Collins vs De Valera

twitch1984

Not really lookin for a debate especially one thats been running for decades and will probably run for centuries to come.
Just looking for a general concencus on this as to who people would pick to support if they were around back then.

I can see this being fairly 50/50

For me it would be collins,

what about you?

Morlar

This is always an odd one. Personality wise and in terms of each choice as a person Collins has it. In terms of which side DeValera.

SlabMurphy

Since boards.ie has mainly trolls and wannabe comedians on it, then it shouldn't reflect Irish society's views and Dev will probably win it :rolleyes:

Read this

Why am I not allowed to vote for neither?

twitch1984

Read this wrote: »

Why am I not allowed to vote for neither?

newish user

twitch1984

gonna leave dis open till easter sunday

Flamed Diving

From memory, I believe in 1920-21, one of these men was simultaneously the Acting President of Ireland, President of the IRB, Minister for Finance - and if certain historical sources are to be believed - giving Richard Mulcahy (head of volunteers/IRA/GHQ) orders in front of his own men, making him Ireland's military leader, for all intents and purposes.

A pragmatist, not an idealist. A man who rejected protectionist economic policies, which our country later adopted, which notably held us back in the post-war era.

What could have been... but instead we were sold to the Vatican by our other contestant. And the rest is history.

Winty

What are we voting for?

Both men did different things, if the question is to vote for the man who had a greater effect on the young Rep. of Ireland I would say nither

paky

I would pick collins. In terms of the treaty I would have been anti-treaty.

grenache

Collins. No brainer.

Flamed Diving

Winty wrote: »

What are we voting for?

Both men did different things, if the question is to vote for the man who had a greater effect on the young Rep. of Ireland I would say nither

50/50, then.

brianthebard

Flamed Diving wrote: »

From memory, I believe in 1920-21, one of these men was simultaneously the Acting President of Ireland, President of the IRB, Minister for Finance - and if certain historical sources are to be believed - giving Richard Mulcahy (head of volunteers/IRA/GHQ) orders in front of his own men, making him Ireland's military leader, for all intents and purposes.

A pragmatist, not an idealist. A man who rejected protectionist economic policies

When did this happen?

Flamed Diving

brianthebard wrote: »

When did this happen?

From what I understand, he was keen on promoting trade with other nations. I am not an encyclopaedia, and my field is in Economics, so I am afraid you will have to excuse me from your request.

brianthebard

Fair enough. Collins didn't have the opportunity to reject or affirm protectionist policies though, so I don't think its a legitimate claim to make.

Flamed Diving

A man who allegedly (or implicitly) rejected protectionist economic policies.

Any history heads know his economic views? Surely there are some primary sources.

Damo123

Just for the record Im not pro-dev...

But I have to say I would like to see a pro-dev film made. I know so many people whos only source for not liking the man is because of how he was depicted in the Micheal Collins film. I think thats sad.

brianthebard

Flamed Diving wrote: »

A man who allegedly (or implicitly) rejected protectionist economic policies.

Any history heads know his economic views? Surely there are some primary sources.

I know he was a fan of Connolly....

Flamed Diving

brianthebard wrote: »

I know he was a fan of Connolly....

I'm not too sure the guy was a socialist. It's not the MO of an investment banker. Secondly, socialism =/> protectionism.

brianthebard

I didn't say he was a socialist, or that that meant he supported protectionist policies. That would be quite a leap to make, although deciding what a person is or believes based on their job is similarly reductionist. One would hardly suggest that guerilla and military mastermind are the 'MO of an investment banker' either. I merely pointed out that he was a supporter and admirer of Connolly.

MarchDub

Flamed Diving wrote: »

A man who allegedly (or implicitly) rejected protectionist economic policies.

Any history heads know his economic views? Surely there are some primary sources.

