'De Valera was a British spy' - New book claim

MarchDub · 04-11-2009 2:01pm

brianthebard wrote: »

I see thanks for the clarification, I just didn't understand where you were coming from. I agree that as president Dev should have gone, at the same time I feel like the traditional leaving cert reading that 'he knew he wouldn't like the treaty' just feels too simplistic, as well as adds mystic to Dev's lists of talents! Not saying I disagree with you, only suggesting the usual reason given for his actions don't really add up for me.

Well, it's been so long since I did Leaving Cert that I can't even remember what I was told! My reasons are based on reading his personal papers which is why I quoted from his letters. I think it went beyond a simplistic "just didn't like the Treaty" though. I think he was thinking of a wider political/historical context. He knew that it was - in Irish historical terms - a huge moment, but he also had to know from his discussions in the summer of 1921 and his active correspondence with Lloyd George that it was not going to fully meet the 1916 aspirations.

Dev had been criticised by some in Ireland - including the RC church- for not accepitng Dominion Status in the summer of '21. He still did not want to accept DS so what was he to do? All indications are that he knew that the Treaty was not going to be easy and fraught with compromise on a level that he seemed not ready to accept. He also suggested in later letters that the British "should realise that they had to face here a determined people, ready to accept a renewal of the war". This seems more like an abstraction than a reality. Collins was telling him a very different story.

The Treaty hung over him his whole political life - again and again in correspondence up until practically the end of his life he returns to it and tries to justify his not going. But I think the inner workings of his mind remain a mystery - all that we can glean out of the record is that the most influential political figure of 20th century Ireland choose not to sign the Treaty that separated most of Ireland from British control. But as to why? We may never know.

brianthebard · 04-11-2009 3:00pm

I guess as the only surviving battalion leader of 1916 he was not in a sense allowed to accept the treaty, I can certainly see how a large portion of the population would have seen it as an even bigger betrayal if Dev had accepted the treaty and not Collins?

MarchDub · 04-11-2009 5:37pm

brianthebard wrote: »

I guess as the only surviving battalion leader of 1916 he was not in a sense allowed to accept the treaty, I can certainly see how a large portion of the population would have seen it as an even bigger betrayal if Dev had accepted the treaty and not Collins?

Yes, I think you might have something there. I have often wondered about what the "burden" of being the survivor did to him psychologically. He was not by nature a military man yet he saw comrades being shot in front of him at Bolands - and then sat in jail while the other leaders of 1916 were shot before a firing squad. What did all that do to him? What might he have felt was expected of him?

And as I said in another post - Irish people reacted to him in a way that made him the exemplar of the spirit of the times, whether he wanted that or not. One of the phrases that resonates with me from when I was a kid and would listen to the older generation who had lived through it all was "Dev stood up to the British". For many of that now dead generation who had been used to feeling helpless - and inferior to the pervasive British presence in Irish life, let's not forget - that was the story, end of.

Over the years I have come to think of Dev as the embodiment of Shakespeare’s “Some have greatness thrust on them”. But there does not appear to be a record of how he really felt about it all. There are tons of opinions about Dev but he himself remains an enigma.

prinz · 09-11-2009 10:53pm

MarchDub wrote: »

.. all that we can glean out of the record is that the most influential political figure of 20th century Ireland choose not to sign the Treaty that separated most of Ireland from British control. But as to why? We may never know.

Because it provided him with the perfect excuse and opportunity to rid himself of the competition. He was a cute hoor alright. tbh I think the author of the book has a point. The British were afraid of Collins getting power in Ireland IMO, he was young, active, intelligent, driven, smart, and progressive with a view to the future and making something of the country. IIRC in Collins' writings he said something after the Treaty that the way to win Northern Ireland was not through force and violence, but through making Ireland the envy of the Commonwealth through modernisation, industrialisation, etc, so much so that big business would either relocate to the Free State or bring pressure to bear on the North to leave the Union willingly.

The Brits knew that the one man who could actually achieve this was Collins. DeV was the alternative. Engineer a way to get DeV into power and he keeps Ireland a backwater for decades to come, and not to cause too much trouble for anyone, especially the British.

brianthebard · 09-11-2009 11:25pm

prinz wrote: »

The Brits knew that the one man who could actually achieve this was Collins. DeV was the alternative. Engineer a way to get DeV into power and he keeps Ireland a backwater for decades to come, and not to cause too much trouble for anyone, especially the British.

