The Ultimate Irish History debate!

nollaig

Who's side would you have taken (or did take)?

Collins or DeValera?

Sand

Collins - He had the cop on to realise the Treaty was the best deal available, whereas Dev and his successors were and are living in fantasy land.

Also Collins died young without making too mistakes, whereas Dev lived long enough to make a whole load more.

Fenian

Sand wrote:

Collins - He had the cop on to realise the Treaty was the best deal available, whereas Dev and his successors were and are living in fantasy land.

Collins took a deal that was acceptable to the IRB not the IRA. Also the threat of "immediate and terrible war" is now believed to be a complete bluff.

I would of fought on the republican side, the IRA fought and died for a Republic during the War of Independence, not a Free State and a country divided.

Don't get me wrong, I think Dev was a complete swine but at that time he still held republican ideals.

Aedh Baclamh

So Fenian, what did the Civil War achieve in the end?

Fenian

The civil war achieved nothing. The question was not what it achieved, but what side I would of fought on.

So Aedh Baclamh, what side would you of fought on?

Johnmb

Fenian wrote:

Collins took a deal that was acceptable to the IRB not the IRA.

They were the same thing. The "B" was just the leadership element, and if I remember correctly, no longer existed as an entity by the time of independence. Collins took a deal that a majority of Irish people were happy with. A few others were afraid that they would lose face, and therefore power, with a compromise treaty. A situation that is not unique to 1920's Ireland.

Capt'n Midnight

Collins.

Most of the fighters of the war of independence had been exposed by the end of the war or shortly after. So a military solution capable of getting back the other six counties would have been impossible without massive bloodshed. There is a saying that a good compromise leaves both sides equally disappointed. I have no respect for those who want to pay a disproportinate price for a political ideal rather than a pragmatic reality.

Look at it another way , Dev was offered the six counties by Churchill if we came in on the Brits side in WWII. If the civil war was about a 32 county Ireland and not an internal power struggle then why wasn't the deal accepted ?

Very few people were killed in the civil war, but they were people we needed badly. Some argue that Collins would have tried to undermine the six counties and possibly change the boarder. Almost certainly he would have done more than Dev actually did. Actions, Words etc.

Fenian wrote:

Also the threat of "immediate and terrible war" is now believed to be a complete bluff.

I'm not so sure about this, look at the bombing of the Iraqi's in the 20's and other "police" actions taken. Later during WWII the Brits destroyed the French fleet. Over a thousand sailors were killed , and they were allies not the enemy. Bomber Harris caused hundreds of thousands to be needlessly slaughtered, not to mention tens of thousands of British airmen's lives thrown away on chasing windmills. If the Londoners wern't defeated by the Blitz what possible justification did Harris have ???

I'm still amazed about how little we hear about the history of the first decades of our state. I've picked up a few books about it and will get around to reading them someday, but you have to go looking. Stuff on the famine, 1916, are far more common.

Fenian

Johnmb wrote:

They were the same thing. The "B" was just the leadership element, and if I remember correctly, no longer existed as an entity by the time of independence. Collins took a deal that a majority of Irish people were happy with. A few others were afraid that they would lose face, and therefore power, with a compromise treaty. A situation that is not unique to 1920's Ireland.

The IRB and the IRA were not the same thing, the IRB was a secret society which in most cases you must be asked if you want to join, not volunteer.Most of the IRA officers were in the IRB but not all. Dev and Brugha were never members.The IRB was still very strong at the time of the Tan War, it was the civil war that destroyed it.

There was alot of tension between Collins and Dev/Brugha over the IRB, Collins was head of the Supreme Council and by default should of made him President of the Republic. While Dev was never a member of the IRB. Also Brugha was minister of Defence in the first Dail but Collins was only minister for Finiance but still held alot of sway with the IRA because of his position within the IRB.

Some argue that Collins would have tried to undermine the six counties and possibly change the boarder. Almost certainly he would have done more than Dev actually did. Actions, Words etc.

I think he would of done alot more than Dev to achieve the Republic,in Tim Pat Coogans book about Collins it says he was prepared to arm the IRA in the North but whether he actually would of is up for debate.

PHB

Look at it another way , Dev was offered the six counties by Churchill if we came in on the Brits side in WWII. If the civil war was about a 32 county Ireland and not an internal power struggle then why wasn't the deal accepted ?

