52 Comments

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 11, 2011, 04:49 AM EST

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

• greensod | Dec 10, 2011, 08:09 PM EST

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

• seanomelbourne | Dec 10, 2011, 05:42 PM EST

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

• seanomelbourne | Dec 10, 2011, 10:52 AM EST

  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.

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 10, 2011, 04:40 AM EST

  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…

• sirpeter | Dec 09, 2011, 11:53 PM EST

  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.

• greensod | Dec 09, 2011, 10:17 PM EST

  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.

• seanomelbourne | Dec 09, 2011, 09:53 PM EST

  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).

• seanomelbourne | Dec 09, 2011, 08:00 PM EST

  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.

• seanomelbourne | Dec 09, 2011, 05:54 PM EST

  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.

• seanomelbourne | Dec 09, 2011, 05:01 PM EST

  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.

• sirpeter | Dec 09, 2011, 04:18 PM EST

  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.

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 09, 2011, 11:49 AM EST

  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…

• seanomelbourne | Dec 09, 2011, 05:03 AM EST

  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.

• seanomelbourne | Dec 08, 2011, 06:57 PM EST

  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

• seanomelbourne | Dec 08, 2011, 06:34 PM EST

  greensod, thank you. I was born and raised in Ireland and return often - where I have family and a little property. I love the place; it is in my DNA.

• greensod | Dec 08, 2011, 05:05 PM EST

  When FF Slippied out the back door,and went over to Europe and made their little pact with the overlords there, i can assure all, that no one from Sinn Fein Had any part in it.This is how their little pact was supposed to work. Ireland was going to borrow billions from the IMF authorized by the CBE. This money was going to be infused into the Irish treasury and no one in Ireland would be the wiser.Well the word got out and all hell broke loose.Gerry Adams, Pearse Dougherty and Mary Lou McDonald on several occasions pleaded with the Government not to take any money from the IMF.Their position was burn the bond holders close the bad banks and use the pension fund to get Ireland back on its feet.Sinn Fein are much to experienced to sign on to any pact that would sell The soul Of Ireland.Labour were also on board with SF on this,but we now see what they have done since they got in power.

• clevelander | Dec 08, 2011, 03:40 PM EST

  @georgeie It amazes me how you pick one aspect of Dev's econimic policies and hang your your hat on that one piece. The Land Act of 1933 which you bring up did stop the payment of land annuities. What did PM MacDonald do? Slap a 20% tax on all Irish imports. Dev did the same. How did this work out? Not to good for the people of Ireland. His isolationism and protective policies such as Irish only ownership of bussiness just made company's move headquaters else where and pay corprate tax's else where. That also was not good for the people of Ireland. Farmers could not pay land taxs so the Gov't seized livestock and sold them for less than what they were worth. Sorry Georgie, yes I may be nuts but Dev was a disaster with the Irish Economy. And you well I can't say how I feel about you as I know they would sensor it.

• GeorgeDillon | Dec 08, 2011, 02:14 PM EST

  TomSwinford: If I were you I'd be embarrassed by the offer of support from the racist OLoinsigh. Neither he nor you has been able to defend the fact that Irishmen probably killed as many as 50.000 Turks, Austrians, Hungarians, Germans in WW1. I would expect nothing else from the lousy racist Oloingsigh, but your approval for this slaughter is very troubling.

• GeorgeDillon | Dec 08, 2011, 02:11 PM EST

  Greensod: Why don't you leave your garbage outside the back door, don't dump it here. You're an utter ignoramus. You say "Sinn fein never agreed to the terms for Ireland with this pact." You're either a liar or just plain misinformed, greensod, most probably both. Sinn Fein voted FOR this deal in the Dail! Idiot.

