Michael Collins: A Reappraisal

[Cogadh]

No-one has claimed Collins was a wide-eyed choir boy. You seem to have a habit of putting words in other's mouths and then attacking the statement you have attributed to others. Thats an interesting technique but probably better off in an evangelical thread.

Don't patronise me by referring to me as your 'friend'- I don't know you. I'd rather debate a subject than allow it to drop into meaningless insult as you seem to prefer. You are having trouble telling your own assertions apart from facts or does your ego assume anything you say must be historically accurate because you happened to say it?

I think you are something of a bluffer.

No has to 'claim' it, you gobshíte. It's implicit in the mythical thinking that gobshítes like yourself indulge in. As for debate, my friend, as I said: any debate depends on facts and a reasonable knowledge of the subject at hand, you've already shown yourself to be incapable of going beyond myths. That, unfortunately for you, means you are an idiot. Citing such becomes merely a statement of fact rather than an 'insult'. It might be harsh but it's the truth.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

No has to 'claim' it, you gobshíte. It's implicit in the mythical thinking that gobshítes like yourself indulge in. As for debate, my friend, as I said: any debate depends on facts and a reasonable knowledge of the subject at hand, you've already shown yourself to be incapable of going beyond myths. That, unfortunately for you, means you are an idiot. Citing such becomes merely a statement of fact rather than an 'insult'. It might be harsh but it's the truth.

Oh its implicit, is it? Thats handy in any debate, being able to claim someone else is wrong because there's an 'implicit' error.

You are right in one thing- any debate depends on facts and a reasonable knowledge of the subject at hand. I'll agree with you there. So what myths have I attempted to propogate?

I would have thought someone with your self-congratulatory talents would be able to tell from the way I'm expressing myself that not an 'idiot'.

I think you are on a hobby horse and reluctant to climb down off it. And unfortunately, despite your high opinion of your own debating skills and your uncertain grasp of what constitutes a fact, you'll always be one of those people who descends into bluster and name-calling whenever your knowledge is challenged.

You've a long way to go to be any more than a pub bore, old son.

[KeyserSoze]

I don't get this stuff about Collins wanting the IRA after the Treaty to launch a big campaign in the north. A large part of why he signed the bloody thing was because the Brits had threatened 'total' war if the IRA had continued fighting them, plus he was pressured into firing the first shots in the civil war partly by fear of the Brits coming back south if he hadn't taken on the anti-Treaty forces, all of which stands a bit in contradiction to the claims he was seeking an IRA campaign against the NI state.

[NEWN]

True-Mick signed the Treaty...But he hadn't given up on the North being permanently lost...
A) He secretly armed the Northern IRA_over 550 came South during the Civil War. Just 4 months after Mick's death when the Treaty went into effect-the North for-one week-stopped being part of the British Empire and became part of the Irish Free State-until the Unionists voted to become part of the British Empire again. If only Mick had still been alive with his 550 North IRA aided by the Armed might of the 26th Counties of the South...Did Cosgrove or Dev ever arm the North IRA-or decide to bring about partition's end by sending the Irish Army over the Border and bring about a defacto All-Irish Republic?
B) His feelings to the Anti-Treaty party_they could keep their principles but not their guns. Was Dev ever so magnanimous toward his political opponents-such as allegedly approving the firing of a librarian because she was non-Catholic in a Catholic community?
C) That up to the last second Mick tried every which way he could to reunite the IRA ARmy. Did Dev ever try to reunite the Pro/Anti Parties of the IRA all the Times he was in Power from 1932 to 1973?

[KatieCall]

I agree with "NEWN"'s last point about Collins doing everything he could to reunite the IRA during the civil war. He was heartbroken over the split. I think that he only wore that Free State uniform for the sake of sticking by his word after he was sent to sign the Treaty. If he was not forced to go to London maybe things would have been different.

He wanted a Republic as much as the men that shot him and they knew it, but felt it was their duty to eliminate "the traitor". It is speculated that Collins went to West Cork in August 1922 to negotiate a peace deal with the anti-treaty forces. He would offer them a place in the Irish Army or positions of importance in the civil service for those who did not want to take the oath. He was giong to encourage the diehards who wanted no part in this to go to the North and fight on behalf of the nationalists there. after a few years the treaty would be dismantled and collins would have a united, well trained army. Although this is only word of mouth it sounds alot like something Collins would do.

collins proved he was a republican at heart when he sent the guns to the northern nationalists

He avoided war from the brits by signing the treaty. He wanted peace and to achive a republic peacefully

is it not fair to say that he was the only realist out of the lot of them?

