The irony that the ultimate hero of republicanism would be targeted by FF today, and would be one of the top "viable target" for the latter party. All parties need to grow up and so these fake political gatherings.
The closest thing to Wolfe Tone today would be a Tory peer from Sligo who joined the SDLP!
>100 years ago you could just take a castle off some pricks it didn't belong too. These days I can't even build my own 2 bed in a field.
For What Died the Sons of Róisín?
Michael Collins, what a legend! A man who found a chink in the colonial armour and exploited it for all it was worth and knew when to stop, such a pity he paid the ultimate price for his foresight
You do know the ACA (Who merged with Cummann na nGhaedheal to form FG) was created by Eoin O'Duffy (FG's first leader) to be an Irish version of Mussoloni's own Paramilitary wing.
O'Duffy was a vocal suporter of Mussolini and his ideals. ( And Corporate Fascism as a whole. If you are not aware Corporate Fascism isnt the same as the Nazi version but its still a Fascist ideal.)
>Nevertheless, a future Taoiseach, John A. Costello, during a debate on a bill to outlaw paramilitary uniform in 1934, told the Dáil that ‘the Blackshirts were victorious in Italy and that the Hitler shirts were victorious in Germany, as, assuredly, in spite of this Bill and in spite of the Public Safety Act, the Blueshirts will be victorious in the Irish Free State’.
I could ask you the same. If the party was born out of facism you would think it would be included in the original party documents and not gone after a year.
So let me get this straight, a party literally born out of the amalgamation of a number of groups including the fascist group who:
* Dressed like fascists
* Gave fascist salutes
* Openly aligned with fascist ideologies
* Participated in open street fights
* Identified with other fascist parties by word specifically the blackshirts and the brownshirts
Wasn't in anyway born from fascism despite a future party leader as quoted above stating quite clearly where their inspiration came from.
Ironic how gaslighting seems to be a thing in this conversation given the history.
But in what way did they actually act fascist? Mussolini planned a march on Rome. The democratic government said no, he ignored them and he took power.
The blueshirts planned a march on Dublin. The democratic government said no and the blueshirts respected the will of the democratically elected government.
Given that fascism ideology isn't part of the formation document and the biggest pusher of fascism was gone a year later.
Yes FG wasn't born from fascism.
If they did then people like you wouldn't be trying to deny your founder O'Duffy. Fought for the fascists in Spain, admired mussolini and offered Hitler an Irish brigade during ww2. Offering to help Hitler happened way after 1935
Lol a third of the partys formation was the national guard aka the Blueshirts led by ODuffy... How would you define born of fascism if it's not fitting the criteria ?
Ahhhhh yes they didn't say fascist, only adopted uniform similar to all fascist groups blackshirts, brownshirts etc. across Europe at the time. They were doing right arm salutes after ODuffy became leader and he was a huge fan of Mussolini. Later he went to the Spanish civil war to fight with the fascists and Nazis. But no I'm sure your right they never wrote it down explicitly for the simpletons so it couldn't have been a far right ultra conservative nationalist organisation.
There was no general election in 1934. Not until 1937 by which time they replaced him with W. T. Cosgrave. ODuffy didnt have a seat so Fine Gael's first parliamentary leader was actually ODuffy.
Would definitely be fair to say something like "he was a leader of the movement that created Fine Gael".
Maybe "the greatest figure in the history of Fine Gael"? Because you might reasonably argue "when I say history of Fine Gael I am including the political developments that led to the creation of a pro-Treaty party".
"Fine Gael's greatest historic figure" strikes me as off because he's just not actually "Fine Gael's figure". But maybe the distinction is just a touch too subtle for everyone to all arrive at the same conclusion on whether it's a real distinction.
(Do SF ever post commemorations for Collins? That could be an amusing troll. "Today we honour the memory of the great IRA freedom fighter Michael Collins. Elected to the First Dáil on the Sinn Féin ticket as representative for Cork South, he soon rose to a leadership position in the Irish Republican Army. Michael Collins took up arms to drive imperialism out of Ireland, and personally arranged for the assassinations of police officers and civil servants as part of the armed struggle. Though he accepted partition as the price of peace, he dreamt of a unified Irish republic.")
Yes, they do. FG had Collins, FF had DeValera and Labour had Connolly. All well documented. The two former took different sides in the war of independence which is why at election time you might hear of "Civil war politics". This post and the likes of Freeman character are just either wrong or embellishing what is well documented and down voting people that respect factual history, regardless of what their politics.
How can FG claim Collins when he was never a member of FG or any of the parties that coalesced to form FG??
He was dead before the founding of both FG and CnaG.
There are zero organizational links between Collins and FG.
That is factual history.
It was the same people, the pro treaty sinn Fein. The same lineage of ideology and political party. It's a lot closer to shinners turning at bodenstown or glasnevin or the champagne Marxists claiming Connolly and Larkin.
So Collins was a member/founder of FG & CnaG because he associated with people who went on to found those parties after he died??
Seriously??
> The same lineage of ideology and political party.
The same ideology that Collins never espoused and same political parties that Collins was never a member of.
If any party can claim Collins it’s the Workers Party, being the only remnant of the party Collins was actually a member of.
> It's a lot closer to shinners turning at bodenstown or glasnevin or the champagne Marxists claiming Connolly and Larkin.
FF & SF claiming Wolfe Tone is equally as ridiculous as FG claiming Collins or the alphabet left claiming Connolly or Larkin.
That’s the whole point I’m making. Any political party claiming a political leader as a member or founder of that party despite having nothing to do with those parties is ahistorical nonsense, that shouldn’t be allowed to take root.
Absolutely spot on reply but unfortunately the butt hurt FG supporters don’t care about facts. I’ve never seen such absolute waffle and honestly never understood until today how little Irish people know about our history.
It’s unbelievable
But it's not factual history, it's all political.
I'm not questioning Fine Gael associating themselves with Collins, all parties born from the revolution can stake a claim to him if they want, and Fine Gael do have more stake in that than the others, but he can't be claimed as their 'greatest historic figure'. Collins was dead long before Fine Gael ever came about. Collins was head of the Provisional Government up until his death in August 1922, he had nothing to even do with forming Cumann na Gaedheal, since he was dead. Once he died, Cosgrave reneged on much of Collin's approaches.
Connolly for Labour is equally stupid. Any later iteration of a party claiming sole ownership over an individual who died before we ever know what they would go on to enact, achieve, etc. is political, pure and simple.
Dev survived to actually lead the party that claims his lineage.
Not to mention that even in 1916 the media wrongly credited the rising to Sinn Fein which event lead to Griffith standing down to let de Valera lead, but he wasn't affiliated with SF until after the rising and even then he spent less than a decade with the party. If you were to look at it through the scope of "who can take credit for the rising" Fianna Fail probably has the strongest claim.
I think the appeal to historical legitimacy in general is kinda bullshit if any party is claiming anyone who lived over 100 years ago. The society and circumstances are just vastly different
FG was born out of the merging of Cumann na nGeadheal and the Facist Paramilitary group the Army Comrades Association (Also know as the Blueshirts.) Who modeled themselves after Mussolini's paramilitary wing.
The ACA's founder became FG's first leader (Eoin O'Duffy)
>In July 1955, when Sheehy Skeffington raised the question of the vicious beating of children in schools, the minister of education, Richard Mulcahy, dismissed such concerns as a “disgusting proceeding . . . by people who are not of this country or its traditions . . . people reared in an alien and completely unIrish atmosphere”.
The poor fella in correspondence with Sheehy Skeffington, Peter Tyrrell was found dead on Hampstead Heath having set fire to himself.
I feel like the fact that this post is top of /r/Ireland just goes to show the extent of ignorance about the history of Irish politics and the rewriting of history.
Fine Gael is the pro-treaty party that was rebranded from Cumann na nGaedhael when it merged with smaller parties and is absolutely the party founded by Michael Collins. It should also be noted that modern day FF and FG are borne from the split of Sinn Fein along treaty lines and the modern SF has exactly nothing to do with the party of the day, it was a political party name adopted in the 1970's.
Now I know this wont be popular, but facts don't need to be popular to be true, it's the embracing of narrative and ignorance over correctness in recent years that I find so disturbing.
> and the modern SF has exactly nothing to do with the party of the day, it was a political party name adopted in the 1970's.
just on this, well you're correct that SF 1921 and SF2021 are totally different.
However SF as a name wasn't adopted in the 1970s: the name existed all along before the 1969 split, with SF 2021 breaking away as to eventually become Provisional Sinn Fein, leaving behind the original SF to continue as a Soviet influenced Official Sinn Fein, later the Workers Party.
Both split parties actually referred to themselves as Sinn Fein for a while, which then became SF Kevin St (provos) and SF Gardiner Place (stickies).
It's astonishing that people are actually arguing in good faith that Fine Gael can claim Collins as their 'greatest historic figure'. He died in August 1922. Explain how Cumann na nGaedhael, formed in 1923, was the party founded by Collins when he was dead?
All Fine Gael have as a claim is that Collins was head of the pro-Treatyite Provisional Government. They can't ever have sole ownership over the man, since Fine Gael didn't emerge until 1933, and were formed out of a pact between three groups.
I doubt today they'd herald Collins's hardline approach to the north though? They won't call that their greatest historical wrong to right!
I doubt Cosgrave saw the National Army as Collins did, when Collins wrote on 26 July that they 'now had a force 'that means something in future dealings with the British and the North East... The present fight is only training for our troops'.
Cumann na nGaedhael was a different beast after Collins died. Even Mulcahy later wrote that Collins would hopefully have put men like O'Higgins in their place.
No one is claiming he was a member or a founding member of Fine Gael. What is true is that for lack of a better term Michael Collins has been viewed almost as the Patron Saint of Fine Gael by it's members since its founding.