Several major problems with this analysis; DeV didn't get into power for a long time after the civil war. Second the British provided the Free State forces with arms and munitions, not the Anti-treatyites. If they were truly backing DeV it would make no sense to arm the other side. Third despite what people think about DeV he did never intended to keep Ireland backward.

prinz · 10-11-2009 1:07am

brianthebard wrote: »

Several major problems with this analysis; DeV didn't get into power for a long time after the civil war. Second the British provided the Free State forces with arms and munitions, not the Anti-treatyites. If they were truly backing DeV it would make no sense to arm the other side. Third despite what people think about DeV he did never intended to keep Ireland backward.

And what did he do to get into power? Rowed back on the very things he claimed to stand for.By arming the Free Staters they ensured a Free State victory, in essence ensuring the Treaty would stand and be secured. Which is what they wanted. With the Treaty they keep the North, with Collins they might lose it in the future. True it tool DeV a time to get into power but it was inevitable really, and then the Brits had their man, keep Ireland on the fringe, doing enough to keep ticking over, but not so much that would have any serious knock on effects in other countries of the empire. Just a feeling I have that the book could have a point.

Morlar · 10-11-2009 1:53am

prinz wrote: »

And what did he do to get into power? Rowed back on the very things he claimed to stand for.By arming the Free Staters they ensured a Free State victory, in essence ensuring the Treaty would stand and be secured. Which is what they wanted. With the Treaty they keep the North, with Collins they might lose it in the future. True it tool DeV a time to get into power but it was inevitable really, and then the Brits had their man, keep Ireland on the fringe, doing enough to keep ticking over, but not so much that would have any serious knock on effects in other countries of the empire. Just a feeling I have that the book could have a point.

Sorry but Collins was pro-treaty, Dev was Anti-treaty. That is a bit of a convoluted, machiavellian proposition you are backing there, I would not give the british that much credit to be honest. These are the same people in power & behind the scenes who ushered in the black and tans and auxies to calm things down. The same people who executed the rising leaders in order to quell the rebellion.

They would have to have had a crystal ball for those events to have played out exactly as they did. During the 2nd world War they would have given anything to have gotten rid of Dev & had him replaced with a pro-war leader. If they had had files in their archives proving or even hinting that he was some kind of spy/agent of the crown they could have had him ousted more quickly than Parnell. The effect on the nation would have been massively destabilising. Alternately with that kind of information they could have pressured him to being far more neutral on the side of the allies than he already was.

Fratton Fred · 10-11-2009 10:12am

prinz wrote: »

The Brits knew that the one man who could actually achieve this was Collins. DeV was the alternative. Engineer a way to get DeV into power and he keeps Ireland a backwater for decades to come, and not to cause too much trouble for anyone, especially the British.

Was Ireland as a back water a benefit to Britain? surely Ireland as a dominion, wealthy and successful as Canada and Australia were would have been a benefit.

The empire was all about trade and keeping Ireland within the empire and wealthy would have been preferable to a poor neighbour that would have bred socialism?

prinz · 10-11-2009 10:25am

Morlar wrote: »

Sorry but Collins was pro-treaty, Dev was Anti-treaty. That is a bit of a convoluted, machiavellian proposition you are backing there, I would not give the british that much credit to be honest..

Not called Perfidious Albion for nothing.. about as convoluted as the current war on Bin Laden et al, where only 20 odd years ago they were supplying with arms, money, training etc? The British IMO knew they had to accept the Treaty, what they then needed was someone who would ensure the Treaty was kept. Collins had active plans of how to undo the partition by peaceful means. What did DeV do to undo partition?

This the same commander during the Easter Rising, where the motto was 'England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity'.. and yet DeV in power sat on his hands.

Morlar wrote: »

These are the same people in power & behind the scenes who ushered in the black and tans and auxies to calm things down. The same people who executed the rising leaders in order to quell the rebellion...

Times change, and Britian's policy changes, particularly in international affairs. The leaders were executed, DeV wasn't... I do not accept this lark about his "Ameican" citizenship... is there any concrete evidence to support this? It was a handy excuse though.

Morlar wrote: »

They would have to have had a crystal ball for those events to have played out exactly as they did. During the 2nd world War they would have given anything to have gotten rid of Dev & had him replaced with a pro-war leader.