I've heard this suggested before, could you provide some source or something? which author wrote this? I've always wondered about it.

Capt'n Midnight

PHB wrote:

I've heard this suggested before, could you provide some source or something? which author wrote this? I've always wondered about it.

http://www.atholbooks.org/archives/pastipr/july04_2.php - some interesting topics there.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/185607921X/104-1361817-3962313?v=glance&n=283155

Terry also relates the incendiary events of December 7, 1941, when Churchill sent de Valera a note with the phrase "a nation once again"—an obvious invitation to join the war on Britain's side with reunification promised in return.

nollaig

They were the same thing. The "B" was just the leadership element, and if I remember correctly, no longer existed as an entity by the time of independence.

They are not the same. The IRB was secret, the IRA was not (they were the irish volunteers). Brugha and DeValera had a huge dislike of secret socieites (possibly because of the church influence?)

Look at it another way , Dev was offered the six counties by Churchill if we came in on the Brits side in WWII. If the civil war was about a 32 county Ireland and not an internal power struggle then why wasn't the deal accepted ?

Really? Never heard of that. Surely he should have taken up that offer??? Dont believe it tbh

Johnmb

nollaig wrote:

They are not the same. The IRB was secret, the IRA was not (they were the irish volunteers). Brugha and DeValera had a huge dislike of secret socieites (possibly because of the church influence?)

The Brotherhood for all intents and purposes were just the leadership of the Army by the time of the War of Independence, that was their full time job, they did nothing else. They were effectively a club within a club. Both memberships were secret (although the IRB was more effective because it was smaller). The only reason Dev et al disliked the IRB was because they weren't part of it. The Civil War had nothing to do with ideology, it was all to do with power, and IMO the wrong people survived. Ireland would have been much better off if the people who actually achieved independence had been the ones to dominate the first 30 years or so of independence (i.e. Collins was a much better leader than DeValera ever was, and would have been much better for the country as the dominant leader of the time).

nollaig

Surely, The IRA was not secret after independence.

Agree with you about the eaders, Colins would not have accepted the boundary commission debacle that occurred a few years later

Johnmb

nollaig wrote:

Surely, The IRA was not secret after independence.

Agree with you about the eaders, Colins would not have accepted the boundary commission debacle that occurred a few years later

After independence, neither organisation had any need to remain secret, as effectively the IRB had no reason to exist as a seperate entity, and the IRA became the actual army, along with it's IRB leadership, at least generally speaking, I'm sure many didn't bother as they saw their fighting as being done. Collins simply wasn't as ego driven as some of the others. He did what was best for Ireland, not what was best for himself, and I'd like to think that he would have continued in that vain had he lived longer.

nollaig

After independence, neither organisation had any need to remain secret, as effectively the IRB had no reason to exist as a seperate entity, and the IRA became the actual army, along with it's IRB leadership, at least generally speaking,

Are you sure about this? I thought that the IRB remained secret??? For a while anyways????

Johnmb

nollaig wrote:

Are you sure about this? I thought that the IRB remained secret??? For a while anyways????

Well it's been a while since I studied anything this modern in history, but from memory, the IRB's whole raison d'etre was to infultrate the various nationalistic organisations (or those with "armies"), to get them all working towards independence. When several of them amalgamated to form the IRA, the IRB's job was done, and they effectively ceased to exist as an independent organisation. They were too busy leading the IRA to bother infultrating any other organisations. While they remained secret in that they were unlikely to broadcast to the other leaders of the IRA that they had manipulated things to set up the organisation in the first place, and while they would have probably backed each other up at the meetings, they were really just the leaders of the IRA by that stage, no longer the IRB. I can't think of anything that the IRB actually did independently as an organisation after they had set up the IRA, everything was done by the IRA and its leadership.

nollaig

Well it's been a while since I studied anything this modern in history, but from memory, the IRB's whole raison d'etre was to infultrate the various nationalistic organisations (or those with "armies"), to get them all working towards independence. When several of them amalgamated to form the IRA, the IRB's job was done, and they effectively ceased to exist as an independent organisation. They were too busy leading the IRA to bother infultrating any other organisations. While they remained secret in that they were unlikely to broadcast to the other leaders of the IRA that they had manipulated things to set up the organisation in the first place, and while they would have probably backed each other up at the meetings, they were really just the leaders of the IRA by that stage, no longer the IRB. I can't think of anything that the IRB actually did independently as an organisation after they had set up the IRA, everything was done by the IRA and its leadership.