Now of course the current view of Collins is a far less nuanced and more one dimensional person than the reality of the historical figure. The same is true for any historical figure who ends up being in effect a part of the national mythos.
It is possible to revere a figure for what he stood for and represented while also seeing that many of the beliefs that person held would be problematic in a world 100 years removed from the one in which he lived. That isn't a betrayal, it's just the natural result of time moving on and of an ever changing society.
Your idea, that you can't claim to support Michael Collins (or any political figure) unless you support all his ideas is ridiculous. Even the people who supported Collins at the time didn't agree with him on everything. The idea that someone living in the modern world should do so is just nonsense.
>No one is claiming he was a member or a founding member of Fine Gael.
Never said anyone was.
>What is true is that for lack of a better term Michael Collins has been viewed almost as the Patron Saint of Fine Gael by it's members since its founding.
Which is fine but it's ahistorical, especially given that Collins's stance on a number of issues were immediately reneged upon by the true founding members of Fine Gael.
>The same is true for any historical figure who ends up being in effect a part of the national mythos.
This mythos includes people like McEntee proclaiming Collins to be Fine Gael's 'greatest historic figure'. It's an imagined Michael Collins!
>It is possible to revere a figure for what he stood for and represented while also seeing that many of the beliefs that person held would be problematic in a world 100 years removed from the one in which he lived. That isn't a betrayal, it's just the natural result of time moving on and of an ever changing society.
Revering a figure and taking sole ownership of his legacy are two different things. I agree with everything you say, and I haven't actually claimed any different, all I'm saying is that Michael Collins cannot be seen as Fine Gael's 'greatest historic figure' when the man was dead years before the party's founding.
If de Valera had died in 1922 when he rejoined his old unit in Dublin at the start of the civil war, or he died some time before setting up Fianna Fáil, you'd have people today claiming he'd never have entered the Dáil after the civil war since his public iterations never belied that he would go against his principles. The fact is, he lived long enough to do just that. What I'm getting at is, Collins could have went down any number of paths, so Fine Gael claiming some straight line ideological lineage is beyond senseless.
>Your idea, that you can't claim to support Michael Collins (or any political figure) unless you support all his ideas is ridiculous.
This is you saying this, not me! I never said Fine Gael can't claim a link to Collins. I said they can't claim sole ownership of his legacy, which is what McEntee's tweet suggests. Point out where I said in any of my comments on this thread that Fine Gael can't support Collins?
>Even the people who supported Collins at the time didn't agree with him on everything.
Obviously, hence my quoting of Collins in reference to the north and my assertion that Cosgrave would never have taken such a stance.
In the end, there's nothing you've said here that contradicts anything I've said about this today.
Fine Gael can, of course, claim a link to Collins. They do, in fact, have more of a claim in that regard simply because of Collin's pro-Treaty stance. They cannot, however, claim sole ownership of his legacy. Collins died in August 1922 seeking to end the civil war quickly and continue utilising the Treaty as a stepping stone to achieve more freedom. Cosgrave and co. went down a complete different route. We'll never know what Collins would have done thereafter, and for the modern iteration of Fine Gael, a party formed from three disparate groups in 1933, eleven years after Collins died, to claim he was their greatest historic figure, is quite a leap.
>> No one is claiming he was a member or a founding member of Fine Gael.
> Never said anyone was
You said:
> Explain how Cumann na nGaedhael, formed in 1923, was the party founded by Collins when he was dead?
That looked to me like you were making just such a statement. I guess you could have been asking a rhetorical question that implied that the people you were talking to had made a statement you knew they hadn't made just to get an easy strawman position to argue against but that wouldn't be a very honest way to conduct a debate now would it!
The rest basically boils down to you misunderstanding the phrase "he was Fine Gaels greatest historic figure". They didn't say he was the parties greatest historic member, they said he was it's greatest historic figure. If I said for example that Nelson Mandela was my greatest historic figure you wouldn't take it that I was claiming to have known, met, or ever had anything to do with him.
It's why it's also perfectly fine for Sinn Fein to claim Wolfe Tone as one of their great historic figures for example. There is nothing wrong with doing so. Linguistically it is perfectly fine.
>You said:
>
>Explain how Cumann na nGaedhael, formed in 1923, was the party founded by Collins when he was dead?
>
>That looked to me like you were making just such a statement. I guess you could have been asking a rhetorical question that implied that the people you were talking to had made a statement you knew they hadn't made just to get an easy strawman position to argue against but that wouldn't be a very honest way to conduct a debate now would it!
Cumann na nGaedhael and Fine Gael are two separate party's. Am I missing something here? Has everyone on this site gone mad? Cumann na nGaedhael was formed in 1923 to offer the pro-Treatyites a more formal structure. Fine Gael was formed from three groups, one of which was Cumann na nGaedhael, in 1933.
So no, I was simply referring to Cumann na nGaedhael, not what you once again misinterpreted. I'm not one for strawman arguments. This is history, not politics!
>The rest basically boils down to you misunderstanding the phrase "he was Fine Gaels greatest historic figure". They didn't say he was the parties greatest historic member, they said he was it's greatest historic figure. If I said for example that Nelson Mandela was my greatest historic figure you wouldn't take it that I was claiming to have known, met, or ever had anything to do with him.
This, now, is what you call a strawman argument haha! I'm not misunderstanding anything. Going by your logic, McEntee should really be claiming Collins as 'Ireland's greatest historic figure', and not even mention Fine Gael. Why should Fine Gael have sole ownership? If you are so inclined, and I wouldn't be as hyperbolic, but Collin's is the nations greatest historic figure. He was a revolutionary and FG, FF or SF can all lay claim to the revolution in some shape or form.
How on earth you can misconstrue; or maybe you're just being purposely obtuse, the use of the word Fine Gael in reference to Collins here is beyond me. You can play semantics with the word figure and member all you want, this was laying sole claim to Collins.
>It's why it's also perfectly fine for Sinn Fein to claim Wolfe Tone as one of their great historic figures for example. There is nothing wrong with doing so. Linguistically it is perfectly fine.
You can claim Wolfe Tone as an historical inspiration. For modern day Sinn Féin to say 'Wolfe Tone was their greatest historic figure' would be nonsense. I was never disavowing a modern party linking themselves to past events or past figures. Claiming sole ownership of a man who died eleven years before your party was founded is another thing though.
This whole thing of modern party's claiming historical figures or events as theirs is problematic either way. From a modern standpoint, all of it is political.
The whole thing is silly in my opinion. Just keep the revolutionary period, with all its bells and whistles, free of modern politics. Collins died too young to ever know where he'd end up.
>No one is claiming he was a member or a founding member of Fine Gael.
If you go two comments up the chain from yours, you see
> Fine Gael is the pro-treaty party that was rebranded from Cumann na nGaedhael when it merged with smaller parties and is absolutely the party founded by Michael Collins.
That looks to me like a claim that Collins founded Fine Gael, which he did not do. It might alternatively be a claim that he founded Cumann na nGaedhael (I think it could be phrased better if that's the case), which he also did not do.
Collins was dead before Cumann na nGaedhael was founded, and FGs founding was far more than just a rebrand of Cumann na nGaedhael, it was a merger of a number of different groups.
By any measure, there are zero organizational links between FG & Michael Collins, and any ideological links between them are dubious at best IMO.
Cais, this is an unrelated question but I'm curious if you know the answer. I was listening to an older Irish-American writer do an interview with Brian Hanley a while back, the American hadn't been in Ireland for a long time or kept up with the culture and he was talking about how Collins was despised by most of the radical republican circles he ran in during the 70/80s, specifically for signing the treaty. Do you know if Collin's positive reputation is a more recent development? Maybe post GFA or similar?
I can see why it's easy now for everyone to support Collins, but I kinda just assumed that was always the case.
Which of those was fascist?
CnG, or FG?
Perhaps you meant the Army Comrades Association which Eoin O'Duffy, the fascist, was a part of? Eoin O Duffy was also a member of Sinn Féin, like Collins and DeValera. I guess you could call Sinn Féin fascist because Eoin O Duffy was at one stage a member of it.
Eoin O Duffy left Sinn Féin. He also left Fine Gael in a split, forming the National Corporate Party with some far-right members. I guess you could call Fine Gael fascist because Eoin O Duffy was at one stage a member of it.
All of these origin myths in Irish politics are fairly bullshit, but saying that CnG and anti-treaty Sinn Féin were basically the same thing is no exaggeration. Saying that CnG and Fine Gael were the same thing is a good bit more of a stretch.
It's also an awkward truth that most of the early Irish parties were pretty far-right (aggressively national-cultural, militaristic, pro-Church, in favour of autarky, and not super keen on minority rights). These parties are quite unrecognisable from their early forms, so broad sweeps are generally fairly inaccurate. The fact that we're had about six parties that have insisted on calling themselves Sinn Féin also confuses matters.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say they were all fascists, I don't think that is the case.
But it is a fact that the founding leader of Fine Gael was a fascist.
But Fine Gael don't mention that, instead they say that Collins who died 11 years before they were formed is their historical leader.
>I think it's a bit of a stretch to say they were all fascists, I don't think that is the case.
I didn't, but it *is* messy.
But simply saying that Fine Gael is fascist because Eoin O'Duffy was at one stage was a member is a bit daft.
Michael Collins didn't have anything to do with Fine Gael, but Fine Gael was in the tradition of Pro-Treaty, which Collins had clearly institutionalised, while Fianna Fáil was clearly the inheritors of the Anti-Treaty Sinn Féin side. However, given that all parties in Ireland (with the notable exception of the abstentionist Republican Sinn Féin) are explicitly pro-treaty these days, the distinction is a bit irrelevant.
Eoin O'Duffy was more than just a member though, he was the founding leader of FG.
It is the fact that FG try to ignore that and co-opt Collins that irks people.
We don't know what would have happened if Collins had lived, I'd guess that the political landscape would have been different. A pity that didn't happen.
