Ultimate Fitness – The Quest for Truth about Exercise and Health.

By Gina Kolata. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York. 2003. pp 299.

This review was written on July 4th 2007

Ms. Kolata is a reporter with the New York Times and deals generally with medical matters. She is herself a physical fitness guru and is committed with her husband to the most strenuous exercise in the form of weight lifting, cycling, a highly strenuous form of fixed cycling in the gym called Spinning, and to running. She is obviously familiar with the American fitness world and particularly with the history and politics of weight lifting and the more strenuous form of cycling. Her own fitness career is concerned most with muscle building and the physical, mental and psychological effects of extreme physical exercise. 

There is much of interest in the book about the whole fitness and body culture of the United States. This short review deals mainly with three aspects of her message – the body cult related to extreme exercise, the huge fitness industry which is generated by commercial considerations rather than scientific based evidence and the huge commercial industry inviting Americans to join a bewildering variety of fitness gyms and various bizarre fitness programmes, to encourage a bewildering variety of diets, and to take a wide variety of vitamins, drugs, chemical supplements and skin applications.  What valid research exists in the field of exercise ‘gets lost amidst marketing claims and exaggerations and the sale of dubious programs and nostrums’.

Apart from her own devotion to muscle building and the satisfaction she derives from extreme exercise, her writing is reasonably balanced and sensible. She is certainly ready to acknowledge that much of the philosophy driving the fitness cult not only ignores the importance of the scientific method of evidence but is at times contemptuous of conventional research based on proper trials and observational studies. 

Kolata puts forward many reasons why people take exercise or wish to adopt an exercise programme. They include health, longevity, pleasure, strength training, improved appearance, weight control, social cohesion, treatment of depression and other mood problems. She accepts that training through such aerobic exercises as walking, jogging, running and cycling does contribute to better health but she is justified in being cautious about accepting the widely held view that such aerobic exercise increases longevity. Many confounding factors which are common to the exercise-motivated person, and particularly in those who adhere to long-term training, make it difficult to define the specific effect of exercise on longevity.  Aerobically active people are less likely to smoke and to drink heavily; they tend to eat sensibly with an eye on fat and salt, and have a preference for vegetables and fruit. I have little doubt that those following a sensible aerobic exercise live longer, and enjoy a shorter period of disability and decrepitude before death, than the sedentary but there are certainly other confounding factors which add to longevity as well as aerobic exercise. I doubt whether weight lifting and other strenuous isometric exercises aimed at muscle mass and strength confer the same benefits. Certainly there is little valid research evidence to suggest that being more heavily muscled will prolong our lives. 

Spinning

There are strong physiological reasons to accept the value of aerobic exercise as a factor in ensuring health and longevity. It has been shown through basic cellular research that exercise reduces the instability of the lining of blood vessels, a condition which makes people more liable to clots and to heart attack and stroke. There is also indisputable evidence that exercise reduces blood pressure and has a beneficial effect on the blood cholesterol profile with an increase in the protective high-density cholesterol and a possible reduction in the harmful low-density cholesterol. It is likely that these benefits can be achieved by a moderate exercise programme and there is little reason to believe that greater benefit can be achieved by more severe aerobic exercise and certainly not by muscle building, weight lifting or the extreme form of static cycling or Spinning practised by the author. In justice to the author, she makes no such claim. Rather, she expresses concern about the humbug, unjustified claims, fabrications and greed of the so-called health industry which exists in the United States and which is sadly, like many aspects of American culture, spreading world-wide.

A substantial part of this book is an account of the author’s involvement in very strenuous weightlifting and her devotion to Spinning. Spinning involves prolonged and at times maximum exercise on a static bike, an ergometer, which has been specially designed for this purpose. She and other adherents indulge in periods of some hours in the practice, always in groups in specially designed gyms and with music. The degree of exercise which they indulge seems so great that it is difficult to think it can be achieved by any human being, however intense the training. The sessions require heavy and repeated fluid replacement, heavy sweating and moments of extreme fatigue. Sessions may last some hours and a marathon session is described as lasting twelve hours. All this apparently leads to a high, a state of mental exhilaration which leads to this unlikely, almost bizarre, addiction.  

There is much about the body and muscle building benefits of weight lifting and about the author’s long attachment to this form of isometric exercise. She describes the history of weightlifting in some detail with its long tradition of recourse to anabolic drugs. The sport has its seamier side in terms of crime and corruption, and is now on a decline worldwide because of its association with drugs and crime. It is hard to believe that the human frame, including the female frame, can lift the weights which have been reported in recent years, almost certainly as a result of resorting to muscle building drugs. 

