Anniversary of the shooting dead of Michael Collins

Water John

Take no sides, flawed yes, but you cannot say 'he died a broken man, by all accounts'.
That is hyperbole. There is no such 'account' TMK.
Sweeping generalisation with no truth.

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

Collins routinely taking steps three at a go and getting up at 6 am is hardly an indication of poor health, 4ensic15. I think your claim that his immune system was breaking down because he had stomach trouble and a cold is a bit of a stretch. Compromised immune system, I'd buy. But depleted or compromised immune system as a result of stress isn't at all uncommon, and full recovery is usual. To go through such an experience at 30 wouldn't have implications for future life expectancy.

We can point to lots of leaders who fought wars that lasted much longer than the Irish Civil War, and who did so at an older age, and already in poorer health, than Collins, and yet lived to a ripe old age. Indeed, if we look at the leaders on the other side of the Irish Civil War, who presumably suffered similar stress in the conflict plus the additional stress of losing, Frank Aiken died in his bed at the age of 85, Eamon de Valera lived to 92. Collins himself was succeeded as leader of the Free State side by W T Cosgrave as Chairman of the Provisional Government and by Richard Mulcahy as Commander in Chief; both lived to be 85. So, really, there's not much reason for thinking that the stress of leading either side in the Irish Civil War would shorten life expectancy.

Really, apart from Collins himself, the only Civil War leader on either side who didn't live to a ripe old age was Liam Lynch, and we know why that[/i[ was.

DeValera and Mulcahy were individuals who alwyas slept well. Collins was pushing himself beyond the beyonds. He would have suffered burnout within a short time. He was not sleeping enough, he was drinking too much, had already developed a stomach disorder and I have no doubt he would have kept going till he dropped.

KingBrian2

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a cult of Michael Collins out there. It existed while he was alive, and it escalated after he died. And those who belong to this cult ascribe almost superhuman or supernatural powers to him. The truth is, he was flawed. He died a broken man, by all accounts, as he had to face up to these flaws. He regretted the signing of the treaty, apparently, yet felt compelled to fight in its name. He died a shadow of himself. British intelligence documents even comment on the deterioration in his appearance, he had gotten quite out of shape.

There's an obvious element of human tragedy in the story of Michael Collins. But one must balance whatever sympathies they have for him on a human level with the fact that he was responsible for a lot of tragedy and brutality before he died.

The tragedy was not C&C Michael Collins it was the civil war which had to be put down by extreme and brutal measures. He went on record to publically back the treaty while many of his compatriots conspired to have him shot.

If anything it goes to show the treachery of those who refused to accept the terms of the treaty that had been negotiated by Collins & Griffith in the name of the Dáil.

Water John

No point in reiterating the two sides of the civil war here.
The extreme nationalists, and I'm not referring to Dev here, were never going to accept any thing less than the delivery of a 32 county Ireland at that point.

Politicians know its always about the art of the possible.

Its why the settlement in NI took so much time, to bring as many as possible along the road.

KingBrian2

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The tragedy was not C&C Michael Collins it was the civil war which had to be put down by extreme and brutal measures. He went on record to publically back the treaty while many of his compatriots conspired to have him shot.

If anything it goes to show the treachery of those who refused to accept the terms of the treaty that had been negotiated by Collins & Griffith in the name of the Dáil.

He was reputed to have been having an affair with Lady Lavary around the time of the treaty, and she gave an account of him basically being hoodwinked by more skilled parliamentarians and negotiators. In fairness, the Irish delegation were up against a strong British team. By her account he did not support the treaty, immediately regretted signing it, fell into depression and turned up in a car one night to her house asking her to leave for the States with him.

Revisionists have sought to portray the IRA and Lynch in particular as some blood thirsty fundamentalist who was hell bent on war, but the opposite was the truth. Lynch sought every means of avoiding a conflict, whereas Collins was the one who fired the initial shots, broke the pact, refused to consider steps to move back from the brink etc.

I think it was Meda Ryan's book on Liam Lynch which best illustrated the efforts made by Lynch and others to figure out some means of moving forward without armed conflict, but, particularly after the Fours Courts assault, they met a brick wall in Collins. And Collins was the man who could have saved the situation.

4ensic15

Deleted User wrote: »

He was reputed to have been having an affair with Lady Lavary around the time of the treaty, and she gave an account of him basically being hoodwinked by more skilled parliamentarians and negotiators. In fairness, the Irish delegation were up against a strong British team. By her account he did not support the treaty, immediately regretted signing it, fell into depression and turned up in a car one night to her house asking her to leave for the States with him.

Revisionists have sought to portray the IRA and Lynch in particular as some blood thirsty fundamentalist who was hell bent on war, but the opposite was the truth. Lynch sought every means of avoiding a conflict, whereas Collins was the one who fired the initial shots, broke the pact, refused to consider steps to move back from the brink etc.

