Michael Collins: A Reappraisal

[walrusgumble]

[quote=Halo;1452448]its too long for me to read. i'll deal with this first

[quote=walrusgumble;1449866


very little substantially was done to help their ira colleagues and the civilians in general.[/quote]

halo

if you aint bothered to read posts in full, may i suggest not responding to them as it is likely, you will take an issue completely out of context and argue points that no one disagrees with.

with regard to your account of the north, you actually saying "whole divisions" of the ira went over the boarder????? lol what during the period of 1918-1923???

! i wish halo that was true i really do. but its not completely true. sure during the tan war, many brigage's never mind divisions (divisions were only set up near end of tan war and dominant during the civil war! i refer you to earney o'malley and tom barry) barely capable of co-operating with each other due to local rivalary etc. i point to make here is, i am sure you will agree, during the period of 1918 - 1923 not enough was done by southerners. southerners had it easier in the sense that northerners not only had to deal with the tan, auxiliaries , ric but also teh uvf. (stick with the period of 1918-1923)



. i never said that all places were quiete, i said that in most places in the country, very little "effective" (and i say effective) work was done or capable of being done for various genuine and not so genuine reasons. had you bothered reading the posts in full there would be no need for your good self to blow a fuse. petigo (co Donegal) - as in the battle of belleck- pettigo 1922? is one incident, though very gallant, and good point , but i am referring mostly about the incidents during the TAN WAR! if you read the posts in full you will note that i mention the huge difference between the army situation in relation to ACTIVE personnel and guns and ammo between the Tan War and Civil War. by civil war, all sides were better equipped.


you are really getting annoying. re lack of ammo etc. again if you bothered to read posts in full, i am mostly referring to the tan war and not the civil war. the free state were not robbing ammo of republicans during this time...as there wasno free state prior to 1921, again i will stress, the country was better armed during civil war.

christ you are some langer!

i strongly recommend that you take a visit to the miliatary records and archives in dublin, and check up on the authoritive books on the tan war and civil war, barry and o'malley etc. if one is not retarded, they will find it easy to compare and contrast even on military terms, the events of both civil war and tan war.

[Nem]

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]

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.

[turdsl]

How can there be anyone left in the country who isn't bored with Michael Collins by now?

Yes I agree, both himself and Dev should be placed in the dustbin of history.

[Big Bobo]

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.

[brasco]

Average conservative politician, very good assassin.

Nothing about Collins was average, or if your average is measured by Collins, God help the rest of us.....

[vista]

Collins diidnt take off to the Waldorf Astoria etc.etc.

[bogtrotter]

We will never know what Collins dreams were for the new Ireland, that he by signing the treaty created.....He was certainly a good military organiser and he was a master at creating contacts (agents) in vital places.....He never say much action on the military front apart from the burning of the Customs house ( which Dev ordered) and what a disaster that was, and the terrible decisions he made on the day of his death.....

Although Collins signed the treaty and fought for it in the Dail, he was at the same time organising and arming the IRA in the north, He gave the order for the execution of Henry Wilson while at the same time promoting the free state....We will never know what Collin's plans for Ireland's future were, that bullet in the head will always leave future generations guessing.....

I believe that Collin's loyalty to the republic was real and that ultimately , if he had lived he would have proved it....He was already moving away from the cosy free state cartel before he set out on his fatal voyage.....I believe that collins genuinely signed the treaty because he say it as a stepping stone to a republic....I believe that he would have used the boundary commission to make the northern state unworkable...that his ultimate loyalty was to the republic /Sinn Fein and the IRA.....

Sadly his untimely death probably robbed the republic of its greatest asset.......

[walrusgumble]

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.

cetainl would, how would one get around that, seek appointment etc or just stroll in. i was lucky enough before to get to head into see one of the army barracks in dublin with mate (who was doing research) to see some of the archives.

[walrusgumble]

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.

at least you are making an effort to discuss and debate - and thanks. yes "better equiped" in context of anti treaty ira was a very very inappropriate word used by me, - when you even include issues such as experience, whether or not they had locals to rely on, money (funds in america which were raised by anti treaty people were injuncted from coming to ireland)

my reference to better equipped refers to the united ira of the tan war, compared to that of the ira who went to the free state and that of that who went anti treaty, as you say vast majority of ira men, in particular officers went anti treaty. you further rightly note that the free state got alot of their gear from the british. moreover you refered to lost of guns between both sides - this would be quiete clear when both groups occupied, evacuate and re-occupied barracks and garrisions from each other before the four courts. you will recall that on some occassions, free staters for various reasons gave up barracks' to the ira without much trouble and vica versa - i am sure you would agree often guns changed hands on a number of occassions. the anti treaty lads, as you noted had kept most of the guns during the split, and thus were in a better position material wise than the free staters at the start - free staters army had to start from scratch - sure fs uniforms had to be made in britian. (of course, the ant treaty men never really went on a complete rampage, for understandable reasons such as not wanting to kill their fellow country men)


i would recommend, if one has not looked at it already, Michael Hopkinson's book on the civil war "green against green", a concise but very helpful book, and most important as partial as possible (if that is possible) on the events throughout the country during the civil war. i will get abk to you with quotes etc.


in fairness what tom barry said during the truce time is completely different to what tom barry said and believed as far as the end of 1922 alone - never mind what the realities turned out to be as the war progressed , moreover, prior to the start of the civil war, what experience had the great tom barry had outside the munster region and the occassional trip to dublin to make such comments about the state of the rest of the ira nationwide?.GHQ certainly differed in their opinion, then again though, there communications were not too hot nor were they aware of what was going on around the country half the time. it would be very very difficult to doubt the credibility, genuiness and accuracy of tom barry's comments about the amount of guns in his possession at time of truce as the man and his people saw a great deal of action. barry, when criticising other counties noted that they had no excuse for failing to capture arms etc as there were plenty of barracks around to raid (again i am referring to the tan war at this point). problems around the country included lack of leaders of the same calibre as barry, who one must note, (he along with very few men had any military experience) and of course the widespread of arrests of active members. liam lynch, who at the begining tried to keep the ira (pro and anti) untied before and slightly shortly after four courts naturally was very very very reluctant to engage in any hostilities, the war turned up and his attitude hardened for no surrender or compromise. he became out of touch near the end thinking certain places like the west which had earlier being recaptured / control by the free state and most hostilites ceased quiete early, would save the day.