Gina Kolata running a marathon

This book gives an honest account of the evolution of the popular and commercialised exercise health industry in the United States. It is also a very frank and personal account by the author of her devotion to strenuous exercise and of its importance to her in her daily life.  It is a striking account of human greed, of human frailty and credulity, of changing social and behavioural fashions. Most of all, the author reminds us  of the huge part leisure exercise can play in our physical wellbeing, in our attitudes and moods, our spirituality and in coping with boredom and other stresses of life. 

An American sage

Autobiography

By Thomas Jefferson. 1743-1826

With the Declaration of Independence, 1821.

This review was written on February 22nd 2012

This was one of the first books I bought on the Kindle.  Jefferson played a crucial part in formulating the Declaration of Independence which was issued by Congress in 1776. ‘’A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America in general Congress assembled’’ It was an early autobiography which he finished in 1790. Jefferson became the third President of America and was re-elected for a second term. He died at the age of 83.

Monticello

I was aware of Jefferson’s important role during the formation of the United States after the break with England in 1776. In 1985 Louise and I stayed with Richard Crampton, a colleague of mine married to Julia, an Irishwomen. Richard was professor of medicine in Charlottesville in South Carolina and was later to spend a month with me as visiting professor at St. Vincent’s. I was living alone at Leeson Park at the time. He stayed in my house and I remember most distinctly the massive telephone bill he left behind. He seemed to spend all his time in my home on the ‘phone! He graciously left me a cheque for £100 when he was leaving. We visited Jefferson’s home, Monticello, at the time of our visit to his home. I wrote the following note about Jefferson in a letter to my children after our visit there.

This is the home of Thomas Jefferson who was a remarkable man and who made enormous contributions to American science, culture, politics, education and industry during and after the American Revolution. I visited his home in Charlottesville and I was amazed by the number of innovative ideas he formulated and his inventions, and by his extraordinary wide interests and energy. I find biography very interesting because it teaches us so much about the talents of other people and undoubtedly can be an important stimulus and inspiration to ourselves.

The name of Jefferson’s home was Monticello. It is now a widely visited and greatly evocative museum. It is clear from his earlier years that he was hugely influential  not only in advising about the prospect and the inevitability of the break with England but that he played a major role in the difficult task of bringing all the eleven states then in existence together as a united nation with common political and national interests and with a constitution which would ensure their unity through a common President and an effective Congress to organise and direct the  economic, legislative, judicial and international policies of the nation.

It appears that as well as encouraging the unity of the states and in furthering the independence movement, he was a man whose thoughts and ideas had a fructifying effect on the minds of his colleagues. His interests were wide and his influence was compelling just as he appeared to have the patience and the realism to face opposition and often to wait for another day.

An important part of his early biography included his few years as ambassador to France during the French revolution. He took a deep interest in the early years of the revolution and he was not slow to air his views about the genesis of the final collapse of French political society. His advice, if accepted, would certainly have prevented the execution of the King and Queen, the disloyalty to the Crown and the widespread adoption of the guillotine. He is convincing in his view that the Queen was the major influence which led to the failure of the King and many of the clergy and nobles to reach a rational and peaceful accord with the common people. Having read a biography of Edmund Burke a few years ago and knowing how rational was his approach to the American revolution and how his views conflicted with the bellicose King George 111, the Tories and other politicians, and knowing how concerned he was about the effects of the French Revolution on European affairs and international society, it would be interesting to know how closely Burke and Jefferson’s views were shared about these two periods of history.  Jefferson believed that all men are equal. His life was contemporaneous with the writings of Paine in his Rights of Man and Jefferson’s whole political life was based on this self-evident truth.  Paine himself in his famous book and in his prolonged stay in America greatly influenced the progress of the revolution.

When Jefferson at last was released from his duties as ambassador to France and allowed to return to America to meet again with his family and to resume his life there, he was immediately asked to become secretary of State by General Washington. He was reluctant to take on the task being anxious to retire to the comfort and repose of a country gentleman. However he was unable to resist the strong influence of Washington and thus found himself thrown into the active political cauldron of the nascent American States. 

Jefferson left Le Havre for the United States about the 22nd of September. He crossed the channel to Cowes to catch a clipper for Norfolk in the United States. Between contrary winds and other problems it took him two months to reach Norfolk! This is a reminder of the immense amount of time he spent in travelling during his adult life, both in the United States and in Europe. Apart form his many journeys, travel for him seems to have been a leisurely affair as he not infrequently used to spend many days staying with colleagues and friends during his journeys. The invention of the railways in the mid 1800s surely must have had a profound effect on society, at least in terms of reduced travel time and in making travel between people and between nations so much easier.

