• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

Michael Collins: A Reappraisal

brasco

Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
69
To my knowledge Collins is viewed from misguided, traitor, hero, and pragmatist. Some idolize him, some berate him, some would like to see his memory thrown and left in the dustbin of history...

But have attitudes really changed. Is Collins now accepted, do FF and SF now regard Collins as a real patriot, have they lost their hatred for Collins achievements, was Collins right?
 


TradCat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
1,989
How can there be anyone left in the country who isn't bored with Michael Collins by now?
 

inchicore_republican

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
670
Collins said the treaty was a stepping stone to Irish freedom which proves he was misguided.
 

swansandtyphus

Active member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
103
Collins was a very unusual individual because he held so many strings together.
He was a TD and member of the Dail which he barely recognised, a minister of the Irish cabinet which he loathed and worked to undermine, a signitary of the Anglo-Irish Treaty which he openly flouted, commander of the Irish Free State Army he was working to sabotage and commanded the loyalty of many anti-treaty IRA leaders he was tasked with going to war with.

Collins's loyalty was to himself and the network of accolytes he surrounded himself with.

Had he lived there is not clear what type of leader he would have been.

Would he have ultimately become the leader of Fine Gael and served as Taoiseach and as a rival to De Valera and Fianna Fail?
Would an Ireland dominated by Collins have moved to make peace with the Unionists, have been more economically liberal and less conservative?
Would he have launched a military coup and made himself an authoritarian Generalissimo of a right wing Catholic Fascist regime like Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy or Józef Piłsudski's Poland?
Would General Collins have joined the Allies during World War 2 or would he have remained neutral or would he have sided with Nazi Germany?

We will never know.

Collins died before his time but other leaders of the period have been overlooked - Liam Lynch, Kevin O' Higgins, Arthur Griffith and many more who died before they could play a part in the post-Civil War Ireland and would have checked the power of Collins or De Valera who are simplistically protrayed as the giants of the revolutionary period in Ireland.
If Pearse, Connally, Clarke and other leaders had not been executed after 1916 the alternative history of Ireland would have been remarkably different.
 

swansandtyphus

Active member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
103
When Collins died at Beal Na Blath, the leadership of the British Government, the Free State Government, the IRA and the Unionists all breathed a collective sigh of relief.
 

DaBrow

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
416
Michael Collins was a Soldier and Military Tactician............................. He was not a master negotiator and was fooled by the Brits into Signing the Treaty not just because they threatened to wipe us off the face of the earth.

Eamon Devalera Should have gone instead because he could've have rattled sabres with the likes of Churchill and that A**hole Lloyd George.

Ireland was paritioned solely to keep the wealth of the North in British Possession......................

Paul Foote, Ireland: Why Britain must pullout

Explains this in great accurate detail


Britain forcing the Treaty on Ireland are responsible for the bloodshed of Civil War and the Northern Troubles, not Dev or Collins.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,328
Collins was a very unusual individual because he held so many strings together.
He was a TD and member of the Dail which he barely recognised, a minister of the Irish cabinet which he loathed and worked to undermine, a signitary of the Anglo-Irish Treaty which he openly flouted, commander of the Irish Free State Army he was working to sabotage and commanded the loyalty of many anti-treaty IRA leaders he was tasked with going to war with.

Collins's loyalty was to himself and the network of accolytes he surrounded himself with.

Had he lived there is not clear what type of leader he would have been.

Would he have ultimately become the leader of Fine Gael and served as Taoiseach and as a rival to De Valera and Fianna Fail?
Would an Ireland dominated by Collins have moved to make peace with the Unionists, have been more economically liberal and less conservative?
Would he have launched a military coup and made himself an authoritarian Generalissimo of a right wing Catholic Fascist regime like Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy or Józef Piłsudski's Poland?
Would General Collins have joined the Allies during World War 2 or would he have remained neutral or would he have sided with Nazi Germany?

We will never know.

