Photo highlights tensions on day Michael Collins signed the Anglo-Irish treaty

Thanks from me too...best wishes for 2012...

Happy holidays to all,great exchange of information,stay safe and well.

Thank you all for a lively debate and many happy returns to you all.DRIVE SAFELY OVER THE CHRISTMAS.

To DanO, greensod, seanmelbourne and sirpeter, this has been a good discussion and while we don't agree on all matters relating to Ireland's long, uneven road to independence, we do share an abiding affection for the country that is as much a part of us as we are of it. greensod, I was with the 2/28th, First Infantry Division. We operated in an area called War Zone D about 50 miles northwest of Saigon, near the Cambodian border. I had the bad luck to arrive in Vietnam only hours after the Tet Offensive was launched by Charlie the end of January 1968. Very few Paddies went to Vietnam but by incredible coincidence a friend and nearby neighbor of mine (he had emigrated to Chicago same time as I went to New York)also served in Vietnam - with the 9th Division. Our mothers had gone to school together and were great friends. While he and I were in the boonies our mothers commiserated together and prayed for our safe return. We both made it back ok but a few months after his return he was killed in a construction accident in Chicago. Very sad. I am signing off on this discussion. I enjoyed it. Happy Christmas all.

Seano - Studying historic causes and outcomes requires identifying and assessing the relative importance of different factors and making explanatory links between causes and effects, considering evidence and interpretation. It is this process of investigation, consideration and reflection which allows us to form mature opinions and judgements, rather than wallow in ignorance which produces prejudices, bigotry and bias. The ‘false’ element lies in how our history was taught, what was remembered, what was forgotten, and how that shaped our understanding. To take one example, in the south the involvement in WW1 was forgotten, deliberately, to distance this new nation from a war that did not fit the new narrative. In the north, quite the opposite happened. More recently, that involvement has been recognised as something to remember and honour. Men like Tom Crean have been remembered, belatedly…in relation to 1918, again, a choice was made. They could have taken their seats at Westminster, and demanded delivery of the Home Rule Act, which was on the statute book. Of course when one road is chosen, one can never say for certain how the ‘road not travelled’ would have worked out…

TomSwinford.The culture of the gun and the culture of criminality is all that Ireland has experienced in the last 800 years and more so up to the GFA for NI.And you think these cultures started as a direct result of the botched 1916 Uprising?In other words there was no culture of the gun and government criminality under British rule?Pray tell us all about our false history?Every comment you make is just your perception.NOT one thing have you backed up with fact.Sweeping shallow statements about a subject that is extremely complex. Just read the books don't bother thinking.The same as in the army just follow the orders.There's a good reason for it.

TomSwinford:I read your post where you said you were born and raised in Ireland.I was also born and raised there. In your last post to SeanO, what really caught my eye was that you served in Vietnam.I also served there with the 101st airborne in the earlie 60ts.Spent most of my time between Danang, Pleiku and quiNhon.Looks like you and Seano are having a very good exchange on the past history of Ireland.The knowledge coming forth by both of you is very informative,i can relate to both sides of the issues up for discussion.It sure is a small world.I thought I was the only Paddy chaising after Charlie.

My post was primarily directed to Dan O'Loinsigh.How was the armed struggle a false history it actually happened,I'm not sure what history you were taught in school or what time frame you were at school.What happened happened and cannot be undone. I would like to know Tom who were the successful ones who used peaceful means. The homerulers failed because the british used them and then done a brutus on them. A poll was taken in England some years ago on whether they (the English) wanted The 6 counties as part of the UK and 70% said no. The 1918 general election was won by republicans and Britains answer was to arrest all the TDs without charge and incarcerate them for refusing to sit in Westminster. The people voted for a republic thats called peaceful democracy at work. If my snippets of history are not true please correct them for me.BTW Tom spent over 5 years in "an Slua Muire" and loved it. Enjoy your christmas break (in case you do not reply).

Sean, I'm not sure to whom your post was directed but, assuming it was me, I respectfully disagree with you. When a false history is written, as in this case, and stuffed down our primary school throats, and perpetuated through the generations - and is then questioned for the first time by reasonable people who have grown up and can no longer accept the unchallenged bull...t that we have been force fed, that is not revisionism. I accept that you are sincere in your beliefs but that does not make these beliefs true. As a boy I accepted them too but then became very well-read on the subject and came to the inescapable conclusion that the ones who fought the battle without bloodshed were overwhelmingly more successful in advancing the Irish cause. Still, we love the gunmen. I say this as a combat veteran of Vietnam - and I also served in the Irish reserves (the FCA) for more than three years. I have been to Melbourne and Sydney on business - they are both great cities. Slan.

You have given a perfect exmple of revisionism or maybe telling half truths. On two occasions the british lower house passed Home Rule for Ireland bill only to be stymied by the house of lords and Churchill who actively supported sedition(Curragh Mutiny).I believe Home rule would have been accepted by a majority in Ireland. but those against home rule in England the (tory's and the landed class led by the likes of the "Duke of Bedford") won the day thus subordinating the will of the people. At any time between 1916 and 1922 Britain could have supported a peaceful solution based on Home Rule as they so often promised and failed to do so. Of all the treaties made from the statutes of Kilkenny to 1922 britain went back on her word and forced the Irish to violent revolution for the right to excist as free men and women. AS Napper Tandy said(1798) "keep your swords sharp when talking peace to the English or as Burke said "concessions of the meek are concessions of fear". Of course then there's the case when one selectively condone wars or violence in other theatres because it suits their political beliefs. A holier than thou attitude and hindsight political thinking just doe not cut it.