Jefferson was born in 1743 in Albemarle County, Virginia, and died on July 4 1826. He was President of the United States from 1801-1809.

The spread of Islam

The Great Arab Conquests - How the Spread of Islam changed the World we live in. Hugh Kennedy. 

Wiedenfeld & Nicolsen, London, 2007. PP 421 Illustrated and maps.

This review was written on February 2nd 2011.

I first saw this book on the shelves of the RDS Library. It was in January 2011 and just after the disturbances in Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen and Egypt had commenced. I read the book during our holiday in Tenerife that month. The 428 pages were a task too far and it was not an easy read. It is evident from the author’s introduction that there is a dearth of documentary evidence available about the entire period of the Islamic invasion of the East and North Africa. Much of the history as recounted by the author is speculative and the few documentary sources available are often contradictory. This makes the appreciation of this important event in world history less satisfactory for the reader. I read parts of the book carefully, particularly about the occupation of the Iberian Peninsula and other sallies into France and the Mediterranean Islands where there is perhaps a little more information available to the historian. 

The paucity of documentary material led me inevitably to skipping the earlier chapters dealing with the Arabian conquest of the Near and Middle East as far as Iran and Afghanistan and parts of latter day Pakistan. The early 7^th century conquest included Iraq, Syria, Egypt and the other parts of the Near East close to the current borders of Turkey which was then part of the Byzantine Empire. The conquest included the North African littoral as far as present day Morocco, inhabited then by the Berbers. The entire conquest of these extensive regions started about the time of Mohamed’s death in 632 and was completed before the end of the same century, a period of less than 70 years. A handful of Arabian Bedouins from the Arabian Peninsula became an army which managed to conquer the entire region. The treatment the conquered people received varied widely in terms of military and political strategy. Some cities, towns and regions were dealt with in brutal fashion while others were dealt with leniently, particularly when the beleaguered population surrendered without resistance. The various other religious in the area were as often as not tolerated but by the end of the century most of the inhabitants had adopted the Islamic faith.

The first attempts to conquer Spain and Portugal were delayed until the early 8^th century but within the short period of six years from the year 711 the entire Iberian Peninsula, with the exception of the North West, was taken over from the Visigoths who had earlier inhabited the peninsula as emigrants from Germany. The Islamic occupation, led by Tariq and largely supported by Berber soldiers who were inhabitants of North Africa, took over the administration of the Spanish and Portuguese territories but, apart from the military and administrative functions of the invaders, the local population were not greatly molested as long as  taxes were paid.  The Arabs were to continue their occupation of most of the peninsula for the  next eight hundred years during which the Muslims and the Christians appeared to have lived in reasonable harmony until the invaders were eventually dislodged by Philip the First in the 16th century and his successor Charles the Fifth.

The Islamic invasion of Gaul

As in the East and North Africa, there is little documentary material about the Islamic occupation of the Iberian Peninsula. I am told by my late sister-in-law, Rosemarie Mulcahy, that by the 16th century, at the time of their banishment from Spain, the Arabs mostly occupied the rural areas of the country where they had established the fruit and olive industries which to-day are such a traditional part of the economic fabric of Spain and Portugal. During their banishment the Islamic population suffered many cruelties in the hands of Philip 1 and his Spanish subjects. The Arabs had also invaded Sicily, the lower regions of Italy and the South of France but their stay in these parts was short-lived. 

The great Mosque of Córdoba

During subsequent centuries attempts were made by the Arabs to conquer Constantinople where the Byzantine kings reigned but the Byzantine control of the sea was a major factor in preventing the fall of their capital.  Unfortunately, there is no reference to the later spread of the Islamic faith to Turkey and to the Greek peninsula in Europe nor is there any account of the relationship between the Greek Orthodox and the other Christian sects in Asia and the spreading Islamic faith. There is no reference to the Crusades which were organised in Europe to stop the spread  of Islam in the near East and one wonders about the factors which led to the Turkish domination of the Near East and North Africa during the later centuries of the second millennium. For those of us who live on the Atlantic coast, it is not surprising that we are told about the Dark Ages which preceded Medieval times. It appears that the poor documentary sources left by the early Muslims was in contrast to the richer sources coming to us from Rome and Greece in classical times. Is it possible that the gradual spread of the Islamic tongue among people whose language had been earlier based on Latin ond Greek was a deterrent to the production of the written word? A factor which may be relevant was the absence in the Islamic world of the monasteries and other academic institutions in mediaeval Europe which were such storehouses of ancient literature.