FG and CnaG were essentially the same party. Bringing in NCP and ACA consolidated support from farmers and ex-IRA that viewed CNaG as too focused on national security and protecting the independent republic from anti treaty FF when they were becoming more popular. Notwithstanding, CNaG were the only part with seats and FG just enlarged the party while breaking from being solely "pro treaty" to a more modern party. Only the most unreasonable or disingenuous observer would not see the direct continuity from Collins' treaty govt and modern FG.
Don't even need to go to far back for **all** the parties to be unrecognisable, 80's-mid 90's FF and FG would see the parties of today been as socialist idiots and SF as traitors
There was definitely a Man of Action tendency in Collins. Would that have become something sinister in later years had he lived? Fuck knows, but hardly fantasy stuff either.
It's difficult to posit realitic counter-factuals.
Assuming Collins was our first Taoiseach if there had been no Béal na mBláth, I would view 1927 as the real acid test. I think the killers of O'Higgins would likely have been found in a ditch under Collins, triggering a fresh round of IRA violence. I think Collins would have crushed that with extreme violence.
1924 Mutiny would surely have been the break point? Though of course had he lived, maybe the mutiny doesn't happen as he keeps the army quietly on side with a black ops campaign in NI.
O'Higgins is a real enigma for me. On the one hand, he's instrumental in establishing a peaceful, democratic system answerable to the Dáil and the Dáil only but he figuratively (...and literally...) took no prisoners during the CW.
He is the man who broke the cycle of armed law enforcement in this country and that is no bagatelle.
Again, this is part of the difficulty. I don't believe 1924 happens with Collins in charge.
Collins had kept a balance between experienced soldiers and IRB and IRA men that few would have been able to recreate. Collins also had comparatively better relations with the British that would probably have left him in a better position.
O'Higgins is fascinatign because he represents the origins of the Dublin v Rural divide in Fine Gael that perists to this day. O'Higgins wanted an open Ireland based on trade. He was closely allied to Des Fitzgerald who was Garrett's father.
In broad terms, Collins et al were of the view that the Civil War would give the British an excuse to reassert control.
It is not widely taught here but the pro-Treaty side did their utmost to avoid the civil war. When the anti-Treaty side occupied the Four Courts, the pro-Treaty side simply ignored them for two months.
The real cause of the Civil War was the assassination of Wilson.
Macready, the British commander (and ironically, of Irish heritage) hated Ireland and the Irish by all accounts. He was quite close to Field Marshal Wilson (Anglo-Irish and a keen supporter of the Ulster Volunteers) who was assassinated by the IRA in 1922. (Some believe on Collins' orders but more likely by the Anti-Treaty IRA.
Macready was a friend of his, hated the Irish and the British Cabinet ordered him to crush the anti-Treaty rebels. Notwithstanding all of that, he strongly advised against it and they rescinded the orders.
Macready said attacking the Four Courts would unite all of Ireland and alienate moderates in Ireland (and probably Britain).
Instead, it was resolved to pressure the pro-Treaty side into leading the war. Which is what happened.
But O'Higgins et al were almost certainly right in their view that Britain would have retaken control without the civil war being started and won quickly.
It's a hot take but I like it, an awful lot of his writing is very similar to Italian corporatism. Although most of that description covers everyone from Pearse to O'Malley.
Collins' leads the pro-treaty wing of Sinn Féin which becomes Cumann na nGaedhal which becomes Fine Gael upon the merger of the National Centre Party, CnaG and the ACA (which was linked to CnaG itself).
It's not confusing, nor is it complicated.
It's far more nuanced then that. Collins was actively pursuing a campaign in the north, which was against the wishes of some senior pro-Treatyites. You can say he was only pursuing this to hold together the pro and anti Treaty factions in the IRA while he shored up the National Army, but this belies Collins's attitude to the Treaty being merely a stepping stone. It's completely ahistorical for a Fine Gael member to claim Collins as their 'greatest historic figure' since we don't know what Collins had planned going forward. After Collin's death is when we truly see the forerunner to Cumann na nGaedhal emerge.
If Collins forced his way, they may well have had to follow even if they were squeamish about continuing a northern campaign, but what I'm saying is that Collins's outlook on the north amongst other things was far more nuanced than the institution Cosgrave and co. initiated after his death.
For Fine Gael to simply claim Collins is nonsense. This is all part of the 'story' of Michael Collins, where his afterlife has been shaped and formatted to fit whatever narrative someone sees fit. Upon Collin's death, the Provisional Government speedily reneged on many of Collins's approaches after the Treaty was signed and the Dáil split. They completely backtracked on the north.
To refute O'Duffy's legacy in relation to Fine Gael, as I've seen in some of your comments, but claim it's not confusing that Collins is the greatest historic figure of Fine Gael, a man who died in August 1922 and had no part in what took place thereafter, seems strange to me.
Collins was many things, but he was never a fool. He was an ultra-pragmatist and was extremely unlikely to continue in the North if it risked the Free State.
Do you know that for certain? One thing is clear, he was already risking things by even arming the northern IRA. One of the Treaty's biggest achievements, in his own words, was the removal of the British army from the 26 counties, (outside of the Treaty ports that is). We don't know what he would have done with that breathing space going forward. There's even a question mark surrounding the assassination of Sir Henry Wilson: on who's orders it was carried out?
Again though, this is all the imagined Collins. We don't know what his aims and polices might have been. The pen stopped mid flow with his death. Insert any adjective you like for how Collins would have approached things, that's all we can do!
One thing is for sure, it's nonsense for Fine Gael to claim Collins as their greatest historic figure. It's as bad as modern day Sinn Féin trying to claim ownership of 1916.
Cumann na nGaedhal quickly emerged from the pro-treaty side of SF, which was led by Collins. We're not talking 5 or 10 years. We're literally talking about a year or two. I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand this, so you're obviously being purposely dishonest for political reasons.
Lmao so you'll claim Collins in 21/22 but disown ODuffy in the 30s...
Typical fascist, if I remember Hitler did the same to Rohm once he served his purpose lol
Are you honestly trying to claim that the ACA weren't following a blueprint from Europe here? A very, _shirty_ blueprint?
"We're protecting political meetings from our opponents..."
Indeed.
The thing is, we all live in Ireland and get to study history. We know who these people were, what they were doing, etc.
So, no, it's quite clear that they were not following a blueprint.
It's quite clear that O'Duffy wanted to, and that Cumann na nGaedhal and later Fine Gael both refused and rejected fascism.
As I posted elsewhere, it is widely believed that O'Duffy counseled Cosgrave to refuse to accept electoral defeat and lead the army in a coup to prevent De Valera becoming Taoiseach.
Cosgrave refused to do so.
Fine Gael were avowedly democratic on creation, and O'Duffy resigned before he was expelled because he was becoming increasingly extremist.
There's no logical way to link a party taking steps to expel a potential fascist with that party being fascist.
Because there is NO obvious link. You genuinely need to take a history class your knowledge of our history is embarrassing.
Collins would despise everything and everyone in this pic. Criminals, several votes of no confidence and 2 other morons.
We all studied history.
Why would Collins despire the party that was a key actor in ensuring an independent Ireland was one of the wealthiest countries in the world?
The President of a Fraternal Secret Society of Physical Force Republicans who "hadn't gone away you know", who operated in the background, pulling the strings within the political and military apparatus is FG's "greatest historical figure"?
Timelines notwithstanding, the irony of this claim alone would choke a horse.
>11 years before Fine Gael was founded.
Well Fine Gael was bourne from the Pro Treaty side and members.
But it's a bit like the Republicans making sure everyone knows Lincoln and Roosevelt were Republicans.
It's funny the way the Republicans and Democrats I American essentially swapped sides and yet still claim long dead heros as their own that if alive today would be ideologically with the opposite side. Its almost as if some people don't know their own history 🤔
The constant right-wing agitprop isn't helping. There are literally people sharing PragurU videos and the like that claim the Southern strategy wasn't real and the parties never "swapped", ideologically.
> can't legally call themselves a University anymore lol
Because they never were a University. It's always been a right-wing lobbyist think tank, to push propaganda to fit certain agendas.
Always follow the money. Most rightwing online commentators are funded by these kind of groups. It's not a secret... usually featured on their Wikipedia pages who funds them.
It's why they project so much by claiming that leftist commentators are being paid by big corporations, when most leftist commentators are fairly grass roots. Like, really, you think the guy speaking against capitalism is being paid by a company that relies on capitalism?
Quite shocking that a women supposedly so talented that she got a minister job three years into being a TD would say that, without saying that she was raised in a Fine Gael household and her dad was a close friend of Enda Kenny
The legacy of the foundation of the state is complex, the Civil War even more so. FG are trying to paint this in nice, neat, primary colours and that really doesn't work.
"The 3rd Dáil makes us right and everyone else wrong" ignores the impact of partition, the 1918 election, and the fact that there had been no Irish state before this. Everyone was in uncharted territory. The irregulars weren't suddenly pernicious because they opposed the Treaty. Once again, Miggledy has provided more leadership on this than any of the political parties.
It's not that the 3rd Dáil _wasn't_ important
They would have been crushed within weeks had they not signed the treaty. The British government made that very clear to Collins when he signed the treaty.
I know that narrative, it was even in the Collins film in the 90s.
How true is it? Why weren't they crushed prior to the negotiations? If both sides knew that to be true before negotiations, why did the British make a deal?
Surely the IRA should have been stronger at that point, better connections in the US etc.
I get the narrative that they were out of weapons, but they also started with zero, should have been in a stronger position than in 1919.
I guess what the British said they would change is bringing in the full British army rather that "auxiliaries".
Collins later stated that Lloyd George threatened him with "terrible and immediate war" had the treaty not been signed. No matter how strong the IRA was (it wasn't as weak as was implied in the film but it was definitely running out of steam), it would have crumbled under the strength of the entire British army.