Collins died before his time but other leaders of the period have been overlooked - Liam Lynch, Kevin O' Higgins, Arthur Griffith and many more who died before they could play a part in the post-Civil War Ireland and would have checked the power of Collins or De Valera who are simplistically protrayed as the giants of the revolutionary period in Ireland.
If Pearse, Connally, Clarke and other leaders had not been executed after 1916 the alternative history of Ireland would have been remarkably different.
One of the best synopsis of Collins you could read. Well said.

-He remained Commander In Chief of the IRB unbeknownst to Griffith and continued to organise and launch terror attacks after having signed the treaty.
 

merle haggard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
5,434
with the huge exception to the north ( i dont say that in a dismissive attitude towards the north or what has happened in the past), but


how in god's named do you make that one out. even dev acknolwedged this in one of his speeches in dail eireann years later (naturally not explicitly referring to collin's name) look what dev said when he entered the dail in 1926 about how the oath of allegiance was an empty formula.
except when develera went into leinster house he almost immediately introduced an Irish cosntitution laying sovereign claim to the occupied territory and made explicit references to the nation , its territory and the right of irish people to national self determination being inviolate . Collins and his people did no such thing , and plainly had no intention and kept a British constitution . And an oath of allegiance to a foreign king . What Devalera stated was that the oath was en empty formula to him and his followers , a hoop they had to jump through . Those who had kept it and attempted to retain it and a British constitution for as long as humanly possible obviously didnt see it that way .

couldn't that have being that attitude have being taken instead of forcing the state firing on republicans in the four courts, and still not surrender republican principles as seen by dev in 1932 onwards (again with exception to the north)
i think youll find it was winston churchill and Lork Birkenhead who forced that one .

with the risk as coming across condescending to you or anyone who knows the path taken by this part of the island in becoming a republic, i aint going to spell it out

however, i will say,

people like o'higgis, fitzgerald and cosgrave DID take advantage of the annual westiminster conferences along with other leaders of the new commonwealth and of course the changing ability etc of britain after ww1 by bringing in the statue of westminister of 1932, which for the first time allowed dominions to implement domestic legislation without the need to refer to westiminister.
whoopee for them . If Birtian wants a law passed in Ireland it just sets off a bomb in Dublin or elsewhere in the sure knowlege the southern administration , whether FF or FG , will not only implememt the legislation but cover up the crime . Not even complain .

you call that independence much less national independence ?

dev took advantage of this when he came to power and gradually dismantled the terms of the treaty and effectively rescinding it by bunreacht na heireann. all of which came about with no effective interference by the british (bar economic war)
but your arguing a different point here . Redmonds people could have done this too . Maybe quicker had it not been for 1916 and all that other bother .

the point was Irish sovereignty , Irish national self determination . The Irish peoples right to it . That partiton was a crime , something that meant the Irish had no right to civilised values and forms of government . Only a British concession . A scrap , a bone to mangy dog almost too afraid to beg for more .

collins referred to the treaty as a means of finally getting a parliament which would be recongised by britain (unlike dail of 1919) and thus getting the rest of the world to recongising some form of status for ireland. the treaty gave the irish more than what the 1914 home rule act was willing to give (albeit the north).. collins was saying what else would britain conceed to in the future.
he also referred to it as a stepping stone . Fact was what they got was home rule for slow learners

albeit a big chunk of the national territory , and all that goes with the smooth maintenance of partiton both sides of the border , is where you continually fall down . The right of the Irish people to self determination without foreign interference and all that . Seriously , the logic of your arguemnt is John Redmond was right

who else would have got ireland better than the treaty? dev? no chance, he knew or was on very clear notice of what was on offer since july of 1921. his document no 2, although a bit before its time regarding the commonwealth, did not really distinguish itself from the treaty text.. and basically accepted the situation in the north
who actually adopted document no 2 ? Nobody . Not sinn fein . Not the IRA . The republican movement made a lot of mistakes and keeping develera as a figurehead during 22 in particular was one of them . The Irish people had more choices than the British treaty and devs wee document that he kept to himself . They had more choices than dev and collins .