Córdoba Mosque interior

At a later date I was to read Michael Barry’s Homage to Al-Anbalus about the rise and fall of Islamic Spain. It stirred my interest and my curiosity about the unique story of a new and vibrant civilisation appearing so abruptly on the Iberian Peninsula, surviving for more than seven centuries and, while dominating the inhabitants, largely living together with the natives in harmony. After these long years they were to leave or to be banished as abruptly as the day of their arrival. They may not have left a vibrant literature behind them but Barry’s book, with its fine collection of photos, reminds us of the Islams’ rich architectural heritage. We are also reminded by the history of Spain that politics and religion need not conflict but this virtue, greatly to be desired for the good of humanity, was rudely and cruelly forgotten by Phillip the first and his Catholic subjects.

A nice guy or what?

Stalin, a Biography. Robert Service. Published by Harvard University Press.

This review was written on October 20th 2011

I began to read the book during a cycling holiday on the Ile de Ré in September 2011. The Kindle was a convenient means of travel without having to carry a heavy book but lack of familiarity with this new means of reading made it difficult for me to write a meaningful review. However, I can make some generalisations which might be of help to others who may wish to know more about Stalin.

This was the first book I read on my Amazon Kindle. It is a long biography measuring more than 700 pages in text, of which about one third includes the evolution of the Russian empire during the first half of the 20^th century.

The book was tedious reading for a number of reasons but it was nevertheless compelling enough and I followed it to its end, with a little skipping of the many pages which provide the author’s views of Stalin’s personality and his behaviour as dictator of Russia for 30 years. The author conveys a rather grim impression of Russia as it was dominated by him and the Bolsheviks.  If the author had any prejudices about Stalin and his career, it was critical rather than approving.  Stalin emerges as an ambitious and paranoid figure and merciless in his treatment of his subjects. Even his closest associates and extended family suffered at his hands. Wholesale executions and political murder were a constant feature of his time, with exacerbations of his lust during the first Five Year Plan in the 1920s and during 1938, just before the 1939-1945 War, when he disposed of many of his earlier Bolshevik colleagues. His final public crime and splurge of paranoia was the rounding up and execution of the Jewish doctors in Moscow who, he believed, were planning to kill him.   His closest colleagues were in constant fear of him and could not be sure of how he might react to a remark, decision or action which would lead them to the Gulag or the firing squad. The author thinks that Stalin delighted in keeping his colleagues in fear of his lust.

Stalin was born in 1877. He started his life as a student in the spiritual academy of his home country of Georgia. He was entered for the priesthood but he was clearly an unwilling candidate for the religious life and was soon to be deemed unsuitable for ordination. Georgia was then part of Nicholas II’s Russian Empire. His parents were separated and his only intimate parent was his mother who lived her entire life in Georgia but with whom he maintained some contact during her lifetime. His political involvement was with the early Bolsheviks and he was greatly influenced by Lenin who was in exile in the early part of the century but who had an immense influence on the Bolshevik movement in Russia and elsewhere.

He is still admired in Georgia and is commemorated by sculptures and other public artefacts. This cannot be said about other countries and particularly about the countries which were part of the Russian hegemony after the 1939-1945 war. There is still a small residue of Russians who think warmly of him and who still yearn for the Communist regime which he dominated.

For the average reader who is not too familiar with Russia and the Russian people there are some difficulties in dealing with this large biography. The many personal and family Russian names need constant reference to the glossary, not easy when reading the Kindle for the first time. The author devotes large and repeated sections of the text in analysing Stalin’s character, personality, motives and reaction to the different circumstances during his thirty years as dictator of Russia and the Russian Empire. For me the lasting effect in reading about Stalin was being reminded of the cruelty of the man and his times, and his apparent indifference to the fear he created among his close colleagues and personal and family acquaintances, and the apparent indifference he had to their fate. While he clearly  held all the strings of power, he appears to have remained aloof of the various organisations, secret police, political councils and parts of government who carried out his  instructions in conducting the trails which led to so many executions and to the Gulag.  During his despotic power he was noted for his approval of the systematic killing of people on a massive scale and many of his prominent colleagues were eventually disposed of to the Gulag or the firing squad, for personal or political reasons and strongly related to his increasing paranoia.