The best original source that I know of for Collins' economic policies comes from his essay "Building up Ireland: Resources to be Developed" in which he outlines how he sees the economic future of Ireland. He actually opens by quoting De Valera and concurring with Dev on the idea that "materialism" and, as it is phrased "living the life of the beasts" should not dictate the future of the Irish people. Collins does not fear this, he writes, because the Irish in their ancient civilization where "one of the most spiritual and one of the most intellectual peoples in Europe".

Collins agrees with Dev that agriculture is at the centre of Irish economic life "and likely to continue to be". Collins then goes on to say that natural resources should be developed and this begins with agricultural land being made freely available for development and the country's infrastructure improved to facilitate the movement of goods. Existing industries should be given the economic help in expanding - with indigenous mineral resources exploited - and foreign trade encouraged by making it easier to export and import foreign goods. He suggests that the harbours need to be expanded and brought up to date for this purpose.

The emphasis of the essay places an important place on the distribution of wealth and "the object is not to be able to boast of enormous wealth or a great volume of trade for their own sake". The wealthy he writes must share their wealth and Ireland must aim at " the building up of a sound economic life in which great discrepancies [in wealth] must not occur".

It's a impressive read IMO and shows much intelligence and thoughtfulness.

Linus67

I would have to say De Valera. Collins was a traitor who got what he deserved.

LookBehindYou

Linus67 wrote: »

I would have to say De Valera. Collins was a traitor who got what he deserved.

How do you come to this conclusion ? or is it that you are a brain washed FF fan ?
Give your reasons.

Linus67

LookBehindYou wrote: »

How do you come to this conclusion ? or is it that you are a brain washed FF fan ?
Give your reasons.

I don't support any party.

Do you not know Irish history? Collins had no right to sign the peace treaty. You sound like someone who was brainwashed by the propaganda film "Michael Collins".

LookBehindYou

Linus67 wrote: »

I don't support any party.

Do you not know Irish history? Collins had no right to sign the peace treaty. You sound like someone who was brainwashed by the propaganda film "Michael Collins".

I am a fair minded person who thinks for myself, and i usually get my facts right before i decide which. I was not brainwashed by anyone or any propaganda.
YES, i do know about Irish history.
Collins got the best deal in the peace treaty,that he could at that time.

walrusgumble

Linus67 wrote: »

I don't support any party.

Do you not know Irish history? Collins had no right to sign the peace treaty. You sound like someone who was brainwashed by the propaganda film "Michael Collins".

The team were badly prepared by Dev. The Brits were even laughed at for their clothing, (appearances ment everything before a snobbish lot. the Brits were experts on what to wear and when, morning clothing, hats etc) NO fixed aims were given. Feck all actually could understand Dev's external association idea. Document No 2 was not wholly different to the substance of the treaty (excluding the oath). The team were given expressed plenipotentiary rights to sign on behalf of the Dail. Do you know what that word actually means!!!! yet Dev managed to try and have his bread buttered on both sides

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plenipotentiary

Dev was in Limerick at the time and uncontactable. Why? Why was Eskine Childers there? Why did he seem to get more of a role than what a secretary was for? Why was he not trusted?

My family were anti treaty (great grandfathers) but they certaintly did not see Collins as a traitor. Dev had some idea of what Llyood George had in mind that summer when they meet. Maybe it could be said, that Dev did not go to the main discussions knowing full well that he would not get a workable agreement on the basis of how difficult he knew he was (even if he was ok with a free state). Look at what Llyood George had said about him, like picking mercury with a fork (is that correcly said?) You would have some sympathy for Dev, having to deal with the reality of the July Conference, knowing he could not get what Ireland had fought for, dealing with hot heads like Brugha, being a man of 1916 possibly bringing shame!.

Maybe you should get one or two details right before telling other who don't know their history. WOuld agree though on your view of THAT film

Many people in the country at the time doubted that Collins acted illegally, though you could question whether they were true republicans of the Brugha class

Xluna

Collins for me. Collins argued that it would only be a matter of time before the oath of allegiance would be removed,and Dev proved him right.
Collins,though proud of his heritage,was a less insular and less conservative person than Dev. If he had lived who knows what would have happened.