• greensod | Dec 08, 2011, 01:09 PM EST

  TomSwinford: I have read your post with great interest.You appear to have a deep understanding of the history of Ireland. Unlike some others who blast out pure nonsaince and form opinions baised on a few trips to the tourist areas of Ireland.These are the people who get infected by the desease know as, Self imposed importance.The Irish people are very abapt at ginning up these pea brained fools to spread Irish bull,escicially in America. My general rule is to ignore this element.I see from DanOLoingsigh post, he may be of the same mindframe.Now back to the issue at hand.It looks like you have hit all the nails right on the head.The past is gone and we need to leave it where it belongs in the history books,or at least the ones that have got it correct.Ireland to day is in a shocking mess because of its involvement with the Euro pact.Sinn fein never agreed to the terms for Ireland with this pact.AS you point out, Ireland and England have a super business agreement,Ireland does not need to have any involvement in the EU.Germany and France have dumped every undesireable right into Ireland,and right on to social welfare, paid for by the Irish tax payer.Ireland England Scotland and Wales using the pound sterling would make one of the best trading partners for China, Russia.VietNam Japan and Thailand.Let Europe go down the river and fend for themselves.Last time the made an attempt to take over,and failed, the Americans bailed them out.Thats not going to happen this time.Its my preseption that Sinn Fein would lead Ireland,all 32 counties, in this direction.This would restore Ireland to a free nation again and along with the UK we would see the birth of another Celtic tiger within two years.It would also require a strick immigration policy and the vote for all born Irish Living outside Ireland.Sinn Fein is the only political party in Ireland with the will, experience, trust,and contacts in America to make this happen.

• greensod | Dec 08, 2011, 10:26 AM EST

  seanmelbourne, I am disappointed! Your posts are generally more sensible than this. I am a fair scholar of Anglo-Irish history and am acutely aware of the tragedy and cost of centuries of occupation and oppression. But at some point, common sense and the better angels of our nature compel us to put the past to rest and move forward. The Irish in Ireland have done that. Today, Ireland and Britain are not just close neighbors, they are, in a real sense, good friends. Ireland exports more to Britain than to any other country. Britain exports more to Ireland than it does to the so-called BRIC countries combined (Brazil, Russia, India and China). More Irish people live in Britain than in any other country outside of Ireland - and they have done well, now earning, on average, more than their English counterpart. There are over 43,000 Irish directors of British companies, including some of the largest. Several hundred thousand Brits make Ireland their home - and love it. I have English nieces and nephews who are proud and loyal British citizens and equally proud of their Irish heritage - and regard Ireland as their second home, and see no conflict in this duality. What is sad, Sean, is that some of us cannot seem to move on, preferring to carry this dead weight of bitterness and hatred - and to what purpose? To whom would you direct this hopelessly worthless and negative energy today? Think about it.

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 08, 2011, 02:39 AM EST

  TomSwinford - You can wear an assault by the Dillon-Seano duo as a badge of honour...Dillon's profound knowledge of WW1 placed Serbia on the German side, and as for Seano...he knows even less...yes hard to believe, but sadly true...

• seanomelbourne | Dec 07, 2011, 06:17 PM EST

  It's sad to read Tom Swinfords sense of defeatism and by omission condoning the repression of the Irish people.You have a flawed sense of history.Well done Georgy boy a sense of reality for tom to ponder.

• seanomelbourne | Dec 07, 2011, 03:11 PM EST

  GeorgeDillon, I think you're trying to be cute - as you surely know better than to accuse Redmond of sending 50,000 Irishmen to their deaths. He was in no position to send anyone anywhere - and well you know it. Almost all of the 200,000 plus Irishmen who fought with the British Army in WW l were volunteers, who, for various reasons, needed no encouragement. As leader of the Irish Nationalist Party which had fought long and hard for Home Rule, Redmond certainly did encourage the volunteers but no more. I believe that you are competent enough an historian to know why the Irish volunteered in such large numbers.Indeed a fair number, including Tom Barry - of later IRA fame -willingly admitted that he joined up for the feel of the gun, the thrill of battle and the opportunity to visit foreign lands.

• greensod | Dec 07, 2011, 01:29 PM EST

  pilib04:Nice to see that someone, is focused on what is really important.

• canadianirish | Dec 07, 2011, 01:18 PM EST

  Right on, pilib04!

• GeorgeDillon | Dec 07, 2011, 01:15 PM EST

  TomSwinford--So John Redmond acted "without bloodshed"? Tell that to the 50.000 Irishmen whom Redmond sent to their deaths, and the 50.000 innocent Turks, Hungarians, Austrians, Germans that these Irishmen murdered at Redmond's behest. You sure have a strange definition of "without bloodshed"!

• pilib04 | Dec 07, 2011, 12:33 PM EST

  Ballyseedy comes to mind, Springfiedld9. Having said that, do we really want to fight the civil war all over again. Fact is, there are plenty of more important things to do, such as assisting Sinn Fein in their 32 county strategy.

• Springfield9 | Dec 07, 2011, 10:11 AM EST

  Why is it "Anti-Treaty" activists? Read the fine print. Once the Treaty was signed the "Free-Staters" and new IRA started commiting the same atrocities as the Tans and Auxilliaries. In Co. Kerry alone they burned 9 men alive. It wasn't just "anti-treaty". It was anti-Free State tyranny.