Redmond would have got exactly the same without any 1916 , any insurgency , any black and tans , any civil war .


who knows what would have occurred if collins had lived, if dev and collins and their people had reconcilled. one thing that is clear is that civil war should not have occurred.
yeah but it did and collins launched it on British demands with British guns , artilerry , armoured cars and machine guns . Because he claimed the irish didnt have any guns .

righto mick

it broke this country for years, isolated nationalists in the north and made unionists harden their attitude towards the union. dev's entrance to dail eireann in 1926 is a fine example of being at least seen to acknowledge the free state without surrendering his moderate republican princple. the dail, established under the treaty terms was his motor for laying the foundations for irelands (26) eventualy seperation from the union.. (whatever name you wish to call it of course)
except now its returned specifically to its 1936 constitutional position on the north , and is a member of the council of the British isles . Again it could have all been done by following redmond , maybe even quicker . National sovereignty and self determination was not acheived . Britian determines Irelands future , whats worse with Irish parliamentary assent , consent , and open and active adminsitrative collaboration . Collaboration which extends even to collusion in the mass murder of Irish citizens and the continued imposition of the most draconian legislation against Irish citizens .Who can be jailed on a garda opinion .

jesus christ i sound like a fine gaeler (no i am not one of them by the way
and your logic regarding giving up ones right to national self determination to British demands means you should extend it further and sound like a redmondite . Because all this could have been had without firing a shot . And possibly quicker had we made appeals regarding our valiant assitance to poor little catholic belgium , standing up against Johnny Turk etc etc

the right of Irishmen from the 26 counties to don British army and police uniforms and carry British guns on Irish streets that Britian claims as its own is still enshrined today . These people are applauded as heroes by our natuive rulers . Hurrah for collins , dev and redmond .
 
Last edited:

Nem

Active member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
253
There have been plenty of (re)evaluations of Collins. Not in the least after the GFA and the when the film came out. As always the historical complexities of it all remain a point of much discussion. This book (an edited volume) tackles this very well IMHO.

 

Mr Crowley

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
311
Michael Collins was a Soldier and Military Tactician............................. He was not a master negotiator and was fooled by the Brits into Signing the Treaty not just because they threatened to wipe us off the face of the earth.

Eamon Devalera Should have gone instead because he could've have rattled sabres with the likes of Churchill and that A**hole Lloyd George.

Ireland was paritioned solely to keep the wealth of the North in British Possession......................

Paul Foote, Ireland: Why Britain must pullout

Explains this in great accurate detail


Britain forcing the Treaty on Ireland are responsible for the bloodshed of Civil War and the Northern Troubles, not Dev or Collins.
True but you give Collins too much credit imo.
He wasn't much of a "soldier" or "military tactician" given that the only direct fire engagement that we know he participated in saw him break cover, stand up to give orders like a 'big fella' in the middle of a fire fight and receive a well-aimed bullet in the head for his stupidity.
Collins was a 'cult of personality' and something of a media myth. Maybe the British saw in this former post office apprentice someone that they could 'do business with'. Perhaps they had been doing business with him for some time. We will never know.
The book: Fighting for Dublin: The British Battle for Dublin, 1919-1921 by William Sheehan contains many recently unearthed military dispatches and reports and details how British army morale was at breaking point by late 1921. Contingeny plans for Dunkirk-style evacuations from Howth and Bray were put in place.
Unfortunately Britain, as always, found men she could 'do business with' before such plans became a necessity.
 

DJP

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
12,600
It should be common knowledge for those interested in history (and you can't know about the present until you know that past) that Collins said we should have accepted the Treaty and worked on making the Irish language the primary language of the island again and yes of course his vision was broad and he armed or rearmed the IRA in the North at the same time and believed like all Nationalists at the time that the Boundary Commission would result in large parts on the North being transferred to the Free State.
 