Read this

Flamed Diving wrote: »

From memory, I believe in 1920-21, one of these men was simultaneously the Acting President of Ireland, President of the IRB, Minister for Finance - and if certain historical sources are to be believed - giving Richard Mulcahy (head of volunteers/IRA/GHQ) orders in front of his own men, making him Ireland's military leader, for all intents and purposes.

You mean a Dictator?

Read this

I had to laugh at the poll results.

Ofcourse the guy who dies young always gets romanticised, and receives unfair browny points for not being around long enough to make a complete tit of himself.

Having said that, I believe Collins killed more people that Dev, so maybe he wins anyway on that score?

The Crowman

Views on Dev and Collins.

https://twitter.com/corkfolklore/status/1012251771438329856




https://twitter.com/corkfolklore/status/1034813537577779205

Peregrinus

Collins had the misfortune, or good fortune, depending on your point of view, to die young. We always remember fondly those who die young. De Valera lived to a ripe old age, and we had plenty of time to examine his flaws, weaknesses and errors. So it's maybe not a fair competition.

Many European countries passed from democracy to authoritarianism or, worse, fascism in the 1930s. Ireland did not. It's not difficult to construct an imaginative but plausible alternative history in which Collins does not die, becomes a significant leader who continues to conflate military and political roles while capitalising on his considerable personal magnetism, and ends up becoming a strongman dictator in the 1930s.

whisky_galore

Dev is always seen as conservative and hand in glove with the Catholic Church. Mick was a good Catholic boy as well, hardly one to bring about any sort of change in dynamic in terms of the influence of the RCC had he lived.
Collins will always be the dashing young man in uniform, Dev remembered as the dour schoolmaster type or worse, the caricature from the Michael Collins movie.

Edgware

If there had not been a split I wonder would Collins and DeValera be the great democrats they are stated to be. Would they have followed the lead of Mussolini and the lads rather than allow the Labour Party etc to develop?

Peregrinus

Edgware wrote: »

If there had not been a split I wonder would Collins and DeValera be the great democrats they are stated to be. Would they have followed the lead of Mussolini and the lads rather than allow the Labour Party etc to develop?

It’s a what-if that can’t be answered except with pure speculation - especially in Collins’ case. But it’s worth pointing out that, before the split, people were giving thought to the problem of how Ireland would function as a democracy with a parliament overwhelmingly dominated - and, they assumed, likely to remain so - by one party. Thinking in all-Ireland terms, they expected not one but two “permanent minority” parties, the other being a unionist party. They also notrd that the only thing that bound SF together was the national question and, once that was resolved, the expected diverse opinions to emerge within the party on social, economic, etc questions.

Not everybody thought that this would cause the party to split. But there were proposals to, e.g, establish a system of departmental committees in Dáil Éireann to which ministers would be accountable, to ensure consideration of a diversity of opinions and perspectives in the administration of government. PR as an electoral system was adopted partly to facilitate this.

How all this would have panned out it anybody’s guess. Perhaps it would have worked. Perhaps SF would have split into separate parties on social or economic questions rather than on the national question. Or perhaps we would have veered into Mussolini-style fascism, if not immediately then under the stress of the Great Depression.

cameramonkey

Flamed Diving wrote: »

From memory, I believe in 1920-21, one of these men was simultaneously the Acting President of Ireland, President of the IRB, Minister for Finance - and if certain historical sources are to be believed - giving Richard Mulcahy (head of volunteers/IRA/GHQ) orders in front of his own men, making him Ireland's military leader, for all intents and purposes.

A pragmatist, not an idealist. A man who rejected protectionist economic policies, which our country later adopted, which notably held us back in the post-war era.