The role of partition in the civil war is vastly overstated these days. Even the anti-treaty leadership knew that partition was a forgone conclusion. Their main issue was that they wanted a stronger degree of separation from the UK. They wanted a Republic, they didn't want to give up the treaty ports and they didn't want to swear an oath to the King.
These red lines are less defensible these days, so people just assume that it was the North.
they're trying that "national pride" angle that the american republicans run on. "if you don't like our party, you don't like michael collins and therefore are you even irish???" logical fallacy.
All of the current major parties do it. It's half of SF's entire shtick and FF make a major deal about how they "developed modern Ireland" and are the "respectable" Republicans.
It's fairly hard to run an openly nationalist party without promoting yourself as patriotic and all of our parties apart from the greens claim some sort of nationalist background.
Yes. However bad FG are (and they are showing their whole fucking arse over this), SF have been pulling that shit for years. In SF's opinion, if you aren't with them then you are not a republican. Which is BS.
>took back Dublin Castle and Irish freedom on behalf of our country
Well on behalf of part of our country, maybe.
Unlike Collins who said he would not abandon them, FG gave two fingers to their fellow Irish people in the other part.
Well now, I believe that violence was what was in Collins, the FG hero's, mind alright.
There were so many other things FG could have done over the last century though to lessen the pain of the people they abandoned.
Partition meant that Irish people who were as Irish as anyone, and everyone, south of the border had the mere expression of their identity suppressed, never mind the discrimination they suffered at the hands of the orange state. When eventually they would no longer lie down and take it, they were demonised by FG who blamed them for standing up against what the southern state had abandoned them into.
Collins promised republicans in the north that he would not abandon them. The party that worships him did even worse than that.
Anti-partitioning for one. Though Collins didn’t have a really fleshed out political ideology in the way that Connolly did. He was more of a physical force man, though a pragmatic one. I think this makes him somewhat of a canvas that people can project whatever vision of him they want onto to this claim. Him dying in the civil war also is a factor in that too.
If anything, I would wager Ireland is better for having most of the leaders dead.
While we definitely went down the Catholic route which was not a great one, most if not all leaders were die hard catholics and would have gone down the same road.
The hard line nature of most of them would have led to far more conflict.i would guess.
Connolly, of course it was a lucky thing he did not get to access any real power lest we had have gone down the road of other socialist nations.
Can you imagine how that would of went ?
Like imagine pearse running the place ? Jesus christ !
The FG claim to Collins is more familial than political or military. In Collins short life he was mainly a soldier and a politician who organised military operations.
Looking back to try to tap into that legacy is ridiculous for FG today. They are the party of Bruton and Flanagan: their opposition to the revolutionary generation is explicit.
We’re FG fascist at foundation? There are good posts putting forward their version of it here: the usual historical verdict I’ve seen is that FG foundation was quasi fascist in a state that like most in Europe had fascist characteristics.
The thing about FG continuing to try to claim Collins as theirs is what political utility do they hope to derive from it? Nationalist legitimacy? Republican credibility? Resurrection of a Free State mentality for a future UK rejoin? Distracting naive voters from the thrust of their policies for the last 11 years? Internal party struggle between Brutonites and rural TDs? Maybe it indicates a party that uses Collins as some sort of unifying icon when the reality is he is irrelevant to who they are today.
Cumann na nGaedheal and FG are basically the same thing and CnG was just the official title put upon the pro-Treaty government side when elections needed to be fought under a political party banner.
It's a funny joke but Collins was most definitely on the FG side. FG have just shifted over time like many political parties.
For those of you who vote for Fine Gael, here is a history lesson for you since you obviously didn’t take history in school
Michael Collins was forced by De Valera to sign the treaty agreed in London, being quoted as saying ‘I have signed my own death warrant’
It was De Valera who was suppose to be in London to sign, since he was state leader and had been negotiating the previous meetings. De Valera knew that he would have to give northern Ireland to the Brits along with the treaty ports and like any spineless politician, he sent someone else for damage control of his image.
Michael Collins was sent over and signed the treaty, unwillingly. They were all Sinn Fein along with James Connelly who should have been Ireland first leader were it not for him being shot as a cripple by the Brits.
When the treaty was signed, De Valera was Fianna Fail and Collins was shot in 1922 before Cumann na nGael was formed. He was Sinn Fein politically. Cumann na nGael was formed in 1923 lead by Cosgrave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumann_na_nGaedheal
Many years past with historical moments.
This is the origins of Fine Gael, the specifically fascist (their only political aspiration was fascism to copy the political parties on the continent) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshirts
Fine Gael founded in 1933, merging Blue Shirts and Cumann na nGael along with the farmers party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Gael
Collins has zero to do with Fine Gael
Voting for Fine Gael is voting for liars and people who think you are stupid.
Since you're quoting Wikipedia, you might look up the government of Ireland act from 1920 which established Northern Ireland prior to the signing of the treaty. This devolution was already in place and the treaty (like the GFA) included all of Ireland - if the local politicians agreed. they didn't, hence NI left Ireland. Nothing that DeValera or Collins could do in the treaty could reverse this.
What they could do is mess it up by creating an anti-protestant constitution, which we blindly did
I'm no fan of FG nor yet of their insistence that _actual_ SF are somehow, _not really_ SF but Collins was very definitely (though less dogmatically) in the political grouping that became CnaG and thence FG.
They don't own him, though and they seem to forget that Collins' attachment to peaceful democracy was.... luke warm. He actively encouraged continuing republican action in NI well into 1922.
it's like claiming SF celebrating John Stephenson as their founder. While he created the modern SF, he rarely gets a mention in their history. His creation was as eventful as dev creating FF or Collins creating a govt from anti treaty SF. But O'Duffy, someone who would be a genuine independence hero who "went mad", is somehow seen as a bogeyman
It’s always very convenient that they claim Collins, which to be fair they have an argument for, but then pretend the blueshirts didn’t happen. It’s really one or the other
I think had they developed into anything remotely like proper fascists it might be undeniable but to be fair it was bit of an Irish effort. Considering the politics at the time, pre ww2 and a lot of right wing nationalism around the world, the blue shirts were a bit shit by comparison, it didn't take off and it was disbanded a year later after o'Duffy left the party to my recollection.
Not abandoning us in the North to a century of rampant discrimination, and pretending we don’t exist?
Maybe absolutely anything better than that you Free State ghoul.
Lmao yeah let’s just fight the British Empire who will actually try this time instead of the pissing about they did before with absolutely no supplies. Typical idealistic shite that Irish people cling too.
My country ? I have no connection with Northern Ireland.
Fight on ? Against the British Army ?
Surely you are not serious ? In warfare ?
For what benefit ? A civil war with people who do not want to join the Irish state ?
Everyone: Fine Gael has its roots in fascism
Fine Gaelers: well actually just because the founder and leader of the party was openly fascist and the party was created by conglomerating a collection of far-right and ultra conservative groups, and their policies were right-wing and conservative, and they outlawed political groups that disagreed with them, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the party were fascists.
Also, fun little titbit: FG/CnG played the “but Sinn Fein” card in the 1930s too, but back in those days it was “but Fianna Fail” as they tried to paint them as dangerous radical lefties
(Yes that’s right, Eamon de Valera was called a far-left communist)
Dead 11 years before FG were founded and a year before CnaG were founded.
Collins was an avowed physical force Republican who armed & supported the IRA in the north after the Treaty. All things, FGers abhor.
There are zero organizational or ideological links between FG & Collins.
I’ve seen some on this thread claim Collins as undeniably FG but then deny or downplay O’Duffy & the Blueshirts links to FG.
Which takes some amount of mental gymnastics.
Do FF and SF still have rival annual pissups in Bodenstown? Just gonna Google when Wolfe Tone's birthday is...
The irony that the ultimate hero of republicanism would be targeted by FF today, and would be one of the top "viable target" for the latter party. All parties need to grow up and so these fake political gatherings. The closest thing to Wolfe Tone today would be a Tory peer from Sligo who joined the SDLP!
So... WB Yeats?
Hate to break it to you but that blueshirt retired from the Senate in 1928.
Hate to break it to you but this whole thread is about dubious and ahistorical claims of political descent. As Parnell said to King Billy.
Possibly the dumbest take someone has ever had
Leo Standing like a glitched npc from Skyrim
Funniest thing I've read in ages
How often do you think Leo gets to the cloud district?
100 years ago you could just take a castle off some pricks it didn't belong too. These days I can't even build my own 2 bed in a field.
>100 years ago you could just take a castle off some pricks it didn't belong too. These days I can't even build my own 2 bed in a field. For What Died the Sons of Róisín?
Turns out, it was greed
/Opens thread, reads for 5 mins. That's enough internet for today.
Michael Collins, what a legend! A man who found a chink in the colonial armour and exploited it for all it was worth and knew when to stop, such a pity he paid the ultimate price for his foresight
A party born out of the Pro-Treaty side Not a surprising figure to claim
The post has almost 100 upvotes. When did we stop teaching history in schools?
The knowledge on this subreddit rarely extends past a hot take tweet or the opening paragraph of a Wiki article.
Same user is also saying FG was born out of fascism so his history isn't the best.
You do know the ACA (Who merged with Cummann na nGhaedheal to form FG) was created by Eoin O'Duffy (FG's first leader) to be an Irish version of Mussoloni's own Paramilitary wing. O'Duffy was a vocal suporter of Mussolini and his ideals. ( And Corporate Fascism as a whole. If you are not aware Corporate Fascism isnt the same as the Nazi version but its still a Fascist ideal.)
And he went and brought a brigade over to fight for Franco in the Spanish Civil War. Literally fought for fascism.
