like that.

No wonder the best posters have left this forum with this nonsense.

Are you not one of "the best posters"?

Seriously lad- grow up.

Fenian Army

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Are you not one of "the best posters"?

Seriously lad- grow up.

I was referring to the likes of Marchdub.

Bit rich coming from yourself.

Anyway, I see little point continuing this conversation.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

Anyway, I see little point continuing this conversation.

At least we agree on something

Gee Bag

Fenian Army wrote: »

They disrespected themselves with their unwillingness to engage the enemy. The IRA in inactive areas, ones which done very little, even didn't do much "disruption" were hamstrung by cowardly commanders.

Not the mens fault they were allowed to engage the enemy, I'm not calling the rank and file cowards.

Lions led by donkeys is it? Now where have I heard that before?

Labelling those who were involved in the IRA leadership in the less active areas as cowards is simplistic and crass.

The lack of activity during the war of independence in certain areas was primarily due to the quality of the local leadership and the inability of GHQ to provide effective training and weapons. Though it was in gestation for quite some time, the actual War of Independence was over pretty quickly. There simply wasn't sufficent time or resources to recruit effective units in all areas.

Laois/Offaly is relatively flat and good land the villages were close to each other not like West Cork where you have sparsly populated country. This allowed Tom Barry to move his flying column around, the same with Tipperary they had access to the Galtees as had the East Limerick column. Also not every area had a commander as resourceful and as lucky as Tom Barry.
The only sucessful flying coloumn in the midlands was the north Longford column led by Sean McEoin. It was based in north longford which is an area of poor land that was not densely populated.

I'm not convinced by this theory about population density and topography. There are extensive areas of upland in Laois/Offaly (the Slieve Blooms and to the south of Portlaoise) as well as large tracts of bog which were relativley inaccessible at this time. The land in north county Longford is of marginal quality but is pretty level and serviced by an extensive road network (less bog than the rest of the county) allowing for rapid transport of troops and police. In addition there was a major garrison in Longford town (no more than 15 miles from the furthest part of the county).

cormacocomhrai

Gee Bag wrote: »

Though it was in gestation for quite some time, the actual War of Independence was over pretty quickly. There simply wasn't sufficent time or resources to recruit effective units in all areas.

That's a very important point. The War of Independence occurred in a series of waves or surges of violence where there would be violent incidents in a greater number of areas than had previously been the case. Early in 1920 there was a rapid increase in violence (not in deaths) because of the attacks on barracks. There was another surge in the summer and early autumn of 1920 with policemen being killed in ambushes in a quickly increasing number of counties. The violence eased off even if there were very large incidents. The late spring of 1921 saw another surge of violence with Connacht, particularly, becoming increasingly dangerous for crown forces. Some of that violence was as a result of the appointment of new local officers, some as a result of GHQ organisers (such as Tom Bourke that was sent to Offaly). A key difference between 1921 and the Civil War or the campaign that went into the early 1990s was that republican violence was increasing and spreading during 1921 rather than contracting.

And as has been pointed out even in areas with limited arms you had the destruction of the transport infatructure, the creation and manufacture of grenades, mines etc.

That said there were instances, particuarly, in earlier days, of local commanders putting their heel on efforts to attack crown forces. There was often rapid promotion for members of the IRA when GHQ organisers came to town and the pushing aside of local leaders. The same happened in certain cases when the Divisions began to be formed. Michael Brennan, for example, was extremely critical of the leadership in Galway but very complimentary towards the men and when the First Western Division was formed in April 1921 a company captain became Brigade commandant of the Southwest Galway Brigade, for example.

Farmer Pudsey

Gee Bag wrote: »

I'm not convinced by this theory about population density and topography. There are extensive areas of upland in Laois/Offaly (the Slieve Blooms and to the south of Portlaoise) as well as large tracts of bog which were relativley inaccessible at this time. The land in north county Longford is of marginal quality but is pretty level and serviced by an extensive road network (less bog than the rest of the county) allowing for rapid transport of troops and police. In addition there was a major garrison in Longford town (no more than 15 miles from the furthest part of the county).

It was not everything but it helped 15 miles might not seem much but it was a lot in them days. Tom Barrys ambush at Kilmichil was between Macroom and Dunmanway 20 miles apart. But he had many avenues of escape. So a major garrisson in Longford was a long distance away at 15 miles.

Yes the Dromkean was on the main Limerick-Tipperary however it was one of the few ambushes that took place in such a situtation and yes places like Wicklow was inactive but Kerry was not exactly a hive of activity either.Laois/Offaly/Westmeath were the land of the big farms which may not have helped the local orginisations as well. If you did not have access to them to train and billet it.

cormacocomhrai

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

It was not everything but it helped 15 miles might not seem much but it was a lot in them days. Tom Barrys ambush at Kilmichil was between Macroom and Dunmanway 20 miles apart. But he had many avenues of escape. So a major garrisson in Longford was a long distance away at 15 miles.

Yes the Dromkean was on the main Limerick-Tipperary however it was one of the few ambushes that took place in such a situtation and yes places like Wicklow was inactive but Kerry was not exactly a hive of activity either.Laois/Offaly/Westmeath were the land of the big farms which may not have helped the local orginisations as well. If you did not have access to them to train and billet it.

East Limerick was an active area. Aside from Dromkeen there was a fair bit of activity around it even if attacks tended to be on a much smaller scale.

I think the Kerry thing is overstated to be honest. You hear it a lot that Kerry did nothing. While it wasn't on the same level as Cork, you still had major ambushes at the Headford Railway Station, at Rathmore and at Castlemaine. The Crown Forces had about twenty fatalities in those three incidents alone.

Comments about what areas did or didn't do by veterans also have to be viewed in terms of the Treaty split. That certainly coloured later opinions about the respective military performances of different areas. O'Duffy was famously critical of the IRA in Kerry later for example. Galway was hugely criticised particularly, retrospectively during the Civil War and Laois was another one. Lar Brady was involved in a fatal attack on Free State officers there and their lack of violence during the War of Independence was commented on.

pedroeibar1

Gee Bag wrote: »

The lack of activity during the war of independence in certain areas was primarily due to the quality of the local leadership and the inability of GHQ to provide effective training and weapons.

That is not a realistic reason. Most country lads of that era knew how to load, point and fire a weapon. For a ‘firefight’ war they would have needed training on fields of fire, tactics, cover, engage/withdraw, etc, but simple disruption of the enemy (the real need of guerrilla warfare, think what the Maquis did by simply unscrewing rail tracks in WW2 France) often required more brawn than brains.
Unless of course you could force the brawn - the Irish Times of 30th April 1921 reported that three young men were held up in Dalkey, (that hotbed of Republican dissent!) brought to Vico Road by motorcar and forced to dig a trench and fell a tree. Then on the 25th August, the same paper reported that
‘Telephone communications between Dalkey & Dublin were completely severed yesterday morning. Wires were extensively cut at the back of Ulverton Road...The greatest damage was done at the distributing pole on the Glenalua road, where fifty wires were cut through. Telephone wires were also down yesterday, having been cut apparently during the previous night. While three linesmen were repairing some of the damage during the afternoon they were ‘held up’ by two masked and armed men and relieved of their kit and tools.

Just goes to show that a bit of initiative, nerve, neck and no training goes a long way. Inaction around the country was most likely lack of support for the fight an a result of fear of reprisal.