What could have been... but instead we were sold to the Vatican by our other contestant. And the rest is history.

You should read up a bit on the history of the early Free State, it was Collins's side that were fawning and taking their orders from Rome. Cosgrave was much more in the bishops pocket than Dev.

Ascendant

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s a what-if that can’t be answered except with pure speculation - especially in Collins’ case. But it’s worth pointing out that, before the split, people were giving thought to the problem of how Ireland would function as a democracy with a parliament overwhelmingly dominated - and, they assumed, likely to remain so - by one party. Thinking in all-Ireland terms, they expected not one but two “permanent minority” parties, the other being a unionist party. They also notrd that the only thing that bound SF together was the national question and, once that was resolved, the expected diverse opinions to emerge within the party on social, economic, etc questions.

Not everybody thought that this would cause the party to split. But there were proposals to, e.g, establish a system of departmental committees in Dáil Éireann to which ministers would be accountable, to ensure consideration of a diversity of opinions and perspectives in the administration of government. PR as an electoral system was adopted partly to facilitate this.

How all this would have panned out it anybody’s guess. Perhaps it would have worked. Perhaps SF would have split into separate parties on social or economic questions rather than on the national question. Or perhaps we would have veered into Mussolini-style fascism, if not immediately then under the stress of the Great Depression.

I suspect Ireland would have been like South Africa today under the ANC or Putin's Russia - technically a democracy, but so dominated by one group that it's effectively a one-party state.

BalcombeSt4

I wouldn't have supported Dev but I would have supported the anti-Treaty IRA.

By 1922 Collins had pretty much became a military dictator.

Peregrinus

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

I wouldn't have supported Dev but I would have supported the anti-Treaty IRA.

Surely you'd have to have given up on one of these positions? How, in practice, would you hold both simultaneously?

BalcombeSt4

Oh & it's no surprise that all the members of the fascist Blueshirts were made up of members who fought on the Free State side under Collins. Ireland's only really sizable fascist organization. If they had been in power during WW2 they would have ended up allying with the fascists & would have been handing over the Jewish population in Ireland over to them.

After Jewish people like Robert Briscoe were some of the main people in the Irish resistance front against the British during the Anglo-Irish war.

pedroeibar1

Ascendant wrote: »

I suspect Ireland would have been like South Africa today under the ANC or Putin's Russia - technically a democracy, but so dominated by one group that it's effectively a one-party state.

A basket case? We too had our oligarchs, an unstable currency, offshore accounts, political corruption, etc.:o

Peregrinus

Though we have always remained a multi-party democracy, including through period when not many countries in Europe did.

Ascendant

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

A basket case? We too had our oligarchs, an unstable currency, offshore accounts, political corruption, etc.:o

We, at least, have the option of voting them...to make way for the new lot.

BalcombeSt4

Damo123 wrote: »

Just for the record Im not pro-dev...

But I have to say I would like to see a pro-dev film made. I know so many people whos only source for not liking the man is because of how he was depicted in the Micheal Collins film. I think thats sad.

You're spot on there mate. Most people who haven't a clue on Irish history will point to things in the 1996 film (that was rubbish) and say look at how bad Dev was. Nothing in the film about the Sinn Fein pact Collins & Dev made & no clips of Dev's popularity in America.

I can't stand Dev but that's mainly for executing sveral IRA POW's in the 40's.

Snickers Man

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

I can't stand Dev but that's mainly for executing sveral IRA POW's in the 40's.

I'm not a Dev fan either, but he was spot on about our role, or lack of it, in WWII. His finest hour.

So he hanged a few Nazi collaborators (which is what the IRA were at the time, objectively speaking). Capital punishment was what was meted out at that time for that sort of thing.

Snickers Man

The most cynical and self-regarding thing that Dev ever did was bunk out of the final Treaty negotiations with the British and leave Collins to carry the can. They both knew that the full Republic was unachievable at that time but De Valera didn't have the guts to take responsibility for accepting the reduced offer. So Collins went and knowingly "signed his own death warrant".