I think it was Meda Ryan's book on Liam Lynch which best illustrated the efforts made by Lynch and others to figure out some means of moving forward without armed conflict, but, particularly after the Fours Courts assault, they met a brick wall in Collins. And Collins was the man who could have saved the situation.

Collins was told to attack the Four Courts by Churchill.

KingBrian2

4ensic15 wrote: »

Collins was told to attack the Four Courts by Churchill.

This was months after the treaty had been agreed and a Free State general had been kidnapped.

4ensic15

KingBrian2 wrote: »

This was months after the treaty had been agreed and a Free State general had been kidnapped.

Who said it wasn't?

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

Collins was told to attack the Four Courts by Churchill.

Had the pact been adhered to, and it wasn't as Collins deliberately broke its terms, it offered a means for a coalition based 3rd Dáil Éireann to bring the treaty for ratification before the Irish people.

Such a major decision surely required the consent of the Irish people. How can anyone argue on behalf of a man who denied the Irish people their right to vote on their own destinies through subterfuge and then who would subsequently claim that the pact election, he manipulated and betrayed, was the Irish people's decision on the treaty and therefore provided a British armed militia with a mandate to attack the IRA?

Those are not the actions of an honest man. If Collins was merely a man caught in between a rock and a hard place by the failure of Griffith in London to repel the Welsh Wizards charms then how are his actions around the pact justified?

Why would Collins behave in such a manner if he truly sought unity?
The pact was agreed among both sides of army and party to establish a truce capable of permitting the government to come together in peace and place the debate before the people. An agreement was reached and that agreement was broken off by the actions of Collins on the eve of the election, Griffith refused to betray Lloyd George but Collins had no issue betraying both his own side in the treaty debate and those opposed, and in doing so, he proved that he wanted a war with his own. The killing of Henry Wilson just sped it up.

KingBrian2

4ensic15 wrote: »

Who said it wasn't?

Collins had to act against the Four Courts given the treacherous actions committed against his force never mind what Churchill wanted. Those who took over the Four Courts weren't his men.

4ensic15

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Collins had to act against the Four Courts given the treacherous actions committed against his force never mind what Churchill wanted. Those who took over the Four Courts weren't his men.

Churchill told Collins to get the Four Courts cleared or the Brits would come back and do it. The Four Courts had been occupied for months before Collins acted.

KingBrian2

4ensic15 wrote: »

Churchill told Collins to get the Four Courts cleared or the Brits would come back and do it. The Four Courts had been occupied for months before Collins acted.

Collins at this stage had to put the treaty into force, to allow a building to remain under the control of irregular factions risked the implementation of the treaty but that is exactly what the anti treatyites wanted. Others in the cabinet would have expected the other IRA units to stand down and respect the chain of command. Collins was naïve in believing he could reason with the anti-treayites. He delayed too long in removing the threat of an IRA mutiny.

Chuchote

Returning to the subject… I don't think this can be called an assassination. He died in one of many ambushes set up for Free State troops by Volunteers. His death was mourned by both sides; there are accounts, for instance, of Republican prisoners falling to their knees to say a rosary for the repose of his soul when the news came in.

4ensic15

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Collins at this stage had to put the treaty into force, to allow a building to remain under the control of irregular factions risked the implementation of the treaty but that is exactly what the anti treatyites wanted. Others in the cabinet would have expected the other IRA units to stand down and respect the chain of command. Collins was naïve in believing he could reason with the anti-treayites. He delayed too long in removing the threat of an IRA mutiny.

Collins did what Churchill told him.

KingBrian2

Chuchote wrote: »

Returning to the subject… I don't think this can be called an assassination. He died in one of many ambushes set up for Free State troops by Volunteers. His death was mourned by both sides; there are accounts, for instance, of Republican prisoners falling to their knees to say a rosary for the repose of his soul when the news came in.

Well calling it an ambush would be the most accurate term to describe it, considering his position at the top of the Free State gvt it was more likely an unplanned assassination. I'm not sure if the attackers even knew who he was. In any case the war in that part of Ireland was particularly fierce so he knew what he was getting himself in for heading down there.

Water John

Yes, republicans were sorry at the loss of Collins.
The man who raised the word that a convoy had passed that morning was not thanked, in later years.
This was an ambush set up at short notice. They chanced, that because a lot of the routes were blocked, it might return the same route, militarily inadvisable.

4ensic15

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Well calling it an ambush would be the most accurate term to describe it, considering his position at the top of the Free State gvt it was more likely an unplanned assassination. I'm not sure if the attackers even knew who he was. In any case the war in that part of Ireland was particularly fierce so he knew what he was getting himself in for heading down there.