FaIr enough, I'll believe you:D . I would have sided with Collins too. deValera was a pure bollix!

Villaricos

em wasnt dev just being a good politican (am in no means sticking up for him here!) he knew they couldnt get republic so thats why he didnt go to London for talks, it gave him more options. dont like him but he knew what he doing! Collins all the way for me though deffo!

Capt'n Midnight

Villaricos wrote:

em wasnt dev just being a good politican (am in no means sticking up for him here!) he knew they couldnt get republic so thats why he didnt go to London for talks, it gave him more options. dont like him but he knew what he doing! Collins all the way for me though deffo!

One civil war later, Dev does what Collins suggested.
The treaty gave the freedom to get freedom.
Pity the nation had to be split over such a little thing, if Dev had accepted the political situation earlier he might have been able to prevent the war.

Can anyone suggest anything from Dev's league of nations time to suggest that he was in it for anything other than personal power and to stick two fingers up to the Brits ?

Fenian

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

One civil war later, Dev does what Collins suggested.
The treaty gave the freedom to get freedom.
Pity the nation had to be split over such a little thing, if Dev had accepted the political situation earlier he might have been able to prevent the war.

I'm sure the people living under British\ Unionist oppression wouldn't call it a little thing!

Many volunteers didn't reject the treaty just because Dev rejected it. They rejected it because they were not fighting for a Free State and a country divide but a free and unified Republic.

If Collins rejected the Treaty and Dev endorsed it the same people who rejected it under Dev would of done the same under Collins. It wasn't just about Dev vs. Collins, it was more about a Free State vs. Republic.

Tom Barry and the West Cork IRA nearly to a man rejected the Treaty not because Dev did so but because they had the Brits on the back foot and were winning, why should they compromise when they were winning the war?

Liam Lynch in North Cork also rejected the Treaty for the same reason.

Tom Barry himself says he respected Collins greatly, when he met him in Dublin during the Tan War he says he was a towering figure and the back bone of the revolution in Dublin, and in later years Barry unveiled a memorial to Collins in West Cork.

The Civil War (on the most part) only became personnal during and after the war itself. Men like Barry, Lynch, and Mellows took the Republican side because of their ideals and principles, not for any great love or dislike for Dev or Collins.

It was personnal for the likes of Dev/Brugha and Collins/ Mulcahy, but that was going on long before the Civil War broke out.

Capt'n Midnight

Fenian wrote:

I'm sure the people living under British\ Unionist oppression wouldn't call it a little thing!

<Sigh> Collins was considered to be the architect of the War of Independence, and his writings were influential on many other campaigns for independence.

Many volunteers didn't reject the treaty just because Dev rejected it. They rejected it because they were not fighting for a Free State and a country divide but a free and unified Republic.

Dev didn't do anything to calm the country. Half a load is better than no bread, as I've said the military situation was unfavorable. The IRA people were known, Churchill wasn't exactly a wishy-washy liberal as shown by his actions before and after, look at the treatment of the Cossaks later on, look at how the British public ditched him once WWII was won.

If Collins rejected the Treaty and Dev endorsed it the same people who rejected it under Dev would of done the same under Collins. It wasn't just about Dev vs. Collins, it was more about a Free State vs. Republic.

Collins said that in accepting the treaty he had signed his death warrant. So it's safe to assume that he only signed it because he couldn't find any other option. It was Dev who shirked that responsibility.

It was personnal for the likes of Dev/Brugha and Collins/ Mulcahy, but that was going on long before the Civil War broke out.

No doubt about it but it was so unnecessary and a storm in a tea cup.

While the war may have been being won in parts, having 26 stable counties as a base for further expansion was a much better proposition than fighting for all 32 with only probable success in the west of munster.

Fenian

Collins was considered to be the architect of the War of Independence, and his writings were influential on many other campaigns for independence.

That is not true. The Cork Brigades formed independently of GHQ. There may of been some vague instructions from GHQ every once inawhile but for the most part each brigade was left to their own devices. There is no doubt he was an extremely influential figure in Dublin but he being the architect of the War and some how pulling the strings across the country is a fantasy.