Interesting parallels with Britain today and the Brexit process. The hardliners know the only two options on offer are a soft Brexit with some fudged deal on customs union and a soft border with Ireland, which would be a humiliating climb down from the bombast of "taking back control"; or a "no-deal" car crash which will hurt working people hard. Far from the promises of having their cake and eating it.

So the ambitious ones are lying in the long grass and either claiming to be uninterested in the Prime Minister's job (Rees-Mogg) or swanning out of the cabinet in a fit of pique and claiming it's all about "principle" (Johnson).

A pair of De Valeras, the two of them. Let May sign whichever bad deal they eventually plump for and then come roaring into the battle for the Premiership squealing "betrayal".

Been there, done that. How "Irish" of them!

Snickers Man

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Oh & it's no surprise that all the members of the fascist Blueshirts were made up of members who fought on the Free State side under Collins. Ireland's only really sizable fascist organization. If they had been in power during WW2 they would have ended up allying with the fascists & would have been handing over the Jewish population in Ireland over to them.

I'm sorry. That's absolute bollocks!!

For a start, you're throwing the word "Fascist" around with gay abandon without being clear on what you mean by it.

The Blueshirts had nothing to do with German Nazism or Italian Fascism, both of which were radical, anticlerical, modernist movements, bitterly hostile to church intrusion in the affairs of the state, slavishly trusting of modern science and both with deep roots in Marxism and Socialism.

Mussolini in particular was an avowed leftist prior to the first World War, an editor of Avanti, the main Italian socialist newspaper for much of the 20th century. His manifesto called for nationalisation of important industries, heavy taxes on capital, a generous welfare state etc etc How left wing can you get?

Nazism too was a movement that grew out of anti-capitalist ideology and favoured the little guy over the hierarchical land owners and big business moguls. The clue's in the name National SOCIALIST German WORKERS' Party.

The Blueshirts were conservative, catholic, nationalist, land-owning patriarchs bitterly hostile to any sort of "Social interference" in family life by the state. They were much closer to Franco, for whom many of them went to fight, than Hitler or Mussolini. You can call Franco a Fascist if you like but it's a misnomer. He was a conservative, ultrareligious, nationalist, marxism-hating, authoritarian militarist thug but none of that, per se, qualifies somebody as a Fascist.

Franco could have made things very difficult for Britain in WWII had he been of similar mind to the two regimes that were indeed his military paymasters throughout the Spanish Civil War, but he chose not to. What would have happened in North Africa if he had taken Gibraltar in 1940, when Britain was on her knees and before the Soviets or Americans entered the war? How soon would the war in North Africa have been finished? How much earlier could Hitler's campaign against the Soviet Union have started if he didn't get bogged down bailing out his Italian allies in Greece and the Balkans? So why didn't he?

And how many Jews were handed over by Franco's Spain in WWII? Er, none. Ironic perhaps when you consider Spain's hysterical anti-Jewish persecutions of the late middle ages.

Bear in mind that the leader of the newly formed Fine Gael (which included the former Blueshirts) during the war actually wanted Ireland to join in on the side of THE ALLIES!! and your allegation that the Blueshirts were in cahoots with the Nazis crumble into dust.

There WERE people in Ireland who wanted to collaborate with the Nazis in WWII and some who did. Ironically, or perhaps not, these were people who had fought AGAINST Franco (Frank Ryan, Francis Stuart et al) and were still by and large supporters of the IRA. And that organisation was keen to solicit German co-operation for its goals.
Isn't history full of ironies?

cameramonkey

Snickers Man wrote: »

The most cynical and self-regarding thing that Dev ever did was bunk out of the final Treaty negotiations with the British and leave Collins to carry the can. They both knew that the full Republic was unachievable at that time but De Valera didn't have the guts to take responsibility for accepting the reduced offer. So Collins went and knowingly "signed his own death warrant".