Halo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
774
a reply to haggard

i am not very good at the multi quoating so bear with me when i respond to get of your issues

1. RE De Valera's "almost immediately introducing the Constitution".
Dev entered the dail in 1926, came to power 5 years later and bunreacht na heireann came in almost 10 years later and four years whilst in power! the idiot would say that is not almost immediately. but, you completely missed the point. he was able to do all these things because cumann na nageadheal obtained the power/freedom to do these things via work at the westminister conference.

i accept what you are saying about michael with regard to adhering to the terms of the treaty. the constitution of 1922 proves this and the reaction of westminister when they baulk at collins orignal republican ethos draft. but, collins died too early to properly assess your comment, he was gone even before westminister brought in the free state act. cosgrave and cumann na ngaedheal, yes you are correct, through passage of time seemed stead fast in remaining in the status quo. but leave collins out of this, we have no proof of what he might or might not have done two to three years down the line. we dont know how he would have threated the north, we appear to have an idea of what he was trying to do eg paying northern school teachers salary so that they refuse to recongnise the northern state, much to the annoyance of cng when they found out.

point in this is, the treaty and later events opened the road to republican minded people in later time to deal with changing the treaty - something collins envisaged.

the treaty gave ireland a parliament, a respectful avenue if you will to do this. it was done by dev later. tell me how dev could have being able to have got rid of the oath and allegiance without threat of war? either way, i would accept what you say about cng and later day fine gael.

2. Re Churchill and co forcing the free staters firing on the four courts
yes. what i am saying, it was a pity that the whole affair and split could have stayed only in the dail and not in the army. in no way am i saying that anti treatities wanted a war; their record proved that they did not use offensive methods. i am simply saying its a pitty, in light of de valera's speeches (no i am not saying he caused civil war), that such action was taken. what else could the anti treaty people do though but act as an idependent group/entity. you will also be aware that as the war progressed, the free staters did not need to much encouragement from the british in taking the anti treat group down.

3. the woopde do comment
you clearly have no idea of the significane of the statute of westminister of the "empires" attitude 5-6 years after the treaty. not worth replying really, but for arguments sake, i have argued at least 2-3 times on document no 2; clear indication that dev had no proper solutions for the short term. please, as asked already, how do you really think dev got away so easily in dismantling the treaty? again the core argument i am making, stepping stone to freedom... the work of o'higgins etc made way for dev in cleverly getting rid of tm healy as governor general, getting rid of the oath, winning back the treaty ports , all without threat of a military war.

the issue about britian influencing irish legislative powers? what now a days? fine gael - they came in the 1940's. if you said eu then fair enough, but its a nonsense argument. give me an example of when westminister interfered with irish legislation after 1932. duirng tm healy's time as governor general, o'higgins managed to kick him into touch when tmh tried to interfere with legislation.

either way, instead of guess, produce evidence of when britian "put a "bomb" on dublin this has happened with regard to acts and statutory instruments (1922-1949)

4. Re redmonds people could have done it quicker had it not be for 1916
my point is, cumann na ngaedheal managed to get further concessions from britain via the westminister conference which helped dev later to do what he wanted to do, thus showing collins was right, whilst the limited independence (treaty) was not ideal in the short term, it provided a stepping stone to do better in the future. issues such as the ira's realistic and genuine chances of complete military success or lack of, in the tan war, made collins realise that the treaty despite how bad it was for him personally and idelogically, was the best that could be got at that time. that stepping stone speech was something he said to inspire people to stick to gether, whether he genuinely believed it or not is another matter

redmond showed no inclination of ever wishing for ireland becoming completely free from the union or even within the empire. republicans did. - home rule and a republic were two different things. we don't know what redmond might have achieved. in reality and unfortunately, the aims of the irb and ira and dail of 1919 failed in that the what they got was an improved form of home rule 1914. however, the one key success story from 1916 and the tan war was that it popularised the notion of a republic (with exception of cng) and helped dev win support in 1937 for a constitution which laid the way for the declaration of the republic. would redmond and his like have achieved this? where is the evidence that redmond wanted complete independence from britian?

the dev taking the advantage issue,... no its the same point. collins predicted a opportunity later to achieve further freedom - the work of o'higgins and co via the westminsiter conference paved the way for dev to do what he did (and to harden his views that since cng did nothing about dismantling the treaty he would have to do it) this was that opportunity. the confernece, as a dominion, opened doors to speak to other countries such as south africa etc and for once (unlike paris peace conference 1919), allowed ireland an opportunity to bring motions to the british with the support of other countries.