• Towngate | Dec 07, 2011, 09:39 AM EST

  The Treaty Delegation stayed in a posh rented Townhouse and swanned around London in hired Rolls-Royce cars; - no wonder Collins looks so delighted with himself in all the photo's and films at the time! ~~~ But as IrelandNorth offers in his important Comment below: They were all puppets, pawns and poltroons of powerful masters with hidden agenda's ---- as indeed we all are to this very day!

• IrelandNorth | Dec 07, 2011, 08:10 AM EST

  "I did not know, as I know now that I was a mere puppet player in a political game ... What a fool I was! I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into power." Brian Feeney, writer/historian, in The Irish News, Dec., 07 th. p. 16. Quoting not Michael Collins or Eamon De Valera, but Dubliner & Leinsterman Lord Edward Carson, founding father of modern unionism.

• IrelandNorth | Dec 07, 2011, 07:49 AM EST

  Calm down, everybody! Gee, it's like the Civil War all over again - like the recent Irish presidential election. And go easy on old Dev. Clevelander, even weasels have spine too. The British did what they do best, divide and conquer. If we can't have old Ireland, then screw ya all!

• sirpeter | Dec 07, 2011, 07:48 AM EST

  Tommy Swine.We know who was rampaging through Irish history in the 300 years leading to Easter 1916 with guns.We also know the few men who were not willing to be trodden upon and payed the ultimate price for that.We also know who brought untold suffering and misery,death and famine to the Irish people.We also know we had traitors and informers and people like you.You made a point alright.The rest in history were not ruthless enough to deal with the Brits.

• sirpeter | Dec 06, 2011, 07:47 PM EST

  Damn, all this sturm und drang! Almost all of the gunmen who rampaged through Irish history in the 300 years leading to Easter 1916 had a combined accomplishment equal to a pimple on an elephant's arse. Throw in 1916 and the pimple gets no bigger. Their repeated failures, however, did bring untold suffering and misery to the Irish people. Four men, alone, without bloodshed, did more for the Irish cause than all of the gunmen, whom we so love. They are O'Connell, Parnell, Davitt and Redmond. I will make a single exception for Michael Collins, for although he was ruthless and brutal, he was effective - and considering the drunks and dreamers, the romantics and fools who preceeded him we needed a military leader who was brutal and ruthless. Can you imagine Collins' going on a hunger strike or skipping the country? That's my point.

• GeorgeDillon | Dec 06, 2011, 04:49 PM EST

  greensod--Anyone who thinks Collins was " a labour leader" is a stupid ignoramus.

• GeorgeDillon | Dec 06, 2011, 04:47 PM EST

  greensod: I would say that the chances that you are a traitor and coward are far higher than that De Valera was a traitor and a coward. You're nothing but an old reactionary warmonger, a traitor and a coward. You know nothing of Irish history.

• seanomelbourne | Dec 06, 2011, 04:41 PM EST

  Collins was killed in action it's as simple as that.

• greensod | Dec 06, 2011, 04:38 PM EST

  Collins did what he had to do at that time,or Ireland would have been obliterated by the British army.Yes DeVelara set the whole operation up,and was well aware of the outcome,as he was a spy for the British Government until the day he died.Dev was protected on all flanks,American and English.His deeds brought nothing but misery to the Irish people till this very day.He was a traitor and a coward and one day the British will release the evidence of all the information he passed on to them about the activity of the IRA.Collins was aware of this and so was his loyal supporters,so he gave his life for Ireland.Thats why he made the statement,I have just signed my own death warrant.As a labour leader and a soldier ,if he was alive today,again he would have to witness the acts of a bunch of traitors in the Irish Government, as a result of the budget they just presented to the people of Ireland. They paid out billions to the bond holders,increased funds for Government heads in raises and expenses,while cutting childerns allowences medical and presciptions for the young, the old, and the sick. You see nothing has changed,they lied to get in power and now they just pick up where FF left off.Collins must be spinning in his grave.

• GeorgeDillon | Dec 06, 2011, 04:27 PM EST

  CaptainCon knows no Irish history. He speaks of "De Valera's abdication of Irish social policy to the worst sort of cult." I take this badly written phrase to refer to the Catholic Church. What does this clown expect--that Irish social policy would not have been informed by what at that time was the religion of some 95% of the people? And our ignorant Captain doesn't know that the Cosgrave administration which preceded that of De Valera was far more in thrall to the Catholic Church than Dev was. Is Captain Con such a dope that he thinks Cosgrave's Cumann na nGael were some kind of Liberal Party? What an ignoramus.