The author states in his introduction that Stalin had many sides and this is the view of his niece Kira Allilueva, who was imprisoned by him and who spoke freely to the author. That he was ambitious, energetic and dynamic is evident from his response to Hitler’s invasion and his commitment to defeat the Nazis at all costs irrespective of the sacrifice of men, whether of his own men or his enemies. In battle soldiers were to move forward however strong or impregnable the opposition. Those who turned back were shot. During his 30 year reign he was responsible for the industrialisation of Russia and for the highly traumatic and controversial collectivisation of agricultural land leading to the impoverishing and deaths of millions of agricultural workers and farmers.

The author concludes that he left the Soviet Union as a world power and an industrial colossus and with a literate society. He died with continued institutions of terror and indoctrination with few rivals to contend with. The history of the USSR after his death was largely a series of attempts to conserve, modify, disparage or discredit his regime. He was succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev who according to the author shoved Stalin off the pedestal of Communism and its concept of equality for all.  It was Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985 who initiated the campaign against Stalin and all his works.

Since the opening up of the Archives in Moscow through the influence of Boris Yeltsin there is now a massive academic interest in and curiosity about Stalin and his times. Already we have a huge amount of literature aimed at interpreting Stalin and his regime. These archives can only add further to the attention of biographers and historians. They will contribute further to our knowledge of Stalin and the cult of Communism but I suspect that different attitudes and different prejudices will add rather than resolve the confusion of opinions about Stalin which is already evident among historians.

After the World War he sustained a tyranny which denied any vestige of freedom for the Russian people. Brutality continued to be institutionalised for his country. He had a monstrous record as a tyrant and his tyranny spread to some extent through Russian influence in the other Eastern Communist countries until the falling of the ‘’Wall’’  

Sturgis and the War of Independence

The Last Days of Dublin Castle. Ed: Michael Hopkins.

This review was written on December 13th 2003

This is some writing I did on holiday in Cyprus on the 25 May 2001 while staying with Paddy and Valerie Hogan at their villa in Paphos. Intensely warm, perfect weather, nice villa overlooking a fine pool. Since leaving Dublin on 20 May I have been reading The Last Days of Dublin Castle edited by Michael Hopkinson. Having read the first half of the book, I wrote the following commentary:

The Last Days of Dublin Castle contains the diaries of Mark Sturgis, who was a senior official (to some extent without portfolio) in Dublin Castle between July 1920 and January 1922. It is the first work I have read from the British point of view about this critical period and it provides me with a few important insights into the history of the War of Independence leading up to the Truce and the ratification of the Treaty.

I was astonished by the incompetence of the British during this time, with widespread indecision, disagreement and jealousy between the military and administrative officials in Dublin, and their colleagues and political chiefs in London. This circumstance in the British administration had two serious consequences.

Firstly, genuine peace feelings from both sides commenced in October 1920 and continued with various degrees of intensity right up to the actual truce on 11 July 1921. The final six months of the War of Independence were the most violent and bloody of the War which compounded the bitterness between the IRA and the British. Furthermore, and significant in relation to the ensuing Civil War, the delay in arranging a truce compounded the differences between those among the IRA and Sinn Féin who were willing to compromise on the constitutional question (and who were supported by the great majority of the Southern Irish population) and the intractable group who were rigidly committed to the republic. There is no doubt that the views of the latter hardened during the last few months of the War.

Patrick Joseph Clune

A major factor in the failure to reach a truce in November 1920 (the Clune initiative) was Lloyd George’s refusal to treat with the Irish without full decommissioning of arms, clearly an unacceptable condition for the Irish and one taken against the advice of some of Lloyd George’s own advisors in Dublin and elsewhere. Yet a truce was arranged eight months later without any reference to the question of decommissioning and despite further deterioration in the bitterness of the conflict.

There is no doubt that the Irish leaders, Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins (de Valera was in America at the time), would have agreed a truce in November 1920 if Lloyd George had not insisted on decommissioning and if he was not so deluded as to think that ‘he had murder by the throat’.

Mark Sturgis, bottom right.

There was a second important issue which prolonged the war. It strengthened the hand of the IRA and delayed the truce. The three elements in the British administration were, firstly, in Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant and his advisors and the administrative staff in the Castle; secondly, the police, the RIC,  including the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries, and, thirdly, the army. These three forces were frequently in conflict about policy and strategies, and conflict was exacerbated by the veto of Westminster over the views and policies of the Irish satrap. No doubt the more liberal members of Lloyd George’s cabinet must have been all the time looking over their shoulders at the Tories and the more implacable opponents of Irish self-rule, while Lloyd George had adopted a much less liberal attitude to Irish aspirations after 1916 compared to his strong support of the Irish in his earlier years.