5. partition was a crime
yes it was, it still is. but britain put a clause into the treaty which allowed, within one month of the free state act, the northerns to decide whether or not they wanted to be in the free state. the treaty further had a clause about boundary commission and it review.

the irish themselves f*cked up any chance of a united ireland via boundary commission by waging civil war and economic boycotts. at no time did the ira put a real and meanigful war up in the north. dev at a very early stage realised that they could not force the unionst to join them. his made damn all efforts in his document no 2 or in future years to actually do anything about the north (article 2 and 3 of bunreacht na heireann were were words- just like the oath from the treaty) there was very meaniful debate about the north during the treaty sessions

6.home rule for slow learners
ye, one cant disagree, but the treaty provided the state with further rights on issues such as finance, currency , being allowed to have its own army (albeit limited) and police, unlike 1914
i am responding to someone who says collins was misguided. there is very little proof that collins intended to continue abiding by the treaty terms in the future. he brought in an aggressive policy towards the north and had planed to or tried to keep the ira together and advance on the north - clear breach of treaty terms had this gone ahead - but he was killed. stepping stone to achieve further freedom is a clear and simple comment that the treaty was never intended in collins mind to be a long term agrangement. dev proved this, i am sure collins would have applauded dev if he was at least alive and dev was in power.

with regard to redmond see no 4. again you are completly missing the point of what collins saw in the treaty. you still keep getting this idea that collins believed that the end republican ideas actually being implemented, the bloody thing only lasted a mere 20 years (albeit the north ) collins prediction of the treaty being a stepping stone to achieved... i.e full speration be it a republic or whatever you want to call it, could occur - 1947 (or to republican minded people -the day bunreacht na heireann was enacted. - again redmond showed no thought for such an idea - simply a parliament with continued links to the empire.

if collins actaully believed that the ira were not actually getting weaker by the time the truce was called, the dail as a whole would have being in a better position when threats of war were made during the talks. they were not and the british knew this. collins took a painful but pragmatic view of the treaty but believed it was only for the short term. granted cumann na ngaedheal upheld it, and dev showed that collins comment was correct.

what would you have suggested one would have done?

7. document no 2
yes the ira did not accept it, becuase they wanted complete independence and no compromise. politicans did not understand dev. the point is, with all of dev's mouthing off, in effort to save face and make collins a scape goat, he still he did offer a practical and reasonable solution. going back to war with britian would not have being a pratical solution - it would have completly destroyed the nation, the dail and the ira might have lost the support of the people for turning their backs on a chance of peace which may have resurrected the irish parliamentary party. you are correct on your comment and definetly correct about dev. i am simply saying collins was not the bad guy all the time. i am saying dev, who many listened to, should have stepped in . by the way, the ideas of document no 2 did come into affect when dev brought in bunreacht na heireann .... examples include creating a minister for external affairs, acting independtly on an international basis and appointing irish representatives in other countries (the last one, much to the annoyance of the brits and a clear breach of the treaty- but then again, the statue of westminister bounded the brits from interfering) i even said in my earlier post that document no 2 was ahead of its time during the first days of the commonwealth. most of the ira went on to support and establish fianna fail - so they supported document no 2 later

8. redmond would have got the same..
read both texts from the 1914 act, the treaty and the 1922 constitution , you will find some clear differences. granted not much constitional but important differences none the less (domestic powers). you are off your rocker if you genuinely believe redmond would have prevented partition! what the hell were the 36th ulster division fighting for? certainly not small catholic belgium! if you think that redmond would have prevented partition, you completely under estimated ulster unionist stance of 1912, the fact that they did not even WANT any form of devolution.