• GeorgeDillon | Dec 06, 2011, 04:20 PM EST

  Clevelander: What you say is utter garbage. De Valera objected to Irish farmers paying rent to British absentee landlords whose ancestors had stolen those lands three centuries earlier. De Valera said--stop those payments. You think that it was right that Irish people pay extortion to British landlords who in some cases had never even been in Ireland? You're a total nut.

• GeorgeDillon | Dec 06, 2011, 04:16 PM EST

  CaptainCon: "signing his own death warrant". It's obvious that this poster, as well as others e.g oldboreen don't know their Irish history. They appear to think that Collins was killed for signing the Treaty. Garbage. Collins was killed when he recklessly exposed himself to fire from anti-Treaty forces conducting an ambush operation against pro-Treaty forces in West Cork. The guys who were directing fire on Collins' armored car didn't even know who they were firing on, other than that they were attacking Treatyites. Collins could easily have survived that day, had he been prudent and had he been sober. As someone with deep family roots among those who remained loyal to the Irish Republic proclaimed by Pearse and Connolly, I regret Collins' death. His absence opened the way to utterly murderous and reactionary forces embodied in such as Cosgrave and O'Higgins.

• Collette2 | Dec 06, 2011, 02:33 PM EST

  His life story is well and truly imbedded in my home, however close to truth the film is, I have many copies to hand down.

• oldboreen | Dec 06, 2011, 12:29 PM EST

  Michael Collins had no other choice-many Irish then and since would disagree,but consider the stark political realities at the time, and you have to concede that there was no alternative. Was Collins the fall guy? Certainly. Dev was the great survivor, he knew perfectly well that had he signed the less than perfect treaty, he would have met the same fate.

• TiocfaidhArmani | Dec 06, 2011, 11:58 AM EST

  Forget De Valera. Collins was Minster for Finance in the government and a leading member of the IRA, of course he should have went there. He shouldn't have signed any treaty that gave away six counties, like the other four who went with him. He got his just desserts for his treason.

• CaptainCon | Dec 06, 2011, 11:26 AM EST

  Some say De Valera arranged for Collins to head the Treaty negotiation team because he had it in mind once the Brits were out to elminate his most serious rival- Collins. De Valera had a funny habit of walking out of high security British prisons as well, remember, a remarkable feat and in the end came to his own accomodation with the British establishment- something for which he had condemned Collins. I think Collins knew deep down what De Valera was about which is why the remark he made about signing his own death warrant. It is a pity that Collins didn't put a bullet in De Valera when he had the chance. Irish social history might have been very different from the wretched social mess it ended up in because of De Valera's abdication of Irish social policy to the worst sort of cult.

• BrendanDunphy | Dec 06, 2011, 10:39 AM EST

  Eamon de Valera knew that he would never be killed by the Brits, because he was an American citizen. So, his only fear was being killed by the Irish people themselves. Here's to the Big Fella, and I'm not referring to the tall skinny lanky one...

• Murph46 | Dec 06, 2011, 10:31 AM EST

  Collins was a de Valera pawn ,he was in an absolute no win position from which de Valera used to further his political career.They killed the wrong guy!Here's to you Big Fella!

• Towngate | Dec 06, 2011, 10:18 AM EST

  This great snap shows him happy and delighted to be in a civilised country who gave him the choice of either signing the treaty as it stood or having Ireland obliterated. He signed because he didn't want any foreign power destroying the country ~ when he knew his fellow-Irishmen were quite capable of doing that themselves!

• carrickcourt | Dec 06, 2011, 10:02 AM EST

  A line from Sean O'Casey's play 'Juno and Paycock' - "take away our hearts of stone and give us hearts of flesh'.

• clevelander | Dec 06, 2011, 09:51 AM EST

  Why was Eamon de Valera not there? The spineless weasel knew what would happen and sent others over there so he could distance himself from the inevitable. He then went on to ruin the Irish Economy with his economic policies. Some seem to think he was a great man, I do not.

• sirpeter | Dec 06, 2011, 09:11 AM EST

  NO!!The photograph doesn't say or capture anything.It certainly doesn't capture his inner mood.All the tension would have been before and during the difficult negotiations.Collins didn't do tension or fear.Which is why he gave orders to stop and fight against all good advice.Collins thrived on excitement and danger.The only tension from that photograph might be that he was probably holding that smile for 20 minutes for the photographers.Simple as that.Try it sometime Mr Experts.Who writes this sh*t anyway?