Auxiliaries

Sturgis refers frequently to the adverse effects of the divisions between the police, headed by Tudor, and the army, headed by Macready, and between them and the administration and the politicians. Neville Macready. head of the British army in Ireland, in his Annals of an active Life (vol 2, p 521 and elsewhere) refers to the conflict between the army and the police represented by the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries. Poor communication, jealousy, rugged individualism and personal animosity were forces which contributed to the incompetence and impotence of a divided authority.

My father, Richard Mulcahy, who was the head of the IRA during the War of Independence, often said to me that, if the British Army had been given full authority and adequate resources under the leadership of Macready, it would have been impossible to continue the guerrilla campaign and an early end of the war would have been inevitable, to the disadvantage of the separatist movement. He stated that the IRA campaign would have lasted a week if the British Army had taken over full control.

It will be found that at this time the military were pressing more and more for permission to make the matter a military job.  Our whole tactics at the time were directed to keeping the struggle at a police level (1)

------evacuated police barracks and tax offices were chosen for burning at Easter 1920 in order to demonstrate that the Volunteers were attacking the British Administration and not the British Army.  They were, he said, not in a position to challenge the British Army (2)

----we have not been able to drive the enemy from anything but from a fairly good-sized police barracks (3).

Sturgis refers frequently to the urgent need to unify all the elements of the British authority in Ireland. It is clear that he was strongly of the opinion that, if the British hoped to defeat the IRA, the answer was a military one with nationwide martial law and with full military control of the police. Despite the pro-military view of Sturgis, shared with other members of  the British establishment, two battalions of  the army were transferred to England in April 1921 at the height of the War, one from Dublin and one from Belfast, in anticipation of a general strike by miners and other worker in England.

Black and Tans

Sturgis would have Lloyd George come out with clear and generous terms of a settlement, such as Dominion status, the basis of which, if Ireland were to refuse a truce and negotiations, would lead to all out war and to the alienation of Sinn Fein by international and much of national public opinion in Ireland. Certainly, it is clear that, if the military with adequate resources were to take control of the situation with full support from Westminster, the reprisals on the British side would have been much fewer and the war might have finished earlier and with less bitterness. A British army in full control would be obliged to adhere to the international code of war and would have prevented the all-too-common atrocities of the Black and Tans and the natural responses of the IRA.

Of course, Lloyd George and his cabinet colleagues refused to admit to the Americans and the outside world that the disturbances in Ireland constituted a war and therefore they may have been reluctant to leave control of the police and the administration to the military. The role of Westminster was also seriously affected by the grossly inaccurate reports supplied by the Irish Secretary, Sir Hamar Greenwood, such as the charge that the IRA was responsible for the burning of Cork City, a charge which was hardly credible to the British and later denied by Macready.

Somebody on the British side, when discussing self government for the Irish, protested that the Irish would be unable to govern themselves. His companion replied ‘Neither can the British’. The story of the British administration in Ireland during the War of Independence is a striking confirmation of this riposte

Asquith is mentioned in the diaries from time to time. He was a dove who approved a more active and conciliatory approach by the British Government, and who thought that the failure of the Clune truce was a big opportunity missed

Sturgis had been Asquith’s private secretary. He was seconded to the Irish Office after Asquith had retired as prime minister. He was wealthy and a prominent social light, closely connected with the establishment, passionate about racing, enjoyed Jammets and the Shelbourne, and enjoyed Ireland and the Irish with a hedonistic streak despite the stresses of his eighteen months in Dublin Castle. It is clear from the diaries that he had a sense of realism and a vision that a reasonable settlement must come, that the British government, with better understanding in Westminster and with generosity, had it within its power to reach agreement which should have satisfied both nations and which should have been achieved before 1921. Whilst agreement and a settlement did come to pass with the Treaty ratification, divisions within the British establishment in Westminster and incompetence in Dublin and London ensured that agreement was only reached when the seeds of our civil war had been sown.

I was half way through the diaries when I wrote the above commentary. I added the following remarks after I had completed the book.