Dev didn't do anything to calm the country. Half a load is better than no bread, as I've said the military situation was unfavorable. The IRA people were known, Churchill wasn't exactly a wishy-washy liberal as shown by his actions before and after,

The military situation was unfavourable from the start, the IRA were poorly armed and poorly trained and they were fighting the greatest military machine of the day. How in the name of God do you think the situation was favourable in the first place?
" The IRA people were known", I don't understand what you mean by that, as in they were all marked by the RIC/Army?

While the war may have been being won in parts, having 26 stable counties as a base for further expansion was a much better proposition than fighting for all 32 with only probable success in the west of munster.

I can understand that logic but it is still up for debate whether Collins would of been willing to arm the IRA in the North.

The war was being won not just in Munster but in nearly every active brigade area. If it wasn't the Brits would of never offered a Free State.

nollaig

The war was being won not just in Munster but in nearly every active brigade area. If it wasn't the Brits would of never offered a Free State

So, Do you think that Ireland would have won the war if it went on? If that was the case, Why did they agree to negotiate? Werent most them in favour of the the truce? If they felt that the war could be won, then it would have continued rather than stopping to negotiate.Also, I'm sure that Britain could have increased their resources in Ireland if the war had gone on.

Fenian

So, Do you think that Ireland would have won the war if it went on? If that was the case, Why did they agree to negotiate? Werent most them in favour of the the truce? If they felt that the war could be won, then it would have continued rather than stopping to negotiate.Also, I'm sure that Britain could have increased their resources in Ireland if the war had gone on.

Yes I think we would of won the war. Britian had just come out of WW1 and it was still recovering from it. I don't think they had the will to wage another prolonged war against a guerilla army.

How much more recources did they have? Cork, Kerry and Dublin (and I think a few more) were already under martial law and they were still getting beaten. More and more people were quiting the RIC while the ranks of the IRA were swelling. Republicanism had swept the island and no amount of tanks or artillary could of crushed it.

Now, there is also the argument that the Brits would of razed the country rather than concede and give us the Republic. Personnally i don't think they would of because of the amount of influential Irish Americans in the US.

nollaig

Fenian, But why did Ireland negotiate if that was the case? As far as I know, most of the IRA were in favour of negotiaing (but maybe I am wrong?). Certainly, most of the government were. If they were in such a strong military position, surely they would be against negotiating.
The point of negotiation is to reach a compromise so once that began, a republic was never going to happen.

Fenian

I think the Treaty only won by a 7 vote majority in the Dail.
The Supreme Council of the IRB were in favour of the Treaty ( Collins was head of the Supreme Council) while the leadership of the IRA was not, Cathal Brugha being the Minister of Defence at that time.

They should of went over to negotiate the terms of Britians withdrawl and the terms of granting us the Republic, but the threat of "immediate and terrible war" by Lloyd George if they did not except the Treaty convinced them it was the best and only deal available. I personnally think that threat was a bluff. If it wasn't a bluff why had they not done it to win the war in the first place? Then Britian wouldn't even have to negotiate.

Arthur Griffith who was on the negotiating team and who had originally founded Sinn Fein as a non-violent party, was willing to except peace no matter what the compromise.

nollaig

I think the Treaty only won by a 7 vote majority in the Dail.
The Supreme Council of the IRB were in favour of the Treaty ( Collins was head of the Supreme Council) while the leadership of the IRA was not, Cathal Brugha being the Minister of Defence at that time.

I was not talking about the treaty. I was talking about before they even began negotiating. If Ireland were in such a strong military position (as you say they were), why would they negotiate? It would make no sense whatsoever. Surely they would continue with the war. It seems that you believe that Ireland were in a much stronger position than they were.

They should of went over to negotiate the terms of Britians withdrawl and the terms of granting us the Republic, but the threat of "immediate and terrible war" by Lloyd George if they did not except the Treaty convinced them it was the best and only deal available. I personnally think that threat was a bluff. If it wasn't a bluff why had they not done it to win the war in the first place? Then Britian wouldn't even have to negotiate.

Do you seriously think that people believed this? There was no way that was what Britain meant by negotiating at the time. They wanted to reach a compromise. By accepting the invitation, then that was when Ireland compromised, not when the treaty was signed.