Why how many pro-war leading politicians had Ireland produced who would be able to bring Ireland into the war and keep his job?

The best they could get was "neutral", much better than some who would have used the war as an excuse for military action in Northern Ireland. Or perhaps the other way, with the lads that only a few years before were wearing coloured shirts and marching about like fascists.

Morlar wrote: »

If they had had files in their archives proving or even hinting that he was some kind of spy/agent of the crown they could have had him ousted more quickly than Parnell..

No real reason to oust him I can see.

Morlar wrote: »

The effect on the nation would have been massively destabilising. .

Why would Britian want a destable Ireland next door? The last thing in the 20's and 30's anybody wanted was another destable country.

Morlar wrote: »

Alternately with that kind of information they could have pressured him to being far more neutral on the side of the allies than he already was.

How much more 'neutral' could Ireland have been without the leadership lsoing their posts? Even what was done was kept from the Irish people IIRC. They walked a tightrope perfectly.

prinz · 10-11-2009 10:39am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Was Ireland as a back water a benefit to Britain? surely Ireland as a dominion, wealthy and successful as Canada and Australia were would have been a benefit.

I think the British knew that Ireland wouldn't stay long as the Free State. Everyone in Ireland described it as a stepping stone. Wouldn't have reflected well on London if Ireland could be more successful running our own affairs, perhaps they didn't want to kick off a domino effect, 'if Ireland can do it...'

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The empire was all about trade and keeping Ireland within the empire and wealthy would have been preferable to a poor neighbour that would have bred socialism?

It wouldn't have bred socialism, not with DeV and the Catholic Church on hand. Ireland was not that 'wealthy' anyway. We still had terrible infrastructure etc. Ireland was more dependant on agriculture and small holding farmers in 1950 that we were in 1870. Does that tell you much? Compared to Collins, who had lived in London, and wanted a cosmopolitan, dynamic, energetic Ireland to be dragged into similar modernity.

mike65 · 10-11-2009 11:39am

The guy who wrote the book is on Pat Kennys radio prog now

www.rte.ie/radio1

Data_Quest · 10-11-2009 12:34pm

mike65 wrote: »

The guy who wrote the book is on Pat Kennys radio prog now

www.rte.ie/radio1

Not very convincing. Tim Pat Coogan was easily able to refute any of the author's claims. Main issue that Tim Pat has is lack of documentary evidence. However, one interesting point is that the British still have not released a lot of secret documentation relating to the period (some of which due for release in 2050).

MarchDub · 10-11-2009 1:03pm

Data_Quest wrote: »

Not very convincing. Tim Pat Coogan was easily able to refute any of the author's claims. Main issue that Tim Pat has is lack of documentary evidence. However, one interesting point is that the British still have not released a lot of secret documentation relating to the period (some of which due for release in 2050).

Thanks....did not hear the interview but some pieces of information that have been released is the MI5 file on Dev which ran from 1917 to his death. So far that has revealed that the Brits were very suspicious of Dev and did no trust his demeanour.

prinz wrote: »

The leaders were executed, DeV wasn't... I do not accept this lark about his "Ameican" citizenship... is there any concrete evidence to support this? It was a handy excuse though.

There is correspondence between Dev's wife and a US Senator asking for his sentence of death to be overturned because of his US citizenship. There is another wide correspondence between Rev Thomas Wheelwright, Dev's half brother, who also pleaded his US birth. There are numerous letters from US senators and congressmen in reply promising to do what they could.

However, Dev himself did not at all like this to be the accepted opinion and wrote in 1969 - on official letterhead - that he did not believe that his US citizenship made a difference. He points out that he had not been executed when Asquith made the statement that no more executions would take place - this was because of negative international reaction, especially in the US. Also it seems that Asquith considered the "ringleaders" to be those who had actually signed the Proclamation. Dev had not signed it.

Opinions are based on these records.

brianthebard · 10-11-2009 2:03pm

prinz wrote: »

And what did he do to get into power? Rowed back on the very things he claimed to stand for.By arming the Free Staters they ensured a Free State victory, in essence ensuring the Treaty would stand and be secured. Which is what they wanted. With the Treaty they keep the North, with Collins they might lose it in the future. True it tool DeV a time to get into power but it was inevitable really, and then the Brits had their man, keep Ireland on the fringe, doing enough to keep ticking over, but not so much that would have any serious knock on effects in other countries of the empire. Just a feeling I have that the book could have a point.