with regard to the rest of the country, again your comment on home rule for slow learners is probably sound in light of that time. but i would ask, in your opinion, in light of precendent of o'connell, butt, parnell and redmond and despite the presence of the fenians and irb, would future irish parliamentary party members have ever considered a complete break from britian as people of 1916 sought. point here is, there was no expression of opinion from former ipp people of such a break. 1916 people brought fenian and irb ethos to prominence - it gave an alternative direction which was brought to constitutional basis by fianna fail and dev. unfortunately it took spilling of blood to do this though. (i am certaintly not criticising 1916 and how our country formed from the gun, nor am i glorifying it)

9. micko and the guns
at all times during the tan war, the ira were limited in PROPER weapons. read the books and accounts and you will see. it is one of the many reasons why the tan war did not effectively break out in most counties (that and parts of the country were not suitable for guerilla warfare) please do not be under any allusion that the ira were in fact trained, fully armed and clothed during the tan war. reality is f*ck all actually were put into active service. as mulchahy and tom barry noted about the tan war, the ira were barely able to invade a decent barracks never mind driving the british out.small flying columns were created not only because it suited guerilla warfare but because many men who did sign up to the ira were either usless or could not commit on a full time basis. its amazing that these brave men from places like dublin and cork (yes brave) achieved anything.

even when the free state army established, they were badly armed and had f&ck all equipment, the anti treaty people had a huge advantage over the staters at from the calling of the truce to the firing at the four courts. they could have taken the country at that point. look at the counties that saw action in the tan war and civil war. there is a massive difference. places like wexford and kerry and much of the west became vicious hellholes during the civil war yet were ineffective during the tan war. (i am not saying nothing happened in those counties, what i am saying that during the tan war the said counties were left wanting)

no one can defend collins for asking the british for guns etc... but reality is, they were needed if an army was to be established. one needs to note, that collins gave many arms to the anti treaty people in order to attack the north.

with exception to the 1st and 2nd paragraphs, i would conceed to your comment should you be implying collins did nothing to achieve a republic during the civil war.

10. modern comparison of the north to that of 1918-1923 and redmond
as far as redmond is concerned, please note points 4 and 8. it most certainly has not returned to its position of 1936 constitution (as enacted in 1936). there is a little matter of the admendments made to old artilces 2 and 3. you know full well that old articles 2 and 3 are vastly different and you know full well what unionists from 1936-1998 taught of them. read the case of michael mckimpsey v ireland 1990. old artilces 2 and 3, much like article 44 were amended to encourage unionists that they were to be recongnised instead of being claimed as part of the republic of ireland via ol 2 and 3. again you know this. i feel i may have misintrepreted you here though and you referring to 1936 as amended.

you have a very strange idea of what the BRITISH AND IRISH council means. the irish are very much able to act independetly of others, granted their proposals may not be accepted but they have freedom to make them. the north itself, BOTH sides must agree with each other in implementing policies, westminister does not wish to be always butting in, westminister, in fact in since blair has being very encouraging towards nationalists and republicans. the british do not dominate. it is up to the people themselves in the north what they want to do, i am sure you would agree that it is better than direct rule from westminister. power sharing is the only way republicans and nationalist can work for the people and not surrendering their principles completley and by laying down the foundation for gaining trust with the unionists. maybe some day persuading them that an united ireland is the best option. ( but dont hold your breath yet.) the british do not determine the future of an united ireland, neither does the republic, it is the british and irish citizens that comprise of the north

with regard to redmond and the north, despite some of the above, i may be willing to conceed to you, but please specify how he would have achieved a seperate country etc striclty from the evidence of what he was looking for - in constrast to what people of 1916 etc sought and eventually obtained (26 counties)

as for the last bit, irish parliament collussion etc of the past... the sacry thing about this is, we are only begining to learn more about this, imagine the can of worms if proper investigations would be opened with the monaghan and dublin bombings.