That is a bit of a fairy tale, the great fairy tale of Irish history believed by those that do not understand that period of history.

Collins was sent over not to sign an agreement , Dev wanted the talks to collapse over the six counties and the UK would be seen as the party that was trying to divide Ireland. Of course Dev knew this was rubbish but it was part of the talks strategy, unfortunately Griffith fatally undermined the strategy by doing a back deal with the Brits on the North meaning the delegation could not collapse the talks over the border. Collins was caught out and signed the deal when the pressure came on from the UK, there was no pressure from Dev, in fact he wanted Collins to come back with no deal.

I would recommend this book for those that would like a more balanced and nuanced take on history.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Irish-Counter-Revolution-1921-1936/dp/0717128857

The story that Dev sent Collins to sign the treaty because he wouldn't do it himself is just for kids and blues shirts.

Thinkingaboutit

There is a basic point that Eamon deValera lived to old age and had a long political career, something that proverbially ends in failure. Michael Collins had masterminded the destruction of English authority in Ireland, but the bulk his career likely lay in the future. Protectionism had a heritage with proponents like Arthur Griffiths, so that Dev opted for that direction was hardly weird. Michael Collins could have gone in that direction. Even if FF hadn't replaced Cumann na Gaedheal in power, the ancestor of FG was showing a leaning towards protectionism. I'm not sure the two can be fairly compared.

Snickers Man

cameramonkey wrote: »

That is a bit of a fairy tale, the great fairy tale of Irish history believed by those that do not understand that period of history.

Collins was sent over not to sign an agreement , Dev wanted the talks to collapse over the six counties and the UK would be seen as the party that was trying to divide Ireland. Of course Dev knew this was rubbish but it was part of the talks strategy, unfortunately Griffith fatally undermined the strategy by doing a back deal with the Brits on the North meaning the delegation could not collapse the talks over the border. Collins was caught out and signed the deal when the pressure came on from the UK, there was no pressure from Dev, in fact he wanted Collins to come back with no deal.

I would recommend this book for those that would like a more balanced and nuanced take on history.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Irish-Counter-Revolution-1921-1936/dp/0717128857

The story that Dev sent Collins to sign the treaty because he wouldn't do it himself is just for kids and blues shirts.

Ooh. Feel the condescension.
So why didn't De Valera go to the negotiations then?
Your analysis doesn't address that point.
BTW whatever about what "Blueshirts" think, the suspicion that he left Collins (and the others) to carry the can by signing a treaty he realised would be the best on offer is widely believed by people of my acquaintance of a much greener hue than that.

And as for modern parallels: Watch what happens with Boris, Rees-Mogg et al in England over this Brexit nonsense. They will try to shaft May, but after whatever deal is decided is done. Not before.
It's a fairly familiar Machiavellian tactic.
As I'm sure you know.

cameramonkey

Snickers Man wrote: »

Ooh. Feel the condescension.
So why didn't De Valera go to the negotiations then?
Your analysis doesn't address that point.
BTW whatever about what "Blueshirts" think, the suspicion that he left Collins (and the others) to carry the can by signing a treaty he realised would be the best on offer is widely believed by people of my acquaintance of a much greener hue than that.

I may be a bit condescending, you may be right but I find the view that Collins was sent to be a fall guy a very facile understanding of the situation. It is not supported by events at the time or the documents released since. It is an invention that does not stand any scrutiny and one that feeds a very simplistic explanation of a very complex time.

If we are to believe your take on the treaty talks you are saying that Dev decided to completely abdicate power and hand all to Collins? That Dev decided to let Collins decide the future of the country with no input from the president, that he would voluntarily decide to sideline himself after years of struggle and let Collins make all the running and move into a position of supreme power as Collins then did.