Rowed back on what? Your position leaves a lot to be desired and cannot be backed up with any sort of factual information.

prinz wrote: »

I think the British knew that Ireland wouldn't stay long as the Free State. Everyone in Ireland described it as a stepping stone. Wouldn't have reflected well on London if Ireland could be more successful running our own affairs, perhaps they didn't want to kick off a domino effect, 'if Ireland can do it...'

Your position has become more and more confused, Ireland's independence did have a domino effect, its well known and referenced that many of India's leaders read about the Irish fight for independence and even fostered links with Ireland on a diplomatic level in the 20s and 30s.

It wouldn't have bred socialism, not with DeV and the Catholic Church on hand. Ireland was not that 'wealthy' anyway. We still had terrible infrastructure etc. Ireland was more dependant on agriculture and small holding farmers in 1950 that we were in 1870. Does that tell you much? Compared to Collins, who had lived in London, and wanted a cosmopolitan, dynamic, energetic Ireland to be dragged into similar modernity.

Do you know what the economic war was? Do you think Dev did it so as to stay beholden to Britain and keep Ireland backwards? I really think you should start providing some facts or just stop talking.

prinz · 10-11-2009 2:26pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Rowed back on what? Your position leaves a lot to be desired and cannot be backed up with any sort of factual information.

‘If they accepted the Treaty . . . they would have to wade through, perhaps, the blood of some of the members of the government in order to get Irish freedom’

http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume16/issue3/reviews/?id=114246

http://books.google.ie/books?id=Zn22MvnyW2QC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=devalera+wade+through+irish+blood&source=bl&ots=pHb4rRjr4z&sig=lRfH1SQZvLWAIDtC1YN85dyIRS8&hl=en&ei=uGb5SuHLAcHRjAeyv8C6Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CB8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

So er, what did DeV actually do to end partition?

He seems to have turned his back on the rabble rousing rhetoric.....and become a conservative settling for the easy life. How odd don't you think.

brianthebard wrote: »

Your position has become more and more confused, Ireland's independence did have a domino effect, its well known and referenced that many of India's leaders read about the Irish fight for independence and even fostered links with Ireland on a diplomatic level in the 20s and 30s.

It could have had more of an effect. Also notable that both Ireland and India descended into civil war.

brianthebard wrote: »

Do you know what the economic war was? Do you think Dev did it so as to stay beholden to Britain and keep Ireland backwards?

The economic war hamstrung the Irish economy for years and had little of no effect on the British economy. Well done DeV. It was brought on by the Global Depression and isolationist policies... again nothing inspired from DeValera then.

brianthebard wrote: »

I really think you should start providing some facts or just stop talking.

No point replying to this.

brianthebard · 10-11-2009 2:43pm

prinz wrote: »

http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume16/issue3/reviews/?id=114246

http://books.google.ie/books?id=Zn22MvnyW2QC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=devalera+wade+through+irish+blood&source=bl&ots=pHb4rRjr4z&sig=lRfH1SQZvLWAIDtC1YN85dyIRS8&hl=en&ei=uGb5SuHLAcHRjAeyv8C6Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CB8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

So er, what did DeV actually do to end partition? He seems to have turned his back on the rabble rousing rhetoric.....and become a conservative settling for the easy life. How odd don't you think.

Hardly odd, I don't think he ever significantly changed his politics from those he held in 1916. Besides which I don't see how he turned his back on the 'rabble rousing'.

It could have had more of an effect. Also notable that both Ireland and India descended into civil war.

How much of an effect does it have to have had to be good enough for you? Also I have no idea why you think the civil wars were notable.

The economic war hamstrung the Irish economy for years and had little of no effect on the British economy. Well done DeV. It was brought on by the Global Depression and isolationist policies... again nothing inspired from DeValera then.

It had however a signficant effect for Ireland and is one of many examples (like the entirety of DeV's political like :rolleyes: ) in which he stood up to the British establishment. It wasn't brought on the the Depression it was a separate incident. As for protectionism this was the same policy everyone else was following at the time so marking DeV out as backward on that basis is simply wrong.

No point replying to this.