Arthur Griffith who was on the negotiating team and who had originally founded Sinn Fein as a non-violent party, was willing to except peace no matter what the compromise

Wasnt Robert Barton on the team too? And wouldnt he have been more towards DeValera, Brugha etc. but he was in no doubt about the threat of war.

As you are other side of the fence to me, I am very interested in your opinions and would like to know, why do you think DeValera went for the initial negotiations but didnt later on?

Fenian

I was not talking about the treaty. I was talking about before they even began negotiating. If Ireland were in such a strong military position (as you say they were), why would they negotiate? It would make no sense whatsoever. Surely they would continue with the war. It seems that you believe that Ireland were in a much stronger position than they were

Like I said earlier to negotiate Britians withdrawl and recognize the Republic.

Do you seriously think that people believed this? There was no way that was what Britain meant by negotiating at the time. They wanted to reach a compromise. By accepting the invitation, then that was when Ireland compromised, not when the treaty was signed.

I disagree, the negotiating team compromised when they signed the Treaty, not before. They should of negotiated for Britian to recognize the 32 country Republic . You forget that the Republic was already established before they went over to negotiate.

As you are other side of the fence to me, I am very interested in your opinions and would like to know, why do you think DeValera went for the initial negotiations but didnt later on?

I believe he didn't go over becuase he had little hope that the Brits would lose face and recognize the Republic.

While at those negotiations Collins commented that " the Long Whore has sold me out" or something similar, can't remember the exact qoute, and I do believe Dev did sell him out. That said, Collins had no right to sell out the North.

I found this article written by Collins about the Treaty, it's quite interesting.
Not a word mentioned about the North though.
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/E900001-001/text003.html

nollaig

Like I said earlier to negotiate Britians withdrawl and recognize the Republic.

Ok, So you are saying that Ireland went over to negotiate Britians withdrawal. Not even the most optimistic republican of the time would have thought this!!!!There was no chance of Britains withdrawal. They would, for sure, have hung on to the ports around the country for defensive reasons. I think they were looking for exclusive rights but that was later agreed at 3? So looking for complete withdrawal? No politician of the time would have been naive enough to think that that would be the outcome of the negotiation. Where was there even the merest hint that Britain were entering talks to disucuss complete withdrawal

I disagree, the negotiating team compromised when they signed the Treaty, not before. They should of negotiated for Britian to recognize the 32 country Republic . You forget that the Republic was already established before they went over to negotiate.

No way! the compromise came with the agreement to negotiate. Ireland had far more to lose if the talks failed. Negotiate for Britain to recognise a 32 county republic is what they did. But you fail to see the point of negotiating, it is to reach compromise. They negotiated on this issue successfully with the creation of the boundary commission (which I believe would have eliminated the border, if collins had lived).

I believe he didn't go over becuase he had little hope that the Brits would lose face and recognize the Republic.

Does this not contradict your earlier view that Ireland went over to negotiate Britains withdrawal.

tbh

I think all you can do is make your call with the benefit of hindsight, and given that things nowadays are very different than they were back then. I'm a Collins man myself, but it's really influenced by my family and upbringing. If I'd be around at the time, I could go either way depending on my environment. I admire and respect Collins for doing what needed to be done, but I can relate to the feeling that he'd let the country down, even if I don't particularly agree. It's not enough to put a gun in my hand now - and I suppose you can thank Collins and DeV for putting us on that path - but who knows what it would have been like in 1921?

walrusgumble

i have read some of fenian's qoute and his is right. firstly dev had damn all influence of the IRA, the bridages mostly followed their leaders like Barry, Lynch and on the pro side mckeown.

I believe dev tried to save face. i cant understand why history has failed to document on the preliminary negotiations between dev and llyod geogre in july 1921. it has been recorded though that llyod and made references to the title SAORSTAT EIREANN in papers belonging to dev, he also commented the the gaelic people didnt have a word for republic.