This really does not make sense and in fact Dev's main reaction at the time was anger because the delegation had not consulted him, the president before the signing. Collins for all his strengths had been panicked into signing the treaty by pressure from the British and Griffith's duplicity.

cameramonkey

Snickers Man wrote: »

And as for modern parallels: Watch what happens with Boris, Rees-Mogg et al in England over this Brexit nonsense. They will try to shaft May, but after whatever deal is decided is done. Not before.
It's a fairly familiar Machiavellian tactic.
As I'm sure you know.

The equivalent would be May deciding to send Boris and Ress-Mogg to the talks because she thinks she can not get a deal thereby handing all power to the two bozos and making her a complete spectator. That is what you are asking us to believe in the case of Collins and Dev.

It is just not the way politicians think, they are control freaks. Dev didn't do it and May will not do it either.

SafeSurfer

Snickers Man wrote: »

I'm sorry. That's absolute bollocks!!

For a start, you're throwing the word "Fascist" around with gay abandon without being clear on what you mean by it.

The Blueshirts had nothing to do with German Nazism or Italian Fascism, both of which were radical, anticlerical, modernist movements, bitterly hostile to church intrusion in the affairs of the state, slavishly trusting of modern science and both with deep roots in Marxism and Socialism.

Mussolini in particular was an avowed leftist prior to the first World War, an editor of Avanti, the main Italian socialist newspaper for much of the 20th century. His manifesto called for nationalisation of important industries, heavy taxes on capital, a generous welfare state etc etc How left wing can you get?

Nazism too was a movement that grew out of anti-capitalist ideology and favoured the little guy over the hierarchical land owners and big business moguls. The clue's in the name National SOCIALIST German WORKERS' Party.

The Blueshirts were conservative, catholic, nationalist, land-owning patriarchs bitterly hostile to any sort of "Social interference" in family life by the state. They were much closer to Franco, for whom many of them went to fight, than Hitler or Mussolini. You can call Franco a Fascist if you like but it's a misnomer. He was a conservative, ultrareligious, nationalist, marxism-hating, authoritarian militarist thug but none of that, per se, qualifies somebody as a Fascist.

Franco could have made things very difficult for Britain in WWII had he been of similar mind to the two regimes that were indeed his military paymasters throughout the Spanish Civil War, but he chose not to. What would have happened in North Africa if he had taken Gibraltar in 1940, when Britain was on her knees and before the Soviets or Americans entered the war? How soon would the war in North Africa have been finished? How much earlier could Hitler's campaign against the Soviet Union have started if he didn't get bogged down bailing out his Italian allies in Greece and the Balkans? So why didn't he?

And how many Jews were handed over by Franco's Spain in WWII? Er, none. Ironic perhaps when you consider Spain's hysterical anti-Jewish persecutions of the late middle ages.

Bear in mind that the leader of the newly formed Fine Gael (which included the former Blueshirts) during the war actually wanted Ireland to join in on the side of THE ALLIES!! and your allegation that the Blueshirts were in cahoots with the Nazis crumble into dust.

There WERE people in Ireland who wanted to collaborate with the Nazis in WWII and some who did. Ironically, or perhaps not, these were people who had fought AGAINST Franco (Frank Ryan, Francis Stuart et al) and were still by and large supporters of the IRA. And that organisation was keen to solicit German co-operation for its goals.
Isn't history full of ironies?

Eoin O’Duffy offered to send a battalion of Blueshirts to fight for Nazi Germany in operation Barbarossa.
Many Blueshirts and subsequent Fine Gael TDs were rabid anti semites even after the horrors of the holocaust became known.
O Duffy was inspired to found the Blueshirts after visiting Mussolini’s Italy.
He advocated a military coup after the 1932 election.

Former Blueshirts subsequently went on to become involved with extreme far right groups such as the Architects of the Resurrection and Greenshirts.

To say the Blueshirts had nothing to do with German Nazism or Italian Fascism is far from reality.