And yet you did. History is about things that actually happened, not counter factual fictions by authors who want to be controversial for the sake of it. If you can't provide facts to back up your claims then why bother making them. Or why should we bother listening to them.

prinz · 10-11-2009 3:00pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Hardly odd, I don't think he ever significantly changed his politics from those he held in 1916. Besides which I don't see how he turned his back on the 'rabble rousing'.

From fighting a civil war to leaving Sinn Féin a couple of years later to acknowledge the Free State?

brianthebard wrote: »

How much of an effect does it have to have had to be good enough for you? Also I have no idea why you think the civil wars were notable.

Because in both instances the countries involved were so caught up in internal matters and politics that establishing themselves as modern developing states went to the back burner. If everyone works together, things can happen. Divide and conquer if you will.

brianthebard wrote: »

It had however a signficant effect for Ireland and is one of many examples (like the entirety of DeV's political like :rolleyes: ) in which he stood up to the British establishment. It wasn't brought on the the Depression it was a separate incident.

The demand for Irish exports crashed, the national debt mounted as our balance of trade was heavily in the red - solution, stop imports, buy Irish, protect Irish business, isolate ourselves, stop sending money out of the country for annuities, etc etc.

brianthebard wrote: »

As for protectionism this was the same policy everyone else was following at the time so marking DeV out as backward on that basis is simply wrong.

And yet the protectionism was a result of the Great Depression which was a separate "incident" right?

brianthebard wrote: »

And yet you did. History is about things that actually happened, not counter factual fictions by authors who want to be controversial for the sake of it.

As has been exposed by the FOI Acts etc accepted 'history' is quite frequently at best misinterpreted at worst just plain wrong.

brianthebard wrote: »

If you can't provide facts to back up your claims then why bother making them. Or why should we bother listening to them.

What have you "backed up"?

MarchDub · 10-11-2009 3:45pm

brianthebard wrote: »

. History is about things that actually happened, not counter factual fictions by authors who want to be controversial for the sake of it. If you can't provide facts to back up your claims then why bother making them. Or why should we bother listening to them.

Yes. This just about says it all - it makes no historic sense to simply say an author "has a point". History is not about having a point or an opinion based on undocumented speculation. Historiography is about the actual sourced historical record. End of. We might as well speculate here that De Valera was the fifth Beatle... or would he be the sixth? Or maybe he was a Manchurian candidate. ..

Rondolfus · 10-11-2009 4:17pm

prinz wrote: »

Ireland was more dependant on agriculture and small holding farmers in 1950 that we were in 1870. Does that tell you much?.

Yes, it tells me that partition resulted in Ireland losing the 6 counties which were by far the most industrial parts of the country....:rolleyes:

prinz · 10-11-2009 4:22pm

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes. This just about says it all - it makes no historic sense to simply say an author "has a point". History is not about having a point or an opinion based on undocumented speculation. Historiography is about the actual sourced historical record. End of. We might as well speculate here that De Valera was the fifth Beatle... or would he be the sixth? Or maybe he was a Manchurian candidate. ..

Almost every thread on this forum is people giving 'opinions'. Maybe giving opinions should just stop. Write it in stone and never question..

prinz · 10-11-2009 4:25pm

Rondolfus wrote: »

Yes, it tells me that partition resulted in Ireland losing the 6 counties which were by far the most industrial parts of the country....:rolleyes:

I will check the book again later but I'm almost certain it pertained to the island of Ireland as it happens.

MarchDub · 10-11-2009 4:31pm

prinz wrote: »

Almost every thread on this forum is people giving 'opinions'. Maybe giving opinions should just stop. Write it in stone and never question..

My exact words were "History is not about having a point or an opinion based on undocumented speculation."

Opinions based on nothing to back them up from the historical record ought to be rooted out, which is what you are seeing here on this thread.

brianthebard · 10-11-2009 4:33pm

prinz wrote: »

Almost every thread on this forum is people giving 'opinions'. Maybe giving opinions should just stop. Write it in stone and never question..

There are opinions based on fact and opinions based on fantasy. Yours is the latter. You've claimed that the British backed DeValera despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Please factually prove that the British supported DeValera despite arming the Free Staters, then prove that they supported him in power despite their numerous and bitter disagreements, and then you'll be taken seriously.

Morlar · 10-11-2009 4:33pm

Originally Posted by prinz View Post
Ireland was more dependant on agriculture and small holding farmers in 1950 that we were in 1870. Does that tell you much?.