[merle haggard]

[quote=KeyserSoze;1544917]

I don't get this stuff about Collins wanting the IRA after the Treaty to launch a big campaign in the north.

its a fiction , the IRA were doing just that in the north without him

A large part of why he signed the bloody thing was because the Brits had threatened 'total' war if the IRA had continued fighting them,

thats also a free state fiction. Britian only started waving its immediate and terrible war envelope about at the very end of the negotiations . Collins had already spent the entire negotiations intimidating and bullying the Irish side , even cornering them alone in their rooms , into accepting the British positions and had already accepted them himself without any threat of war. And Britian wasnt threatening the Irish for fighting them , it was threantening them if they didnt accept their treaty regarding how Ireland would be governed and by whom .
In reality the British threat at the very end was little more than a face saver that would permit collins to go back with little more than what Britian had declared in its own Governemnt of Ireland act 1920 . Think of what Collins position would have been had the British not thretened war at the very end of negotiations were hed already accepted their position long beforehand

plus he was pressured into firing the first shots in the civil war partly by fear of the Brits coming back south if he hadn't taken on the anti-Treaty forces,

there wasnt that much pressure to be honest . There was a request alright but to call it pressure is going a bit far .

all of which stands a bit in contradiction to the claims he was seeking an IRA campaign against the NI state.

all his actions stand in contradiction to that . That he was supplying some arms ostensibly to protect nationalist districts in belfast by giving them some guns isnt in dispute although his motives are . By supplying them with guns he was cleverly deepening the split in the IRA . Thousands of northerners including many IRA men were making their way south to join the free ste army and shoot republicans while their own streets burned at home and the IRA were fighting pitched battles in pettigo and elsewhere in the north . . Of Course they were convinced mick had this great cunning plan up his sleeve . Just like devaleras followers were convinced in the 30s and 40s and Adams followers are convinced today theres still some secret plan .

all fictions

[merle haggard]

I agree with "NEWN"'s last point about Collins doing everything he could to reunite the IRA during the civil war. He was heartbroken over the split. I think that he only wore that Free State uniform for the sake of sticking by his word after he was sent to sign the Treaty. If he was not forced to go to London maybe things would have been different.

He wanted a Republic as much as the men that shot him and they knew it, but felt it was their duty to eliminate "the traitor". It is speculated that Collins went to West Cork in August 1922 to negotiate a peace deal with the anti-treaty forces. He would offer them a place in the Irish Army or positions of importance in the civil service for those who did not want to take the oath. He was giong to encourage the diehards who wanted no part in this to go to the North and fight on behalf of the nationalists there. after a few years the treaty would be dismantled and collins would have a united, well trained army. Although this is only word of mouth it sounds alot like something Collins would do.

collins proved he was a republican at heart when he sent the guns to the northern nationalists

He avoided war from the brits by signing the treaty. He wanted peace and to achive a republic peacefully

is it not fair to say that he was the only realist out of the lot of them?

its fair only to say you believe everything you saw in that stupid film .

[Dunny]

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

I think you will find that Kathleen Clarke was a FF TD for Dub North and a member of Seanad Eireann from 1928 to 1936 for FF.

[Rocky]

thats also a free state fiction. Britian only started waving its immediate and terrible war envelope about at the very end of the negotiations . Collins had already spent the entire negotiations intimidating and bullying the Irish side , even cornering them alone in their rooms , into accepting the British positions and had already accepted them himself without any threat of war. And Britian wasnt threatening the Irish for fighting them , it was threantening them if they didnt accept their treaty regarding how Ireland would be governed and by whom .
In reality the British threat at the very end was little more than a face saver that would permit collins to go back with little more than what Britian had declared in its own Governemnt of Ireland act 1920 . Think of what Collins position would have been had the British not thretened war at the very end of negotiations were hed already accepted their position long beforehand

there wasnt that much pressure to be honest . There was a request alright but to call it pressure is going a bit far .

If two sides who are at war, decide to call a cease-fire and then try to end the war with a peace deal, but an unable to agree to a peace deal, then inevitably they go back to war as their is no other option.

That was simply the situation with the Treaty. You're right the threat of terrible and immediate war did not affect Collins that much, he said so himself. However he also knew that that was the best the Irish could get and that once again if the talks failed as they would if the Irish rejected what was on the table, then war would inevitably begin again as there was no other option now that talks had failed and he said that as well.

Also you claim that the Treaty was little better then Home Rule is a joke. The differences were in reality massive.