I was intrigued by Father O’Flanagan’s contributions to the continued attempts to arrange a truce from late 1920 onwards. I had been under the impression that O’Flanagan invoked the disapproval of the Sinn Fein and IRA leaders when he intervened during the Clune negotiations because of his ‘premature’ and his ‘unauthorised’ intervention with Lloyd George. I was surprised therefore to find that he continued being involved in truce negotiations for most of the time up to the end of the War, and that he appeared to have the approval of de Valera and others in continuing these informal negotiations. It is clear also at the time that Father O’Flanagan was in favour of a reasonable settlement, such as Dominion status, and yet, when it came to the Treaty settlement, he was one of its most ardent and vociferous opponents. And O’Flanagan was not by any means the only person who bitterly opposed the Treaty and yet who appeared to be satisfied with Dominion settlement during the later months of the War.

Sturgis makes one rather interesting comment in 6 June 1921, referring to the American reaction to de Valera’s involvement in certain truce and peace activities. Sturgis states as follows

It seems that the Irish Americans, who got wind up when Craig and de Valera met during the Truce, wrote and wired that Dev and Sinn Féin were giving away ‘the Republican principle. They appeared to exert considerable pressure’ on the issue (P 185).

One wonders whether Dev’s prolonged stay in the United States might have been responsible for the intractable views of many Irish Americans on the question of the settlement, or did the American rather remote and unrealistic views on a settlement lead to a hardening of Dev’s outlook? Dev’s 19 months in America during the War of Independence, by referring so frequently during his many speeches to the Irish Republic might have had a deleterious effect on Irish American opinion.

Despite de Valera’s return from America at Christmas 1920, it is clear from the diaries that  one obstacle in arranging a truce was the difficulty of contacting de Valera and having him show some initiative in meeting with the British while many others on the nationalist side were active in seeking a truce. Dev remained an ephemeral figure despite the British perception that he was the leader of the separatist movement and that little could be achieved without his active input. This gave rise to Sturgis’s comment that

If we want to deal with England there’s L.G. - if we want to talk to Ulster there’s Craig or Carson, but when we want to talk to S.F. it’s a heterogeneous ‘collection’ of individuals ------ all over the place, and they severally, if they know their minds, which I doubt they certainly don’t, know each other and all fear to act off their own bat. (P188)

It is strange that Dev returned to Ireland unexpectedly just before Christmas 1920 and

Collins, centre, at the treaty negotiations.

 apparently after a tip off from a British diplomat in America that Lloyd  George was anxious for a settlement and yet it was to take another seven    months to arrange a truce. Nothing could be done without Dev on the issue despite the influence of such leaders as Griffith and Collins. Who did Dev speak to on the issue of a truce during these important seven months of the War? Did Childers have any role in the delay after he met Dev on the latter’s return from America?

When Lloyd George eventually wrote the letter inviting de Valera to London, which preceded the truce; it is interesting that it was Erskine Childers who was most opposed to the truce initiative. Sturgis stated on the 27 June 1921 when the truce was pending

The two sources from which alone this morning come shrieks of rage and suspicion are the Morning Post and Erskine Childers who agree from their poles asunder to regard the L.G. letter as a snare of the most traitorous description. (P194).

Sturgis describes an interview Loughnane had with Hugh Martin of the Daily News. In this interview, Richard Mulcahy’s name is associated with Cathal Brugha (Burgess) and Austin Stack as ‘The other extremists in favour of a war to the knife policy ----’. And in the same interview Mulcahy as chief of staff and Burgess as minister for defence are stated to be the persons directly in control of the IRA. He states that Childers, Burgess and Stack are not interested in any settlement ‘they do not hope for success but prefer to fight and fail ---’

Mulcahy may have been in control of the IRA but on the question of extremism his name could never be attached to those of Childers, Burgess and Stack.

Dublin Castle

I finished the Sturgis diaries while I was in Cyprus. I then turned to Lawrence Durrell’s book ‘Bitter Lemons’ about his time in Cyprus, and about Enosis and the end of British rule in the island. The incompetence of the administration there, its naive paternalistic approach to the Cypriot people and the poor understanding of the authorities in Westminster of the Cypriot situation reads like a repeat of the last days of Dublin Castle. It confirms why the complacency of those who are acting on behalf of a colonial power and who are governing an alien people, however paternalistic and benign the administration may be, provides the seeds of the power’s destruction. It is said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to relive it, an adage which certainly applies to the Tory dominated Westminster governments of the early twentieth century.

The earlier part of Durrell’s book, which deals with his setting up house in Cyprus, is over-sentimental and tedious, but the later chapters which deal with the worsening political situation in the island will be of interest to students of the history and demise of the British Empire.

(1)         (Annotation vol I, pp 144, 145)

(2)         (Tape 093 131A 125A)

(3)         (Dail debate on the Treaty, p 143)  

April 27th 1916

Field of Fire – the Battle of Ashbourne. Paul O’Brien. New Island Press, Dublin. 2012, pp 108.