Of course they knew who he was. He had passed through earlier on the day of the incident. He had been hanging around in pubs on the day. It would have been common knowledge he was in cork, let alone a secret to the irregulars.

Water John

Communication systems were very diff. Not at all sure they knew.
Chance happens. Remember Dev had stayed nearby the night before. Some may believe that there was some intention to meet.

KingBrian2

4ensic15 wrote: »

Of course they knew who he was. He had passed through earlier on the day of the incident. He had been hanging around in pubs on the day. It would have been common knowledge he was in cork, let alone a secret to the irregulars.

You weren't around back then. How do you know? They could have mistook him for a free state officer. High ranking officers all travelled in convoys back then.

4ensic15

Water John wrote: »

Communication systems were very diff. Not at all sure they knew.
Chance happens. Remember Dev had stayed nearby the night before. Some may believe that there was some intention to meet.

There were good enough communication systems, even at that time. There were phones and people with bikes and motor vehicles.

Water John

I am near to that and what my relative would have said was that they did not know.
My source would have been close enough to many of these people in later years.

4ensic15

Water John wrote: »

I am near to that and what my relative would have said was that they did not know.
My source would have been close enough to many of these people in later years.

There is so much rumour and heresay and deliberate disinformation surrounding those events that unverifiable hearsay must be rejected.

Water John

Well, there's been a lot of heresay in these 4 pages, throwing up all sorts of half baked innuendo.
I agree that those involved kept very quiet afterwards. There is no definitive answer if they knew.
But the man I refer was disliked, whether genuinely or through guilt.

BalcombeSt4

tac foley wrote: »

Hogwash, Sir.

tac

Well you say that but he controlled the the south politically and militarly and anyone who oppossed him was dealt with in brutal fashion. About 800 Freestate soldierswere killed in the war and possibly as many as 3000 Republicans were killed which is a staggering amount considering the small amount of Republicans who served in the IRA during the civil war.

It's one thing ambushing soldiers from an invading country it's an other to tie 9 of your former comrades to a mine & blow the mine up & machine gun anyone who survived. That's a SS style massacre.

KingBrian2

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Well you say that but he controlled the the south politically and militarly and anyone who oppossed him was dealt with in brutal fashion. About 800 Freestate soldierswere killed in the war and possibly as many as 3000 Republicans were killed which is a staggering amount considering the small amount of Republicans who served in the IRA during the civil war.

It's one thing ambushing soldiers from an invading country it's an other to tie 9 of your former comrades to a mine & blow the mine up & machine gun anyone who survived. That's a SS style massacre.

It should never have happened. That been said atrocities were committed by both forces. The free state had to regain control of the country. Citizens lives had be put on hold for years. WW1, war of independence the Labour unrest, people wanted all the violence to end and if that meant the irregulars had to be crushed than so be it.

Chuchote

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

It's one thing ambushing soldiers from an invading country it's an other to tie 9 of your former comrades to a mine & blow the mine up & machine gun anyone who survived. That's a SS style massacre.

The Ballyseedy killings were in March 1923. If Michael Collins did them, he had an interesting afterlife!

Esel

Chuchote wrote: »

The Ballyseedy killings were in March 1923. If Michael Collins did them, he had an interesting afterlife!

I could well be wrong, but I don't think anyone here said that Mick was involved.

It's the old, old story - divide and rule. The Romans used to say it in Latin.

We have an old saying with the same eventual meaning / result:

"Is le ding dí féin a scoiltear an dair."

Chuchote

The atrocities began after the death of Collins. But the Civil War should never have happened. Negotiations has been set for the following Tuesday when the Four Courts were attacked. It would have been absolutely possible to negotiate and never to have this disgraceful, divisive, cruel war, the results of which are still resounding in Ireland in divisions within our society.

Chuchote

Chuchote wrote: »

The atrocities began after the death of Collins. But the Civil War should never have happened. Negotiations has been set for the following Tuesday when the Four Courts were attacked. It would have been absolutely possible to negotiate and never to have this disgraceful, divisive, cruel war, the results of which are still resounding in Ireland in divisions within our society.

Republican leaders like Liam Lynch worked hard to avoid armed conflict between ex-comrades, and to tried and achieve some form of understanding. But Collins and co were bloodthirsty.

KingBrian2

Deleted User wrote: »

Republican leaders like Liam Lynch worked hard to avoid armed conflict between ex-comrades, and to tried and achieve some form of understanding. But Collins and co were bloodthirsty.

I'd say Collins would have shown the same level of brutality against anti treatyites that he used against the British forces when a more diplomatic tone should have been adopted not only him but similar views expressed by the Free Staters. We have to consider different times a lot more violent.