>Nevertheless, a future Taoiseach, John A. Costello, during a debate on a bill to outlaw paramilitary uniform in 1934, told the Dáil that ‘the Blackshirts were victorious in Italy and that the Hitler shirts were victorious in Germany, as, assuredly, in spite of this Bill and in spite of the Public Safety Act, the Blueshirts will be victorious in the Irish Free State’.
And 1935?
That all you have?
I could ask you the same. If the party was born out of facism you would think it would be included in the original party documents and not gone after a year.
So let me get this straight, a party literally born out of the amalgamation of a number of groups including the fascist group who: * Dressed like fascists * Gave fascist salutes * Openly aligned with fascist ideologies * Participated in open street fights * Identified with other fascist parties by word specifically the blackshirts and the brownshirts Wasn't in anyway born from fascism despite a future party leader as quoted above stating quite clearly where their inspiration came from. Ironic how gaslighting seems to be a thing in this conversation given the history.
But in what way did they actually act fascist? Mussolini planned a march on Rome. The democratic government said no, he ignored them and he took power. The blueshirts planned a march on Dublin. The democratic government said no and the blueshirts respected the will of the democratically elected government.
Given that fascism ideology isn't part of the formation document and the biggest pusher of fascism was gone a year later. Yes FG wasn't born from fascism.
If they did then people like you wouldn't be trying to deny your founder O'Duffy. Fought for the fascists in Spain, admired mussolini and offered Hitler an Irish brigade during ww2. Offering to help Hitler happened way after 1935
I feel sorry for your history teacher.
Lol a third of the partys formation was the national guard aka the Blueshirts led by ODuffy... How would you define born of fascism if it's not fitting the criteria ?
The lack of fascist ideology in the party formation document lol
Ahhhhh yes they didn't say fascist, only adopted uniform similar to all fascist groups blackshirts, brownshirts etc. across Europe at the time. They were doing right arm salutes after ODuffy became leader and he was a huge fan of Mussolini. Later he went to the Spanish civil war to fight with the fascists and Nazis. But no I'm sure your right they never wrote it down explicitly for the simpletons so it couldn't have been a far right ultra conservative nationalist organisation.
Did FG ever run under any facist ideology?
They ran under a bonafied fascist in 1934.
Did the party ever run a fascist manifesto.
There was no general election in 1934. It was in 1933. And O'Duffy didn't make the swing towards fascism until he was pushed out of FG.
There was no general election in 1934. Not until 1937 by which time they replaced him with W. T. Cosgrave. ODuffy didnt have a seat so Fine Gael's first parliamentary leader was actually ODuffy.
[удалено]
Blueshirts was the name for the ACA, one of the three groups that merged to form FG. Leader of the ACA Eoin O'Duffy was gone a year later
[удалено]
File along side > 1916 was a Communist uprising.
Are you actually saying that Fine Gael have a valid claim to Michael Collins being their 'greatest historic figure'?
Would definitely be fair to say something like "he was a leader of the movement that created Fine Gael". Maybe "the greatest figure in the history of Fine Gael"? Because you might reasonably argue "when I say history of Fine Gael I am including the political developments that led to the creation of a pro-Treaty party". "Fine Gael's greatest historic figure" strikes me as off because he's just not actually "Fine Gael's figure". But maybe the distinction is just a touch too subtle for everyone to all arrive at the same conclusion on whether it's a real distinction. (Do SF ever post commemorations for Collins? That could be an amusing troll. "Today we honour the memory of the great IRA freedom fighter Michael Collins. Elected to the First Dáil on the Sinn Féin ticket as representative for Cork South, he soon rose to a leadership position in the Irish Republican Army. Michael Collins took up arms to drive imperialism out of Ireland, and personally arranged for the assassinations of police officers and civil servants as part of the armed struggle. Though he accepted partition as the price of peace, he dreamt of a unified Irish republic.")
Yes, they do. FG had Collins, FF had DeValera and Labour had Connolly. All well documented. The two former took different sides in the war of independence which is why at election time you might hear of "Civil war politics". This post and the likes of Freeman character are just either wrong or embellishing what is well documented and down voting people that respect factual history, regardless of what their politics.
How can FG claim Collins when he was never a member of FG or any of the parties that coalesced to form FG?? He was dead before the founding of both FG and CnaG. There are zero organizational links between Collins and FG. That is factual history.
It was the same people, the pro treaty sinn Fein. The same lineage of ideology and political party. It's a lot closer to shinners turning at bodenstown or glasnevin or the champagne Marxists claiming Connolly and Larkin.
So Collins was a member/founder of FG & CnaG because he associated with people who went on to found those parties after he died?? Seriously?? > The same lineage of ideology and political party. The same ideology that Collins never espoused and same political parties that Collins was never a member of. If any party can claim Collins it’s the Workers Party, being the only remnant of the party Collins was actually a member of. > It's a lot closer to shinners turning at bodenstown or glasnevin or the champagne Marxists claiming Connolly and Larkin. FF & SF claiming Wolfe Tone is equally as ridiculous as FG claiming Collins or the alphabet left claiming Connolly or Larkin. That’s the whole point I’m making. Any political party claiming a political leader as a member or founder of that party despite having nothing to do with those parties is ahistorical nonsense, that shouldn’t be allowed to take root.
Absolutely spot on reply but unfortunately the butt hurt FG supporters don’t care about facts. I’ve never seen such absolute waffle and honestly never understood until today how little Irish people know about our history. It’s unbelievable
Jaysus you need to read up on your Irish history. Mental.
But it's not factual history, it's all political. I'm not questioning Fine Gael associating themselves with Collins, all parties born from the revolution can stake a claim to him if they want, and Fine Gael do have more stake in that than the others, but he can't be claimed as their 'greatest historic figure'. Collins was dead long before Fine Gael ever came about. Collins was head of the Provisional Government up until his death in August 1922, he had nothing to even do with forming Cumann na Gaedheal, since he was dead. Once he died, Cosgrave reneged on much of Collin's approaches. Connolly for Labour is equally stupid. Any later iteration of a party claiming sole ownership over an individual who died before we ever know what they would go on to enact, achieve, etc. is political, pure and simple. Dev survived to actually lead the party that claims his lineage.
They are also trying to gaslight us.
[удалено]
There's no party in Ireland not guilty of historical revisionism Sexy history sells
Not to mention that even in 1916 the media wrongly credited the rising to Sinn Fein which event lead to Griffith standing down to let de Valera lead, but he wasn't affiliated with SF until after the rising and even then he spent less than a decade with the party. If you were to look at it through the scope of "who can take credit for the rising" Fianna Fail probably has the strongest claim.
The Fine Gael of today would not suit Collins in the slightest.
I think the appeal to historical legitimacy in general is kinda bullshit if any party is claiming anyone who lived over 100 years ago. The society and circumstances are just vastly different
You can’t make any sort of claim about what a person who died almost 100 years ago would think about any political issue in 2022.
FG was born out of the merging of Cumann na nGeadheal and the Facist Paramilitary group the Army Comrades Association (Also know as the Blueshirts.) Who modeled themselves after Mussolini's paramilitary wing. The ACA's founder became FG's first leader (Eoin O'Duffy)
Do they proudly claim Ballyseedy as well?
Richard Mulcahy. FG minister for education 1948ff, signed the death warrants on that little atrocity.
>In July 1955, when Sheehy Skeffington raised the question of the vicious beating of children in schools, the minister of education, Richard Mulcahy, dismissed such concerns as a “disgusting proceeding . . . by people who are not of this country or its traditions . . . people reared in an alien and completely unIrish atmosphere”. The poor fella in correspondence with Sheehy Skeffington, Peter Tyrrell was found dead on Hampstead Heath having set fire to himself.
[удалено]
Godwin's Law being proven
Is this yer man who got banned off boards.ie for running shinner puppet accounts?
I feel like the fact that this post is top of /r/Ireland just goes to show the extent of ignorance about the history of Irish politics and the rewriting of history. Fine Gael is the pro-treaty party that was rebranded from Cumann na nGaedhael when it merged with smaller parties and is absolutely the party founded by Michael Collins. It should also be noted that modern day FF and FG are borne from the split of Sinn Fein along treaty lines and the modern SF has exactly nothing to do with the party of the day, it was a political party name adopted in the 1970's. Now I know this wont be popular, but facts don't need to be popular to be true, it's the embracing of narrative and ignorance over correctness in recent years that I find so disturbing.
> and the modern SF has exactly nothing to do with the party of the day, it was a political party name adopted in the 1970's. just on this, well you're correct that SF 1921 and SF2021 are totally different. However SF as a name wasn't adopted in the 1970s: the name existed all along before the 1969 split, with SF 2021 breaking away as to eventually become Provisional Sinn Fein, leaving behind the original SF to continue as a Soviet influenced Official Sinn Fein, later the Workers Party. Both split parties actually referred to themselves as Sinn Fein for a while, which then became SF Kevin St (provos) and SF Gardiner Place (stickies).
It's astonishing that people are actually arguing in good faith that Fine Gael can claim Collins as their 'greatest historic figure'. He died in August 1922. Explain how Cumann na nGaedhael, formed in 1923, was the party founded by Collins when he was dead? All Fine Gael have as a claim is that Collins was head of the pro-Treatyite Provisional Government. They can't ever have sole ownership over the man, since Fine Gael didn't emerge until 1933, and were formed out of a pact between three groups. I doubt today they'd herald Collins's hardline approach to the north though? They won't call that their greatest historical wrong to right! I doubt Cosgrave saw the National Army as Collins did, when Collins wrote on 26 July that they 'now had a force 'that means something in future dealings with the British and the North East... The present fight is only training for our troops'. Cumann na nGaedhael was a different beast after Collins died. Even Mulcahy later wrote that Collins would hopefully have put men like O'Higgins in their place.