DanOLoingsigh, my compliments on an excellent piece. I profoundly believe that the nation we received as a direct result of the botched 1916 Uprising was deeply flawed. The culture of the gun and the culture of criminality came with it, and with respect to the latter that culture still haunts Irish politics. What other country has permitted the existence on its soil of a violent, illegal army down through the decades, a largely criminal organization that, at times, even threatened the existence of the state itself? Finally, after almost a 100 years, serious questions are being asked in Ireland about that most dubious period in Irish history, 1916-1923. Yes, there was a better option, a peaceful one, but for generations the myth of the heroic, selfless gunman reigned supreme. To even hint at the possibility of a different path was to be labeled a traitor or worse. The fact that these questions are now being asked is welcome proof that we are indeed growing up.

Dano.Who writes history? Do you think when you pick up a book on ancient Greece you are getting an accurate picture of life in Greece from the likes of Homer,Sophocles,Herodotus,Plato and Aristotle.They were the ruling class.In some of their writings all they had was contempt for the ordinary people.Some of them were slum landlords.How else do you think they had time to do their stuff?It was all from the ruling classes perspective.MY history HAS be written and if necessary due to new evidence re-analysed by people who are unbiased and fair and then changes can be made if the evidence is overwhelmingly more accurate.I don't think Micheal Collins would like an Irish Unionist or an Irish West Brit Protestant/Catholic re-analysing his motives or his life.I have read British University level lectures on Ireland.They are biased and omit the whole truth to the point that they are lies.I'm not going to listen to Tom Swinford when he makes a statement like this in relation to the likes of Wolfe Tone and Robert Emmet Quote"Their repeated failures,however,did bring untold suffering and misery to the Irish people"Unquote.Dismissing their efforts with an element of contempt after they giving their life's in the quest for Irish freedom.He is also totally incorrect.You're argument on "A different Ireland ect".I could take to pieces very easily.Even though your point is worthy of discussion.But then alot of what is posted on this board only deserves correction along with an ample amount of abuse.

seanomelbourne – History does not stand still, and events and decisions made in the past need to be re-analysed in the light of new evidence, or comparing outcomes achieved against other possible options. This may be termed ‘revisionism’, but if we close our eyes and ears to re-interpretations of our history, we are left with someone else’s views and beliefs. While it is certainly true that the Ireland we have today is ‘the child’ of the men of 1916 – 1922, this does not mean we could not have had a different Ireland, if other choices were made. A different Ireland may be more united and prosperous than the one we have now, or it may not. It is possible, even likely, that the ‘Home Rule’ on offer would have developed into fully fledged independence of the whole of Ireland, in the same way as Canada, Australia etc. When you refer to those who ‘fought for our freedom’, you seem to dismiss the constitutional nationalists, in favour of the ‘physical force’ tradition, when in the context of Irish history they held sway for a relatively short period…although they cast a long shadow. Also you use ‘nationalist’ and ‘republican’ to mean the same thing, when current usage does imply a difference. All the empires of old have gone, and would have gone anyway, with or without the interventions of those you revere…

Tom I am aware of the realities of modern Ireland and that most people may have moved on in their political thinking.I will always remind those who deal in revisionism and have a hate for republicanism that the freedom we have came out of the barrel of a gun (as distasteful as this may be).Mimimising the importance of the work of those who fought for our freedom is objectionable to me. Like you I am Irish born and have relatives born on three continents My children are Australian born and proud of their Irish heritage,but they Australian first they. Someone has to take the anti-nationalists on this site to task.

GeorgeDillon, I was kind to you in my earlier post, only taking you to task for your ludicrous statement that John Redmond, leader of the Irish Nationalist Party, sent 50,000 Irishmen to their deaths in World War l. I ignored the rest of your post as not being worth my time - but again you repeat this nonsense. To say that the Irish serving in the British Army 'murdered innocent' Germans, Austrians, Hungarians and Turks defies comprehension. First of all, the British Army faced only Germans on the Western Front of Flanders and France and these Germans were most certainly not innocent. They were soldiers in uniform fighting for the Kaiser. The Kaiser's armies invaded france through neutral Belgium and laid waste to that small country, slaughtering thousands of civilians, including women and children. Indeed it was German barbarity in Belgium that prompted large numbers of Irishmen to join the British Army. As for Austrians and Hungarians, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was allied with Germany but its soldiers were confined mostly to fighting the Serbs and the Russians far from the Western Front. An Irish regiment was present in the Dardanelles campaign in 1915 against the Turks - who were allied with the Kaiser - again, soldiers killing soldiers in war, not innocent folks being murdered as in Belgium. Do you get it lad! As for DanOLoingsigh being a racist, you, George, above all, are in no position to make such a charge