Rondolfus wrote: »

Yes, it tells me that partition resulted in Ireland losing the 6 counties which were by far the most industrial parts of the country....:rolleyes:

To have an economy that was capable of keeping it's food imports down (& the risk of taxation and embargo etc) and it's populace fed & self sufficient was a sensible precaution. Especially considering the context of evolving Irish-british relations. I would not take that above point as evidence of anything beyond that.

prinz · 10-11-2009 4:35pm

brianthebard wrote: »

There are opinions based on fact and opinions based on fantasy. Yours is the latter. You've claimed that the British backed DeValera despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Please factually prove that the British supported DeValera despite arming the Free Staters, then prove that they supported him in power despite their numerous and bitter disagreements, and then you'll be taken seriously.

Care to prove that that Economic War was not related to the Great Depression?

Can you prove that in the space of 5 years DeV didn't go from refusing to acknowledge the Free State, and engaging in Civil War, threatening to wade through Irish blood to get what he wanted... to leaving Sinn Féin because they wouldn't recognise the Free State and it's institutions...?

MarchDub · 10-11-2009 4:44pm

Morlar wrote: »

To have an economy that was capable of keeping it's food imports down (& the risk of taxation and embargo etc) and it's populace fed & self sufficient was a sensible precaution. Especially considering the context of evolving Irish-british relations. I would not take that above point as evidence of anything beyond that.

To further support this we know that De Valera's economic protectionist policies in the 1930s were actually praised by John Maynard Keynes - the "Demand Sider" economist. While De Valera came in for much criticism in later years his actions during the 1930s were praised by world economists such as Keynes for keeping Ireland from a much worse fate that befell us then. Also consider he was able to re-house over 90,000 rural families during the economic world Depression.

brianthebard · 10-11-2009 5:05pm

prinz wrote: »

Care to prove that that Economic War was not related to the Great Depression?

You said it was caused by the Great Depression, that's not the same as related to.

Can you prove that in the space of 5 years DeV didn't go from refusing to acknowledge the Free State, and engaging in Civil War, threatening to wade through Irish blood to get what he wanted... to leaving Sinn Féin because they wouldn't recognise the Free State and it's institutions...?

He did not fundamentally change his politics, as was clear when he went into office and attacked the treaty. He changed his position on the Free State, which is a different matter.

prinz · 10-11-2009 5:24pm

brianthebard wrote: »

You said it was caused by the Great Depression, that's not the same as related to..

Yes, one of the causes. Probably the major cause.

Eoinp · 10-11-2009 6:05pm

Hookey wrote: »

Not sure about Ireland, but that's not the case in the UK; there's a library royalty model (Public Lending Right) that works out about 2p a lend. Not much, but I remember authors agitating to get it increased a couple of years ago. i'd be very surprised if Ireland doesn't have something similar.

Actually we do! Instituted in 2007. Comes into operation soon. It's called Public Lending Right. The scheme has a website here: http://www.plr.ie/

Eoinp · 10-11-2009 6:37pm

It is interesting that when called on to mention a document to support the contention that Dev was a spy the author couldn't bring any to the table. I think TPC was on the money, this guy seems to have little to support his deductions other than a reading of the facts as we know them. He certainly seems to have nothing by way of documentary evidence, still it made for good radio. I'd save on the money for the book though!

On a side not related to someof the comment here.

prinz wrote: »

The British were afraid of Collins getting power in Ireland IMO, he was young, active, intelligent, driven, smart, and progressive with a view to the future and making something of the country. IIRC in Collins' writings he said something after the Treaty that the way to win Northern Ireland was not through force and violence, but through making Ireland the envy of the Commonwealth through modernisation, industrialisation, etc, so much so that big business would either relocate to the Free State or bring pressure to bear on the North to leave the Union willingly.

ETC!

It is only fair to note that some of the thinking about Collins is not that complimentary. Indeed some people have begin to consider how much control he held in his hands during those last few months and weeks of his life and the implications of that power and his use of it for democracy. The work of Michael Regan is very interesting in this area and if you want a place to start I'd suggest his short piece in Mercier's Michael Collins & the Making of the Irish State: http://www.mercierpress.ie/cartage.html?main_page=product_book_info&products_id=168&zenid=49qbutdnefkejf96abd18kdl23&cartage_alias=cartage

Eoin

'De Valera was a British spy' - New book claim

Comments