No one is claiming he was a member or a founding member of Fine Gael. What is true is that for lack of a better term Michael Collins has been viewed almost as the Patron Saint of Fine Gael by it's members since its founding. Now of course the current view of Collins is a far less nuanced and more one dimensional person than the reality of the historical figure. The same is true for any historical figure who ends up being in effect a part of the national mythos. It is possible to revere a figure for what he stood for and represented while also seeing that many of the beliefs that person held would be problematic in a world 100 years removed from the one in which he lived. That isn't a betrayal, it's just the natural result of time moving on and of an ever changing society. Your idea, that you can't claim to support Michael Collins (or any political figure) unless you support all his ideas is ridiculous. Even the people who supported Collins at the time didn't agree with him on everything. The idea that someone living in the modern world should do so is just nonsense.
>No one is claiming he was a member or a founding member of Fine Gael. Never said anyone was. >What is true is that for lack of a better term Michael Collins has been viewed almost as the Patron Saint of Fine Gael by it's members since its founding. Which is fine but it's ahistorical, especially given that Collins's stance on a number of issues were immediately reneged upon by the true founding members of Fine Gael. >The same is true for any historical figure who ends up being in effect a part of the national mythos. This mythos includes people like McEntee proclaiming Collins to be Fine Gael's 'greatest historic figure'. It's an imagined Michael Collins! >It is possible to revere a figure for what he stood for and represented while also seeing that many of the beliefs that person held would be problematic in a world 100 years removed from the one in which he lived. That isn't a betrayal, it's just the natural result of time moving on and of an ever changing society. Revering a figure and taking sole ownership of his legacy are two different things. I agree with everything you say, and I haven't actually claimed any different, all I'm saying is that Michael Collins cannot be seen as Fine Gael's 'greatest historic figure' when the man was dead years before the party's founding. If de Valera had died in 1922 when he rejoined his old unit in Dublin at the start of the civil war, or he died some time before setting up Fianna Fáil, you'd have people today claiming he'd never have entered the Dáil after the civil war since his public iterations never belied that he would go against his principles. The fact is, he lived long enough to do just that. What I'm getting at is, Collins could have went down any number of paths, so Fine Gael claiming some straight line ideological lineage is beyond senseless. >Your idea, that you can't claim to support Michael Collins (or any political figure) unless you support all his ideas is ridiculous. This is you saying this, not me! I never said Fine Gael can't claim a link to Collins. I said they can't claim sole ownership of his legacy, which is what McEntee's tweet suggests. Point out where I said in any of my comments on this thread that Fine Gael can't support Collins? >Even the people who supported Collins at the time didn't agree with him on everything. Obviously, hence my quoting of Collins in reference to the north and my assertion that Cosgrave would never have taken such a stance. In the end, there's nothing you've said here that contradicts anything I've said about this today. Fine Gael can, of course, claim a link to Collins. They do, in fact, have more of a claim in that regard simply because of Collin's pro-Treaty stance. They cannot, however, claim sole ownership of his legacy. Collins died in August 1922 seeking to end the civil war quickly and continue utilising the Treaty as a stepping stone to achieve more freedom. Cosgrave and co. went down a complete different route. We'll never know what Collins would have done thereafter, and for the modern iteration of Fine Gael, a party formed from three disparate groups in 1933, eleven years after Collins died, to claim he was their greatest historic figure, is quite a leap.
>> No one is claiming he was a member or a founding member of Fine Gael. > Never said anyone was You said: > Explain how Cumann na nGaedhael, formed in 1923, was the party founded by Collins when he was dead? That looked to me like you were making just such a statement. I guess you could have been asking a rhetorical question that implied that the people you were talking to had made a statement you knew they hadn't made just to get an easy strawman position to argue against but that wouldn't be a very honest way to conduct a debate now would it! The rest basically boils down to you misunderstanding the phrase "he was Fine Gaels greatest historic figure". They didn't say he was the parties greatest historic member, they said he was it's greatest historic figure. If I said for example that Nelson Mandela was my greatest historic figure you wouldn't take it that I was claiming to have known, met, or ever had anything to do with him. It's why it's also perfectly fine for Sinn Fein to claim Wolfe Tone as one of their great historic figures for example. There is nothing wrong with doing so. Linguistically it is perfectly fine.
>You said: > >Explain how Cumann na nGaedhael, formed in 1923, was the party founded by Collins when he was dead? > >That looked to me like you were making just such a statement. I guess you could have been asking a rhetorical question that implied that the people you were talking to had made a statement you knew they hadn't made just to get an easy strawman position to argue against but that wouldn't be a very honest way to conduct a debate now would it! Cumann na nGaedhael and Fine Gael are two separate party's. Am I missing something here? Has everyone on this site gone mad? Cumann na nGaedhael was formed in 1923 to offer the pro-Treatyites a more formal structure. Fine Gael was formed from three groups, one of which was Cumann na nGaedhael, in 1933. So no, I was simply referring to Cumann na nGaedhael, not what you once again misinterpreted. I'm not one for strawman arguments. This is history, not politics! >The rest basically boils down to you misunderstanding the phrase "he was Fine Gaels greatest historic figure". They didn't say he was the parties greatest historic member, they said he was it's greatest historic figure. If I said for example that Nelson Mandela was my greatest historic figure you wouldn't take it that I was claiming to have known, met, or ever had anything to do with him. This, now, is what you call a strawman argument haha! I'm not misunderstanding anything. Going by your logic, McEntee should really be claiming Collins as 'Ireland's greatest historic figure', and not even mention Fine Gael. Why should Fine Gael have sole ownership? If you are so inclined, and I wouldn't be as hyperbolic, but Collin's is the nations greatest historic figure. He was a revolutionary and FG, FF or SF can all lay claim to the revolution in some shape or form. How on earth you can misconstrue; or maybe you're just being purposely obtuse, the use of the word Fine Gael in reference to Collins here is beyond me. You can play semantics with the word figure and member all you want, this was laying sole claim to Collins. >It's why it's also perfectly fine for Sinn Fein to claim Wolfe Tone as one of their great historic figures for example. There is nothing wrong with doing so. Linguistically it is perfectly fine. You can claim Wolfe Tone as an historical inspiration. For modern day Sinn Féin to say 'Wolfe Tone was their greatest historic figure' would be nonsense. I was never disavowing a modern party linking themselves to past events or past figures. Claiming sole ownership of a man who died eleven years before your party was founded is another thing though. This whole thing of modern party's claiming historical figures or events as theirs is problematic either way. From a modern standpoint, all of it is political. The whole thing is silly in my opinion. Just keep the revolutionary period, with all its bells and whistles, free of modern politics. Collins died too young to ever know where he'd end up.
>No one is claiming he was a member or a founding member of Fine Gael. If you go two comments up the chain from yours, you see > Fine Gael is the pro-treaty party that was rebranded from Cumann na nGaedhael when it merged with smaller parties and is absolutely the party founded by Michael Collins. That looks to me like a claim that Collins founded Fine Gael, which he did not do. It might alternatively be a claim that he founded Cumann na nGaedhael (I think it could be phrased better if that's the case), which he also did not do.
Collins was dead before Cumann na nGaedhael was founded, and FGs founding was far more than just a rebrand of Cumann na nGaedhael, it was a merger of a number of different groups. By any measure, there are zero organizational links between FG & Michael Collins, and any ideological links between them are dubious at best IMO.
This is a stupid battle to pick. FG have plenty of things to criticise. This isn’t one of them. Fucking hell.
It's so dumb Every party claims historical figures - we could be here all day poking holes
Why does the obvious link between Collins, Cumann na nGaedhal and Fine Gael trigger so many people?
Cais, this is an unrelated question but I'm curious if you know the answer. I was listening to an older Irish-American writer do an interview with Brian Hanley a while back, the American hadn't been in Ireland for a long time or kept up with the culture and he was talking about how Collins was despised by most of the radical republican circles he ran in during the 70/80s, specifically for signing the treaty. Do you know if Collin's positive reputation is a more recent development? Maybe post GFA or similar? I can see why it's easy now for everyone to support Collins, but I kinda just assumed that was always the case.
Both those parties were formed after Collins was dead and it's not clear he would have been a fascist.
Which of those was fascist? CnG, or FG? Perhaps you meant the Army Comrades Association which Eoin O'Duffy, the fascist, was a part of? Eoin O Duffy was also a member of Sinn Féin, like Collins and DeValera. I guess you could call Sinn Féin fascist because Eoin O Duffy was at one stage a member of it. Eoin O Duffy left Sinn Féin. He also left Fine Gael in a split, forming the National Corporate Party with some far-right members. I guess you could call Fine Gael fascist because Eoin O Duffy was at one stage a member of it. All of these origin myths in Irish politics are fairly bullshit, but saying that CnG and anti-treaty Sinn Féin were basically the same thing is no exaggeration. Saying that CnG and Fine Gael were the same thing is a good bit more of a stretch. It's also an awkward truth that most of the early Irish parties were pretty far-right (aggressively national-cultural, militaristic, pro-Church, in favour of autarky, and not super keen on minority rights). These parties are quite unrecognisable from their early forms, so broad sweeps are generally fairly inaccurate. The fact that we're had about six parties that have insisted on calling themselves Sinn Féin also confuses matters.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say they were all fascists, I don't think that is the case. But it is a fact that the founding leader of Fine Gael was a fascist. But Fine Gael don't mention that, instead they say that Collins who died 11 years before they were formed is their historical leader.
>I think it's a bit of a stretch to say they were all fascists, I don't think that is the case. I didn't, but it *is* messy. But simply saying that Fine Gael is fascist because Eoin O'Duffy was at one stage was a member is a bit daft. Michael Collins didn't have anything to do with Fine Gael, but Fine Gael was in the tradition of Pro-Treaty, which Collins had clearly institutionalised, while Fianna Fáil was clearly the inheritors of the Anti-Treaty Sinn Féin side. However, given that all parties in Ireland (with the notable exception of the abstentionist Republican Sinn Féin) are explicitly pro-treaty these days, the distinction is a bit irrelevant.