11. with regard to your last comment. you are completely off the boil and have completely misunderstood the whole point to my comment. firstly, when i said i sound like a fine gaeler i was referring to how any fine gaeler would sound when they inevitably defend collins. i was defending collins on many issues and his attitude about the treaty. i was not defending his stance that it was right. what i was doing, and previously noting that i have hindsight of history to fall back on, was that in the long term, collins comments of stepping stone to freedom was accurate. i was laughing to my self that i sounded like a fine gaeler, people i am not fond of. you see any irony?

i have made it clear, though clearly not to YOU, that the success of dev came easily because of the few postive efforts made by cumann na ngaedheal in dismantling the treaty (whether or not intentionally does not matter) again, the whole point is, collins was correct when he said that if one accepted the treaty, albiet on a short term basis, better things would occur in the future. but of course, some republcians failed to use their heads.

as for everthing being achieved without a shot . ... sir either you have reading problems, or you are simply not with it, or i am speaking double dutch, any disappointment about fighting was with regard to the civil war, and not 1916 and not the tan war.

in my opinion, or from a republican perspective, 1916 and the tan war were neccessary. i made made my comments on redmond above. you seem to the impression that just because the ira and collins did not achieve their aims immeditely after there actions, their work was a complete failure. i for one do not hold that view. pearse noted at his court martial that the spirit of republicism may have failed with him but would be carried on by future generations.

now, again, can you show any indication or speak from redmond that at least would indicate that ipp stood for a complete and independent break from britian?

with regard to modern day north, i note what you are saying and agree. but, i believe, that the actions during and after civil war are the cause for northern ireland being the way it is today.. ie the south's inability to do anything constructive with the north and possible could not give a f&ck about them attitude. i do not believe that collins had that attitude towards the north. do you?



in conclusion, both collins and dev and many others are not perfect, but its all we have. for at least southerns they cant be considered traitors. they are our founding fathers. i defy anyine to say that they would or could do better than them
What you mean the IRA did not put up much of a war in the north??

Many crown forces killed, 100's if not thousands of IRA volunteers arrested, entire areas that were nationalist or republican areas were burnt out of their houses in the 1000's. All the counter violence like the modern day period backed by the british government.

There is many areas in the south that did feck all. But what does it matter anyway if antrim and armagh had more IRA men than say kildare or wicklow. Does that mean the latter would have to remain under british rule..

i have read many accounts of ex IRA men who actually praise the IRA men in the north for being more braver due to the british use of the loyal community against them.

Your jumped up a wee fianna fail stater who probably now justifes and supports the actions of your free state heroes in the 20's. most likely as you did the same in the 40's and how many murders have the fianna fail government covered up and colluded with the british on their '''''own'''''''' people in the 35 years!! There a wuestion for ye???



'
 

Halo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
774
and also most of the IRA did not end up supporting fianna fail, only at the start when dev fooled them into believing that he was not different than cosgrave and co. Many went with the left wing groupings in the 30's, many remained in the IRA. Ive got interesting stats on these figures of fianna fail, the IRA and the republican congress during the period

for example of the top of my head
Sean mac bride, count plunkett, sceilig, tom barry, kathleen clarke, maude gonne, sean russel, father flanagan, peadar o donnell, ernie o malley etc etc most of the families of the main 1916 rebels and many more did not support fianna fail
 

Mr Crowley

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
311
and also most of the IRA did not end up supporting fianna fail, only at the start when dev fooled them into believing that he was not different than cosgrave and co. Many went with the left wing groupings in the 30's, many remained in the IRA. Ive got interesting stats on these figures of fianna fail, the IRA and the republican congress during the period

for example of the top of my head
Sean mac bride, count plunkett, sceilig, tom barry, kathleen clarke, maude gonne, sean russel, father flanagan, peadar o donnell, ernie o malley etc etc most of the families of the main 1916 rebels and many more did not support fianna fail
Excellent points Halo this is perhaps best typified in the words of Nora Connolly, daughter of James Connolly, after the assassination of Seamus Costello in 1977 by the type of entities that now infest the Labour Party.