wat i kind annoying about dev is that his external association theory is not too far away from the sinn fein theory of dual monarhy, were ireland would be an independant state who would recognise the crown as its head for external affairs. he failed to properly explain this to the negotiation delegates. futher whilst he told them that they had the power and authority to sign on behalf of Ireland he still underminded this by telling them to contact the dail before doing anything. furthermore he failed to brief the delegates sufficently, they had damn all of a mandate, they were up against the best political minds who many would later become prime minsters. furthermore in later years he brought out document no 2 with a slight change in the oath. pretty much the rest of the document is similiar to the treaty, did he accept it? and what about when he realised collins was right about the steps for freedom when he went about dismantling the treaty or when he came up with the conclusion that the oath was an empty formula? i believe dev indulged too much n the company of more doctraine republicians such as brugha and stack, he once said that he wished "to be removed from the straightjacket of the republic and that brugha with him". dev was a politicial machine, he knew what the people wanted.

as for griffith and hs non violent stance, this maybe for practical reasons. he had witness the might of british millitia in the boer war whilst working in south africa, he knew that suh a small nation would never succeed. but if u note his articles in united irishmen paper he was very hostile to the empire and oftern spoke violently about them, he was a nationalist despite contray belief

it must also be remembered, the ordinary people of ireland witnessed war fare for over 10 consecutive years, many had risked their lives by providing shelter for the flying columns, it would be impossible to ignore their wishes for peace. as for america, dev went over there yet the Preisent (we all know he gets cosy with britain during time of war, in this case ww1) refused to recognise our cause.

i agree that many non soliders had a mind of their own an rejected the treaty from their own beliefs, however the dail failed to debate on more important issues such a north east of ireland, and the establishment of the state, instead of the oath and symbols of britain.

the civil war nearly aborted the birth of the state. it loss many key figures on both sides. there is a record of files that suggests collins wass preparing a campaign in the north, at that time caholic were been kicked out of their homes etc by now ruc. he had advissed civil servants to reject the north auitjority and promised to pay their wages if they were sacked.

nollaig

i have read some of fenian's qoute and his is right. firstly dev had damn all influence of the IRA, the bridages mostly followed their leaders like Barry, Lynch and on the pro side mckeown.

I believe dev tried to save face. i cant understand why history has failed to document on the preliminary negotiations between dev and llyod geogre in july 1921. it has been recorded though that llyod and made references to the title SAORSTAT EIREANN in papers belonging to dev, he also commented the the gaelic people didnt have a word for republic.

wat i kind annoying about dev is that his external association theory is not too far away from the sinn fein theory of dual monarhy, were ireland would be an independant state who would recognise the crown as its head for external affairs. he failed to properly explain this to the negotiation delegates. futher whilst he told them that they had the power and authority to sign on behalf of Ireland he still underminded this by telling them to contact the dail before doing anything. furthermore he failed to brief the delegates sufficently, they had damn all of a mandate, they were up against the best political minds who many would later become prime minsters. furthermore in later years he brought out document no 2 with a slight change in the oath. pretty much the rest of the document is similiar to the treaty, did he accept it? and what about when he realised collins was right about the steps for freedom when he went about dismantling the treaty or when he came up with the conclusion that the oath was an empty formula? i believe dev indulged too much n the company of more doctraine republicians such as brugha and stack, he once said that he wished "to be removed from the straightjacket of the republic and that brugha with him". dev was a politicial machine, he knew what the people wanted.

as for griffith and hs non violent stance, this maybe for practical reasons. he had witness the might of british millitia in the boer war whilst working in south africa, he knew that suh a small nation would never succeed. but if u note his articles in united irishmen paper he was very hostile to the empire and oftern spoke violently about them, he was a nationalist despite contray belief

it must also be remembered, the ordinary people of ireland witnessed war fare for over 10 consecutive years, many had risked their lives by providing shelter for the flying columns, it would be impossible to ignore their wishes for peace. as for america, dev went over there yet the Preisent (we all know he gets cosy with britain during time of war, in this case ww1) refused to recognise our cause.

i agree that many non soliders had a mind of their own an rejected the treaty from their own beliefs, however the dail failed to debate on more important issues such a north east of ireland, and the establishment of the state, instead of the oath and symbols of britain.

the civil war nearly aborted the birth of the state. it loss many key figures on both sides. there is a record of files that suggests collins wass preparing a campaign in the north, at that time caholic were been kicked out of their homes etc by now ruc. he had advissed civil servants to reject the north auitjority and promised to pay their wages if they were sacked.