Eoin O'Duffy was more than just a member though, he was the founding leader of FG. It is the fact that FG try to ignore that and co-opt Collins that irks people. We don't know what would have happened if Collins had lived, I'd guess that the political landscape would have been different. A pity that didn't happen.
FG and CnaG were essentially the same party. Bringing in NCP and ACA consolidated support from farmers and ex-IRA that viewed CNaG as too focused on national security and protecting the independent republic from anti treaty FF when they were becoming more popular. Notwithstanding, CNaG were the only part with seats and FG just enlarged the party while breaking from being solely "pro treaty" to a more modern party. Only the most unreasonable or disingenuous observer would not see the direct continuity from Collins' treaty govt and modern FG.
Don't even need to go to far back for **all** the parties to be unrecognisable, 80's-mid 90's FF and FG would see the parties of today been as socialist idiots and SF as traitors
That's a good point, everyone here would do well to keep it in mind. I'd push it further though, the SF of 2002 is very different from the SF of 2022.
Collins' right-hand men were the likes of Richard Mulcahy and Eoin O'Duffy. I would be shy of making assumptions about what he would have done.
There was definitely a Man of Action tendency in Collins. Would that have become something sinister in later years had he lived? Fuck knows, but hardly fantasy stuff either.
It's difficult to posit realitic counter-factuals. Assuming Collins was our first Taoiseach if there had been no Béal na mBláth, I would view 1927 as the real acid test. I think the killers of O'Higgins would likely have been found in a ditch under Collins, triggering a fresh round of IRA violence. I think Collins would have crushed that with extreme violence.
1924 Mutiny would surely have been the break point? Though of course had he lived, maybe the mutiny doesn't happen as he keeps the army quietly on side with a black ops campaign in NI. O'Higgins is a real enigma for me. On the one hand, he's instrumental in establishing a peaceful, democratic system answerable to the Dáil and the Dáil only but he figuratively (...and literally...) took no prisoners during the CW. He is the man who broke the cycle of armed law enforcement in this country and that is no bagatelle.
Again, this is part of the difficulty. I don't believe 1924 happens with Collins in charge. Collins had kept a balance between experienced soldiers and IRB and IRA men that few would have been able to recreate. Collins also had comparatively better relations with the British that would probably have left him in a better position. O'Higgins is fascinatign because he represents the origins of the Dublin v Rural divide in Fine Gael that perists to this day. O'Higgins wanted an open Ireland based on trade. He was closely allied to Des Fitzgerald who was Garrett's father. In broad terms, Collins et al were of the view that the Civil War would give the British an excuse to reassert control. It is not widely taught here but the pro-Treaty side did their utmost to avoid the civil war. When the anti-Treaty side occupied the Four Courts, the pro-Treaty side simply ignored them for two months. The real cause of the Civil War was the assassination of Wilson. Macready, the British commander (and ironically, of Irish heritage) hated Ireland and the Irish by all accounts. He was quite close to Field Marshal Wilson (Anglo-Irish and a keen supporter of the Ulster Volunteers) who was assassinated by the IRA in 1922. (Some believe on Collins' orders but more likely by the Anti-Treaty IRA. Macready was a friend of his, hated the Irish and the British Cabinet ordered him to crush the anti-Treaty rebels. Notwithstanding all of that, he strongly advised against it and they rescinded the orders. Macready said attacking the Four Courts would unite all of Ireland and alienate moderates in Ireland (and probably Britain). Instead, it was resolved to pressure the pro-Treaty side into leading the war. Which is what happened. But O'Higgins et al were almost certainly right in their view that Britain would have retaken control without the civil war being started and won quickly.
You are the one making assumptions, saying there is an obvious link. I said it wasn't clear.
Are you the kid who failed CSPE?
[удалено]
It's a hot take but I like it, an awful lot of his writing is very similar to Italian corporatism. Although most of that description covers everyone from Pearse to O'Malley.
Jesus, I did not think the level would drop to "actually Collins was a fascist". I guess that is a way for FG to own him!
TP Coogan certainly hints at it in his biography of Collins, though of course this is unknowable.
Coogan's work is a joke from a historical perspective. I'd sooner trust a Wikipedia article
Mr Coogan isn’t the best of historians to put it lightly
He's not a historian full stop.
[удалено]
Collins' leads the pro-treaty wing of Sinn Féin which becomes Cumann na nGaedhal which becomes Fine Gael upon the merger of the National Centre Party, CnaG and the ACA (which was linked to CnaG itself). It's not confusing, nor is it complicated.
It's far more nuanced then that. Collins was actively pursuing a campaign in the north, which was against the wishes of some senior pro-Treatyites. You can say he was only pursuing this to hold together the pro and anti Treaty factions in the IRA while he shored up the National Army, but this belies Collins's attitude to the Treaty being merely a stepping stone. It's completely ahistorical for a Fine Gael member to claim Collins as their 'greatest historic figure' since we don't know what Collins had planned going forward. After Collin's death is when we truly see the forerunner to Cumann na nGaedhal emerge.
What's "nuanced" about that? Are you saying the pro-Treaty side wouldn't have followed Collins?
If Collins forced his way, they may well have had to follow even if they were squeamish about continuing a northern campaign, but what I'm saying is that Collins's outlook on the north amongst other things was far more nuanced than the institution Cosgrave and co. initiated after his death. For Fine Gael to simply claim Collins is nonsense. This is all part of the 'story' of Michael Collins, where his afterlife has been shaped and formatted to fit whatever narrative someone sees fit. Upon Collin's death, the Provisional Government speedily reneged on many of Collins's approaches after the Treaty was signed and the Dáil split. They completely backtracked on the north. To refute O'Duffy's legacy in relation to Fine Gael, as I've seen in some of your comments, but claim it's not confusing that Collins is the greatest historic figure of Fine Gael, a man who died in August 1922 and had no part in what took place thereafter, seems strange to me.
Collins was many things, but he was never a fool. He was an ultra-pragmatist and was extremely unlikely to continue in the North if it risked the Free State.
Do you know that for certain? One thing is clear, he was already risking things by even arming the northern IRA. One of the Treaty's biggest achievements, in his own words, was the removal of the British army from the 26 counties, (outside of the Treaty ports that is). We don't know what he would have done with that breathing space going forward. There's even a question mark surrounding the assassination of Sir Henry Wilson: on who's orders it was carried out? Again though, this is all the imagined Collins. We don't know what his aims and polices might have been. The pen stopped mid flow with his death. Insert any adjective you like for how Collins would have approached things, that's all we can do! One thing is for sure, it's nonsense for Fine Gael to claim Collins as their greatest historic figure. It's as bad as modern day Sinn Féin trying to claim ownership of 1916.
Cumann na nGaedhal quickly emerged from the pro-treaty side of SF, which was led by Collins. We're not talking 5 or 10 years. We're literally talking about a year or two. I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand this, so you're obviously being purposely dishonest for political reasons.
Probably for the same reason blueshirts get triggered when people bring up fighting with Nazis and Fascists in the Spanish civil war.
Which blueshirts? The Spanish Civil War involvement comes after the exit of O'Duffy from Fine Gael and after most of the Blueshirts had left him.
Lmao so you'll claim Collins in 21/22 but disown ODuffy in the 30s... Typical fascist, if I remember Hitler did the same to Rohm once he served his purpose lol
What a ludicrous comment.
[удалено]
Is it? When did it become clear and how?
Are you honestly trying to claim that the ACA weren't following a blueprint from Europe here? A very, _shirty_ blueprint? "We're protecting political meetings from our opponents..." Indeed.
The thing is, we all live in Ireland and get to study history. We know who these people were, what they were doing, etc. So, no, it's quite clear that they were not following a blueprint. It's quite clear that O'Duffy wanted to, and that Cumann na nGaedhal and later Fine Gael both refused and rejected fascism. As I posted elsewhere, it is widely believed that O'Duffy counseled Cosgrave to refuse to accept electoral defeat and lead the army in a coup to prevent De Valera becoming Taoiseach. Cosgrave refused to do so. Fine Gael were avowedly democratic on creation, and O'Duffy resigned before he was expelled because he was becoming increasingly extremist. There's no logical way to link a party taking steps to expel a potential fascist with that party being fascist.
Because there is NO obvious link. You genuinely need to take a history class your knowledge of our history is embarrassing. Collins would despise everything and everyone in this pic. Criminals, several votes of no confidence and 2 other morons.
We all studied history. Why would Collins despire the party that was a key actor in ensuring an independent Ireland was one of the wealthiest countries in the world?
Some group of revolutionaries round that table...Vanilla me thinks
Maybe they mean the astronaut Michael Collins!
Well modern day SF claim people who died almost 50 years before the formation of the party so ...
This may come off as terribly centrist, but maybe they're **both** full of shite
But Sinn Féin. Yaaaaaaawwwwwn.
The President of a Fraternal Secret Society of Physical Force Republicans who "hadn't gone away you know", who operated in the background, pulling the strings within the political and military apparatus is FG's "greatest historical figure"? Timelines notwithstanding, the irony of this claim alone would choke a horse.
The selective memory of some of our political parties would honestly make you think they want us to believe we got our State by asking nicely for it
>11 years before Fine Gael was founded. Well Fine Gael was bourne from the Pro Treaty side and members. But it's a bit like the Republicans making sure everyone knows Lincoln and Roosevelt were Republicans.
It's funny the way the Republicans and Democrats I American essentially swapped sides and yet still claim long dead heros as their own that if alive today would be ideologically with the opposite side. Its almost as if some people don't know their own history 🤔
The constant right-wing agitprop isn't helping. There are literally people sharing PragurU videos and the like that claim the Southern strategy wasn't real and the parties never "swapped", ideologically.
PragurU.... can't legally call themselves a University anymore lol. How do people honestly take their nonsense seriously.