"He seemed to be the leader who would bring about an organization such as my father wished to bring about. Of all the politicians and political people with whom I have had conversations, and who called themselves followers of Connolly, he was the only one who truly understood what James Connolly meant when he spoke of his vision of the freedom of the Irish people. In him, I had hoped at last after all these years, a true leader had come, who could and would build an organization such as James Connolly tried to do."
 

Halo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
774
y , you have completely misinterpreted what i said in the last post
its too long for me to read. i'll deal with this first

walrusgumble;1449866 very little substantially was done to help their ira colleagues and the civilians in general. [quote said:
What of course there was. Many guns men and members of the IRA helped in the war in this so called area that you refer to as northern ireland. Sure whole divisions of the IRA crossed this imaginary border the brits drew up and the one fianna fail have fought so hard to keep.
Read about events like petigo and things like that. the period jan 1922- may 1922 is also interesting. Men from all parts of ireland involved in the war in the northern part. Just like many men that stayed on within the IRA were involved in attacking britain to free the north in the 40's.
Look what is your point here. i am really not with it.

reasons for such failure = lack of ammo, good men, and most important lack of clear and defined direction.
Waffle waffle waffle. of this there was not a lack of ammo as the free state army when stealing many of the guns the IRA had. They still had to fight a long war and a dirtier war than the britis against these so called men with little ammo. That is waffle and free state lies.
There was many good men. Compare a cork amn like tom barry to say fianna fail backed senator today from cork eoghan harris or mayo man ernie o malley to fianna fail td from mayo today bev flynn.
There was many good men. The brits even admitted these men had them beat and that they could not put them down without overwhelming force which meant civilians deaths. They were ''''' not '''''' prepared to go through with this option. hence ewhy they called for a truce.

the critical points made by me is, for purpose of proper debate is get rid of any ridiculous notion that every one took part in the war. that is a load of nonsense.... like dubs saying their granddad fought in the gpo or so and so watch munster beat new zealand


t, show your ground and not accuse one of saying something that clearly did not.
 

Nem

Active member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
253
Walrus, if Halo can't be bothered reading you entire post, then I have serious doubts about him tackling a comprehensive archive. Btw, have you ever looked at what the UCD archives hold, might be of interest.
 

Halo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
774
Walrus.I would say that 25% of the active IRA men left and joined the imperialists in the free state army after the truce. some guns would have went with them. Not all, but we can assume some.
During the joint offensive up north in 1922 the IRA lost more guns than they went in with, even though collins was using some british weapons. a story in itself.

So be clear here. There are two examples of the IRA losing guns after the treaty. I know that joe mac garrity had a batch of guns blocked from coming in at that time also.

So how can you say that the IRA was better equipped in the civil war than the tan. I'll agree there was guns and unlike the staters propaganda there was enough to fight the britis, but how were they better equipped as yous stated.

I want links and quotes to were the IRA obtained these extra guns from the period june 1921 up to the start of the civil war.
id also like to mention that tom barry that around the truce time, stated that the IRA had enough weapons to fight for 5 years. He didnt mention any extra weapons.

Also ernie o malley talks of making mortar bombs and things like that. But where the extras guns

Remember you did quote this

'by civil war, all sides were better equipped.'

edit btw you could well be right on this one, but im interested to know how you come to this conclusion.
 

Big Bobo

Active member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
168
To my knowledge Collins is viewed from misguided, traitor, hero, and pragmatist. Some idolize him, some berate him, some would like to see his memory thrown and left in the dustbin of history...

But have attitudes really changed. Is Collins now accepted, do FF and SF now regard Collins as a real patriot, have they lost their hatred for Collins achievements, was Collins right?
Average conservative politician, very good assassin.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top