Mostly fair enough points. But who's side would you have taken?

walrusgumble

honestly both were great men. my view has changed over the years. i am only 21 so you could imagine it wasnt long when i heard the stories of collins and was amazed by him. then de valera for how he dismantled the 1922 constitution and treaty.

if there is there is blame to be put on the results of the treaty (now bear in mind we wouldnt have the country we have now, pitty dev only realised this until 1936) then i blame dev and not collins for the reasons i have given.

you see i dont think its easy to pick sides when asking a young lad, believe me for the sake of debate not wanting to go with the flow and agreeing with the teacher and not questioning everything, i use to take the republican side. (the collins film made sure that the rest took collins lol, probably also because there is a preceived idea that the free staters won). i would have definitly followed and (probaly now would follow fianna fail) thank god bertie got rid of the division in ireland on this topic, well at least in the dail. (in haugheys early days there was sobery etc in ff on the fact that his da was a free stater).

i see where fenian is coming from, when he said he would have fought in civil war. had i fought in 1916, i would have fought for a united ireland with complete seperation from britain, i would be outraged by what the treaty gave; continued presence of british forces in ireland, having to continue to repay land annunities for my land that britain should never have taken in the first place. having to recognise a foreigner as my head of state, who our politicans had previously risked their lives by acting in defiance setting up the dail and ignoring him.

yet, you have to look at the situation today, would you fight for the ira planed to have a rising n belfast tomorrow, what would your reaction be? many down here maybe outraged, omagh proved this, now look at the bafflement that was shown by the people in 1916 (please note i am aware the 1960-70's was a bit different, protection from unjustified attacks etc)

i think collins would have made a very good politican, he did wonders funding the cause while min for finance, lehin in russua sent him something like £20,000 or so. he had worked in the post office in london so he had clerk experience and of course his excellent orgainisation skills whilst commander in chief of the army.

#15

Fenian wrote:

Yes I think we would of won the war. Britian had just come out of WW1 and it was still recovering from it. I don't think they had the will to wage another prolonged war against a guerilla army.

How much more recources did they have? Cork, Kerry and Dublin (and I think a few more) were already under martial law and they were still getting beaten. More and more people were quiting the RIC while the ranks of the IRA were swelling. Republicanism had swept the island and no amount of tanks or artillary could of crushed it.

Now, there is also the argument that the Brits would of razed the country rather than concede and give us the Republic. Personnally i don't think they would of because of the amount of influential Irish Americans in the US.

Britain would still have had far more resources than the IRA.
I disagree with the point about the Irish-American influence. President Wilson saw no point in angering Britain, who were the USA's closest ally. The post-war conferences show this, as Wilson contradicted himself about the principle of self-determination for small nations.

British people were indeed tired of war, but so too were the Irish. The war was being fought in Ireland, not Britain, therefore it is just as likely that the IRA would not have the support for a prolonged war. The vote for the treaty was a vote for peace as much as anything else.

#15

nollaig wrote:

Really? Never heard of that. Surely he should have taken up that offer??? Dont believe it tbh

Yep Churchill hinted that he would be willing to hand over control of the north if Ireland entered the war and allowed the allies the use of irish ports.

Fenian

#15 wrote:

Britain would still have had far more resources than the IRA.
I disagree with the point about the Irish-American influence. President Wilson saw no point in angering Britain, who were the USA's closest ally. The post-war conferences show this, as Wilson contradicted himself about the principle of self-determination for small nations.

British people were indeed tired of war, but so too were the Irish. The war was being fought in Ireland, not Britain, therefore it is just as likely that the IRA would not have the support for a prolonged war. The vote for the treaty was a vote for peace as much as anything else.

Well Britian would always have more resources than the IRA. The IRA didn't have an industrial economy to fund it. Wilson might not of wanted to anger his allies but he didn't want to anger his electorate either.

I have no doubt that if the IRA stayed unified and kept up the fight the people would of supported them. Yes the war was in Ireland and if it had prolonged it may of expanded to the British main land. Brugha himself wanted to have a campaign of bombings, sabotage and assassinations on the main land. I may be wrong but weren't the Liverpool docks burned down? It was Collins who disagreed with taking the fight wholesale to the British mainland.

#15

Fenian wrote:

Well Britian would always have more resources than the IRA. The IRA didn't have an industrial economy to fund it. Wilson might not of wanted to anger his allies but he didn't want to anger his electorate either.