This review was written on November 20th 2012

I read this in one session. It is the most detailed description of the exploits of the 5^th Fingal Brigade under the command of Thomas Ashe during the six days of the 1916 rebellion. The 5^th Brigade was established outside the City in the more rural part of North County Dublin. The book’s principal chapters, as is evident from the title, provide details of the Battle of Ashbourne which took place during the Friday, the day of Pearse’s surrender to the British. The surrender took place unknown to the members of the 5^th Battalion. The battle lasted about four hours in all and was by far the bloodiest of the many events which took place in 1916.

I believe that O’Brien’s account is the most detailed description of the battle which has been published so far and it reminds us that the event was the forerunner of the guerrilla tactics which were to be adopted by the IRA during the subsequent War of Independence.

Thomas Ashe

O’Brien describes the details of the battle and the confusion and frustrations of the 60 odd armed RIC police faced with the highly unconventional methods adopted by the fewer and more lightly armed volunteers who harried them from the cover of hedges and ditches on each side of the roadway occupied by the police in their vulnerable motorcade. The adjacent police barracks, which was being attacked by the Volunteers at the time of the arrival of the cavalcade of armed RIC men, was occupied by about 15 heavily armed colleagues but for some extraordinary reason they failed to assist their colleagues arriving unexpectedly from Slane in Co. Meath. They seem to have adopted an entirely defensive role in the barracks during the entire battle.

Richard Mulcahy

Richard Mulcahy’s initiative, as Ashe’s second in command, in remaining to fight the police despite their obviously superior forces and his direction in leading the attack is clearly presented while Thomas Ashe receives equal mention in accepting Mulcahy’s initiative despite Ashe’s first reluctance to face such unexpected and superior forces.

There are a number of photos of interest including portraits of some of the leading members of the Brigade. There is no doubt that the Battle of Ashbourne was an outstanding example of an effective response to conventional military maneuvers in the context of the Irish countryside with its extensive cover provided by heavy hedgerows and hedgerow trees and particularly by assailants with local knowledge of the area.

Ashbourne was the precursor of the successful tactics necessarily adopted by the IRA during the later War of Independence. It was a confirmation of Bulmer Hobson’s contention, as a leader of the IRB, who differed with his close colleagues on the wisdom of 1916. His approach to Irish independence was civil disobedience followed, if necessary, by guerilla warfare. Like his colleagues who were passionate about Irish independence and who were glad to die for it, he had a more pragmatic and more effective way of reaching the same goal. His refusal to take part in 1916 was considered by some to show lack of courage and lack of patriotism; I thought, reading of his decision, it was due to his pragmatic and more intelligent approach to solving the affairs of Man.

On a more personal note, I often wonder how my father, who was all his life firmly committed to his Catholic upbringing, who was a daily attender at mass and devoted to such ceremonies as evening benediction and weekend retreats, could reconcile his profound belief in the Church with his involvement in the killing of nine innocent policemen, the loss of three of his IRA comrades and the numerous injuries inflicted on many others. Like most other volunteers he must have had little idea that the ‘maneuvers’ which were described as the object of the 1916 weekend would lead to such dramatic and unprecedented events.

Would he have refused Seán McDermott’s insistence that he must remain in Dublin for the weekend despite his intention of visiting his father in Ennis at the time? Why did he refuse to attend the unveiling of the Ashbourne memorial by the President of Ireland, Seán T. O’Kelly in 1959 despite my plea and that of my mother that he should be there? I often think that his crucial participation in Ashbourne may have later preyed on his mind. I am aware that subsequently, as head of the army during the Civil War, he was responsible for the execution of some of the irregular forces but here he was clearly committed to the survival of the Treaty, to maintaining the democratic institutions of the State and he had the backing of the Cabinet. He was willing to go to such ends to maintain the Treaty and to protect the members of the Dáil and the other prominent supporters of the settlement who were under threat of assassination by Liam Lynch and de Valera.

I might have thought that his reluctance to attend the ceremony may have been related to the role of O’Kelly who was a leading politician who rejected the Treaty in 1922. O’Kelly was married to my father’s sister in law, Phyllis Ryan, and was then in the last year of his 14 years as President of Ireland. By 1959 there was a complete reconciliation between our families and, although the reconciliation may have not been as cordial as in a normal extended family, it allowed my father to attend many family functions organized by Phyllis at Aras an Uachtarán where he was always cordial to the President as was the President to him.