New evidence emerges on death of Irish hero Michael Collins in IRA ambush - VIDEO

"The document shows that the killing happened by chance as the IRA party that had been waiting for Collins had mostly withdrawn believing he was not coming." That much was already known, as recorded by John M Feehan in 'The Shooting of Michael Collins', first published in 1981. The two (yes, two) IRA men who were still there at 8pm were in the process of removing the cart and disarming the mines when the Free State convoy came round the bend and surprised them. Their version is that they only fired shots into the air to warn IRA senior officers meeting in a pub down the road that Free State troops were in the area. But the State troops, understandably, given the circumstances, returned fire and the 15-minute shootout began. "Hanley will state in a new book that the account also proves that an astonishing lack of protection around Collins was the real cause of his death." Indeed, it makes you wonder how he could be so poorly protected... as with JFK, the question we need to be asking is, who has the power to call off the usual security protocols? His regular convoy detail was changed en route to Cork. "It is believed to be the first immediate account of the ambush at Béal na mBláth." Nah, there have been loads before this one. Some of them TOTALLY contradict other versions. A reconstruction of events, taking into account all the available eyewitness testimonies, shows that at least two key members of Collins's convoy (probably the motorcycle rider at the head of the convoy and Emmet Dalton, who was next to Collins most of the time) were lying through their teeth about what happened because their accounts conflict so much with those of the other rank and file officers who were present, as well as with the two IRA men who were there initially and the three others who joined in the shooting after it started.

ENGLAND has been left in possession not only of the Soil of Ireland, with all that grows and lives thereon, to her own use. but in possession of the world’s ear also. She may pour into, it what tale she will: and all mankind will believe her.

Just wondering, thanks.

@Woundedknee: Bullying and vitriol? Look in the mirror. You may think O'Neill was from Bandon but I lived on the same street as his entire family so I don't need your correction on that. I never said he was proud - I said he was not proud of it (as in he didn't brag about it in any way and he also recognized that a great Irishman died that day). Anyway there isn't much point in attempting to discuss anything rationally with a dickhead like you. End.

Re: "@RichardP " When the Head of State of a country, or some senior figure - such as an Army Chief of Staff is killed in a civil war it is usually called assassination - particularly when it happens in an ambush for that purpose - to call it otherwise in splitting hairs and doesn't alter facts" What do you call it when it's done by the british terror state, which only obeys international conventions at its convenience?..." I call it assassination Curtis..why?

He may not have been personally intimidated but the british terror state would have unleashed its psychopaths on non-combatants with all of the instruments of modern warfare at their disposal (including poison gas). This would have included a massive campaign of torture, rape, looting, burning and murder.

Woodman: Collins was not intimidated by that threat although I belive it weighed heavily on his decesion. He plainly states in writings before his death, that had the irish people wished to continue the fight he would have in spite of the British threat. I believe he took the threat seriously enough, and taht influenced his decesion.

The Free State allowed the freedom to achieve the Republic; not the Republic of a United Ireland, but there were, and are, certain realities to that issue which some posters here refuse to engage with. The Civil War gifted Northern Unionists a reason to justify partition. Subsequently, the vast majority of the Anti-Treaty side came into the democratic process and used the freedom obtained by the Treaty to create the 1937 constitution etc., and they too were faced with the realities of partition...

Michael Collins was Commander in Chief of the Irish Army. The Treaty was debated and passed by the Dáil and later in June of 1922 the Pro-Treaty wing of SF won the General election (I believe that not a single Anti-Treaty candidate headed the poll in any constituency). The people had spoken and anyone acting outside the authority of the democratic process was not acting as the Irish Army, nor did it have any right to use that name. Unfortunately, some Irish people didn’t accept the democratic process and a Civil War ensued, which caused the pointless deaths of many Irishmen and for what? Indeed, those who called themselves republicans exhibited a peculiar brand of republicanism by their refusal to accept the verdict of the people.

The film remains a hit in my house, in fact I brought up all the VHS copies I could in case I lent one and didn't get it back.

So the British were just bluffing when they threatened "immediate and terrible war" unless Collins signed the treaty and he had nothing to worry about? The Brits would have done nothing even though the great war was over and the Empire now had thousands of troops and munitions they could send to Ireland. Really?

The document proves nothing. The only way to possible prove what happened would be to exhume the body and subject it to a scientific examination. The strange thing about the "ambush" was that no one else on either side was shot or wounded but Collins. At the time of his death, Collins was covertly arming the republicans in what is now Northern Ireland to defend Irish areas from British loyalist pograms. He also eliminated a British general he believed to be behind the British atrocities. The Brits were probably well aware of what was actually going but publicly blamed the anti-treaty people IRA and not the Irish Free State. The professor is just rehashing the same old official story, and there is no real reason to believe it.

Oh yes Michael Collins, Arthur Griffith and co had many choices concerning Ireland,s future at that stage but surprisingly and obviously for want of better judgement they accepted and choose the british choice. Even if they had done nothing and just sat on their hands it would have been a better choice than that what they accepted.The Treaty of 1922 divided the nation of Ireland, something that the the british had unsuccessfully tried to do for seven centuries and now they had succeeded with the help of Irishmen.An Irish free state.Not much of an achievement for Collins and co /cuman naGael,a far cry from the Irish republic that united Irishmen and women fought and died for, an insult to the memory of Irish warriors ONeill and ODonnell.If only he had waited just a little longer.May you rest in peace Michael OCoileian

" The English take military defeat very badly, usually exacting retribution of some description." This is when they reveal their real level of civilization, comparable to, say, the Mongol hordes. [b]ritish honor and manhood is always on display in their vile behaviour towards the defenceless, with women and children inspiring particular savagery.

Collins always had a choice as did Dev.They all turned on each other giving the enemy a leave pass, divide and conquer and oppress was the mantra and the British tragically won the day.