I have no doubt that if the IRA stayed unified and kept up the fight the people would of supported them. Yes the war was in Ireland and if it had prolonged it may of expanded to the British main land. Brugha himself wanted to have a campaign of bombings, sabotage and assassinations on the main land. I may be wrong but weren't the Liverpool docks burned down? It was Collins who disagreed with taking the fight wholesale to the British mainland.

Wilsons second term as president ended in 1920 so he wouldn't have been putting himself before the electorate again.

The IRA probably wouldn't have had the resources to sustain the war for much longer and fighting the war on both islands would have caused further strain on resources. My point was that the irish people were more concerned with peace than with getting a free and unified 32 counties. Otherwise the treaty would have been rejected.

harrybosch

the question... collins or dev....

whilst an irish republican myself, reading into it, i feel i would have had to side with collins and have gone pro-treaty. the ira at the time were in absolutely no position to carry on the war. they were broken at this stage, and the threat by churchill, be it a bluff or not, could not be verified by the irish because they were in no position to fight military-wise.

Knowing that neither a Republic nor a united Ireland could be won at such a conference, de Valera refused to attend. Instead, he sent Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins to head the Irish delegation. Neither Griffith nor Collins wanted to go. Michael Collins declared that he was a soldier, not a politician, but the issue went to the Cabinet and was decided by de Valera's casting vote.
De Valera was the most experienced negotiator, but he chose instead, to send others to parley against the far more experienced British team. They were no match for the cunning Lloyd George, who was called the "Welsh Wizard." One historian called it the worst single decision of de Valera's life.

Still, under tremendous pressure, the Irish delegation, with Collins and Griffith as chief negotiators, pressed for a united Ireland. Differences within the Irish delegation added to the difficulty, but Britain's refusal to consider anything less than dominion status, excluding Ulster created additional conflict. Michael Collins knew that a Republic that included Ulster was not possible under the present conditions

i feel, had michael collins been allowed to continue his work, a 32 county republic was achievable. who knows what could have happened.alas, it wasnt to be and what happened. i feel dev has a lot to answer fo as regards the civil war. instead of concentrating efforts and re-doubling efforsts on fighting for the 6 counties, they decided to turn on each other. dev went around the county in 22 and made somecontroversial speechs that ignited flames that were held underneath.

essentially, i believe the country was robbed of a leader with exceptional qualities, who, im my personal view, could have delivered the 32 counties eventually. he himself saw the treaty as a ''stepping stone'' to a united ireland. the treaty was, without question the best deal possible.

#15

harrybosch wrote:

the question... collins or dev....

whilst an irish republican myself, reading into it, i feel i would have had to side with collins and have gone pro-treaty. the ira at the time were in absolutely no position to carry on the war. they were broken at this stage, and the threat by churchill, be it a bluff or not, could not be verified by the irish because they were in no position to fight military-wise.

Knowing that neither a Republic nor a united Ireland could be won at such a conference, de Valera refused to attend. Instead, he sent Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins to head the Irish delegation. Neither Griffith nor Collins wanted to go. Michael Collins declared that he was a soldier, not a politician, but the issue went to the Cabinet and was decided by de Valera's casting vote.
De Valera was the most experienced negotiator, but he chose instead, to send others to parley against the far more experienced British team. They were no match for the cunning Lloyd George, who was called the "Welsh Wizard." One historian called it the worst single decision of de Valera's life.

Still, under tremendous pressure, the Irish delegation, with Collins and Griffith as chief negotiators, pressed for a united Ireland. Differences within the Irish delegation added to the difficulty, but Britain's refusal to consider anything less than dominion status, excluding Ulster created additional conflict. Michael Collins knew that a Republic that included Ulster was not possible under the present conditions

i feel, had michael collins been allowed to continue his work, a 32 county republic was achievable. who knows what could have happened.alas, it wasnt to be and what happened. i feel dev has a lot to answer fo as regards the civil war. instead of concentrating efforts and re-doubling efforsts on fighting for the 6 counties, they decided to turn on each other. dev went around the county in 22 and made somecontroversial speechs that ignited flames that were held underneath.

essentially, i believe the country was robbed of a leader with exceptional qualities, who, im my personal view, could have delivered the 32 counties eventually. he himself saw the treaty as a ''stepping stone'' to a united ireland. the treaty was, without question the best deal possible.

couldn't have put it better myself! i agree 100%:D