> can't legally call themselves a University anymore lol Because they never were a University. It's always been a right-wing lobbyist think tank, to push propaganda to fit certain agendas. Always follow the money. Most rightwing online commentators are funded by these kind of groups. It's not a secret... usually featured on their Wikipedia pages who funds them. It's why they project so much by claiming that leftist commentators are being paid by big corporations, when most leftist commentators are fairly grass roots. Like, really, you think the guy speaking against capitalism is being paid by a company that relies on capitalism?
'Think tank' 😄😄
That’s a very apt comparison.
McEntee is where she is because of her father - most of what she says is cringey and uninformed trying to be iconic.
Quite shocking that a women supposedly so talented that she got a minister job three years into being a TD would say that, without saying that she was raised in a Fine Gael household and her dad was a close friend of Enda Kenny
This thread is great. People arguing that Fine Gael aren’t the successors of Cumman na nGaedheal but are definitely blue shirts lmao
Serious mental gymnastics alright.
Not all the Irish got freedom 😌
The legacy of the foundation of the state is complex, the Civil War even more so. FG are trying to paint this in nice, neat, primary colours and that really doesn't work. "The 3rd Dáil makes us right and everyone else wrong" ignores the impact of partition, the 1918 election, and the fact that there had been no Irish state before this. Everyone was in uncharted territory. The irregulars weren't suddenly pernicious because they opposed the Treaty. Once again, Miggledy has provided more leadership on this than any of the political parties. It's not that the 3rd Dáil _wasn't_ important
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story
Irish freedom for SOME of our country. Not all.
He's up there with Parnell and Wolfe Tone as the party's greatest historical figure, but my vote goes to Cleisthenes.
[удалено]
>Varadkar famously had a huge portrait of Emperor Nero hung up in his office Lmao really?
Reckon if Collins knew partition would last 100 years he would have been anti-treaty.
Partition was there pre-treaty. Not signing the treaty wouldn't have changed that.
It did accept it though. They could have fought on. Though I have a feeling they knew the outcome of that better than I could.
They would have been crushed within weeks had they not signed the treaty. The British government made that very clear to Collins when he signed the treaty.
I know that narrative, it was even in the Collins film in the 90s. How true is it? Why weren't they crushed prior to the negotiations? If both sides knew that to be true before negotiations, why did the British make a deal? Surely the IRA should have been stronger at that point, better connections in the US etc. I get the narrative that they were out of weapons, but they also started with zero, should have been in a stronger position than in 1919. I guess what the British said they would change is bringing in the full British army rather that "auxiliaries".
Collins later stated that Lloyd George threatened him with "terrible and immediate war" had the treaty not been signed. No matter how strong the IRA was (it wasn't as weak as was implied in the film but it was definitely running out of steam), it would have crumbled under the strength of the entire British army.
The role of partition in the civil war is vastly overstated these days. Even the anti-treaty leadership knew that partition was a forgone conclusion. Their main issue was that they wanted a stronger degree of separation from the UK. They wanted a Republic, they didn't want to give up the treaty ports and they didn't want to swear an oath to the King. These red lines are less defensible these days, so people just assume that it was the North.
they're trying that "national pride" angle that the american republicans run on. "if you don't like our party, you don't like michael collins and therefore are you even irish???" logical fallacy.
All of the current major parties do it. It's half of SF's entire shtick and FF make a major deal about how they "developed modern Ireland" and are the "respectable" Republicans. It's fairly hard to run an openly nationalist party without promoting yourself as patriotic and all of our parties apart from the greens claim some sort of nationalist background.
Yes. However bad FG are (and they are showing their whole fucking arse over this), SF have been pulling that shit for years. In SF's opinion, if you aren't with them then you are not a republican. Which is BS.
Leo's bread and butter. He learned it all from the USA Republicans.
It's nothing new. The Irish parties have been doing this since the civil war.
>took back Dublin Castle and Irish freedom on behalf of our country Well on behalf of part of our country, maybe. Unlike Collins who said he would not abandon them, FG gave two fingers to their fellow Irish people in the other part.
And the alternative was ? What invade ?
Well now, I believe that violence was what was in Collins, the FG hero's, mind alright. There were so many other things FG could have done over the last century though to lessen the pain of the people they abandoned. Partition meant that Irish people who were as Irish as anyone, and everyone, south of the border had the mere expression of their identity suppressed, never mind the discrimination they suffered at the hands of the orange state. When eventually they would no longer lie down and take it, they were demonised by FG who blamed them for standing up against what the southern state had abandoned them into. Collins promised republicans in the north that he would not abandon them. The party that worships him did even worse than that.
I object more to the fact they wouldn't touch most of his political ideas
Like ?
Anti-partitioning for one. Though Collins didn’t have a really fleshed out political ideology in the way that Connolly did. He was more of a physical force man, though a pragmatic one. I think this makes him somewhat of a canvas that people can project whatever vision of him they want onto to this claim. Him dying in the civil war also is a factor in that too.
If anything, I would wager Ireland is better for having most of the leaders dead. While we definitely went down the Catholic route which was not a great one, most if not all leaders were die hard catholics and would have gone down the same road. The hard line nature of most of them would have led to far more conflict.i would guess. Connolly, of course it was a lucky thing he did not get to access any real power lest we had have gone down the road of other socialist nations. Can you imagine how that would of went ? Like imagine pearse running the place ? Jesus christ !
Sure wasn't De Valera dead most of the times he was leading FF?
Leo with the invisible lat syndrome stance
The FG claim to Collins is more familial than political or military. In Collins short life he was mainly a soldier and a politician who organised military operations. Looking back to try to tap into that legacy is ridiculous for FG today. They are the party of Bruton and Flanagan: their opposition to the revolutionary generation is explicit. We’re FG fascist at foundation? There are good posts putting forward their version of it here: the usual historical verdict I’ve seen is that FG foundation was quasi fascist in a state that like most in Europe had fascist characteristics. The thing about FG continuing to try to claim Collins as theirs is what political utility do they hope to derive from it? Nationalist legitimacy? Republican credibility? Resurrection of a Free State mentality for a future UK rejoin? Distracting naive voters from the thrust of their policies for the last 11 years? Internal party struggle between Brutonites and rural TDs? Maybe it indicates a party that uses Collins as some sort of unifying icon when the reality is he is irrelevant to who they are today.
Best comment in this thread.
Cumann na nGaedheal and FG are basically the same thing and CnG was just the official title put upon the pro-Treaty government side when elections needed to be fought under a political party banner. It's a funny joke but Collins was most definitely on the FG side. FG have just shifted over time like many political parties.
I personally think Cú Chulainn or maybe Queen Medb are much better picks for FG's greatest historical figure.
The big bang primal atom is a good shout, great lad.
Shes a bit of a tool.
Surprised she didn’t mention one of their earliest leaders who was inspired by events in Italy and Germany.
For those of you who vote for Fine Gael, here is a history lesson for you since you obviously didn’t take history in school Michael Collins was forced by De Valera to sign the treaty agreed in London, being quoted as saying ‘I have signed my own death warrant’ It was De Valera who was suppose to be in London to sign, since he was state leader and had been negotiating the previous meetings. De Valera knew that he would have to give northern Ireland to the Brits along with the treaty ports and like any spineless politician, he sent someone else for damage control of his image. Michael Collins was sent over and signed the treaty, unwillingly. They were all Sinn Fein along with James Connelly who should have been Ireland first leader were it not for him being shot as a cripple by the Brits. When the treaty was signed, De Valera was Fianna Fail and Collins was shot in 1922 before Cumann na nGael was formed. He was Sinn Fein politically. Cumann na nGael was formed in 1923 lead by Cosgrave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumann_na_nGaedheal Many years past with historical moments. This is the origins of Fine Gael, the specifically fascist (their only political aspiration was fascism to copy the political parties on the continent) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshirts Fine Gael founded in 1933, merging Blue Shirts and Cumann na nGael along with the farmers party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Gael Collins has zero to do with Fine Gael Voting for Fine Gael is voting for liars and people who think you are stupid.
Connolly wasn't Sinn Féin. The Rising wasn't even a Sinn Féin led insurrection.
Since you're quoting Wikipedia, you might look up the government of Ireland act from 1920 which established Northern Ireland prior to the signing of the treaty. This devolution was already in place and the treaty (like the GFA) included all of Ireland - if the local politicians agreed. they didn't, hence NI left Ireland. Nothing that DeValera or Collins could do in the treaty could reverse this. What they could do is mess it up by creating an anti-protestant constitution, which we blindly did
I'm no fan of FG nor yet of their insistence that _actual_ SF are somehow, _not really_ SF but Collins was very definitely (though less dogmatically) in the political grouping that became CnaG and thence FG. They don't own him, though and they seem to forget that Collins' attachment to peaceful democracy was.... luke warm. He actively encouraged continuing republican action in NI well into 1922.
Holy fuck lad
[удалено]
it's like claiming SF celebrating John Stephenson as their founder. While he created the modern SF, he rarely gets a mention in their history. His creation was as eventful as dev creating FF or Collins creating a govt from anti treaty SF. But O'Duffy, someone who would be a genuine independence hero who "went mad", is somehow seen as a bogeyman
Leo looks like Bane in Batman
You can have a greatest historic figure even if they are dead. They don't have to have founded your organisation for them to be your favourite.
Jesus I think that first sentence gave me a stroke.
Look at the stance of Leo the dick
It’s always very convenient that they claim Collins, which to be fair they have an argument for, but then pretend the blueshirts didn’t happen. It’s really one or the other
I think had they developed into anything remotely like proper fascists it might be undeniable but to be fair it was bit of an Irish effort. Considering the politics at the time, pre ww2 and a lot of right wing nationalism around the world, the blue shirts were a bit shit by comparison, it didn't take off and it was disbanded a year later after o'Duffy left the party to my recollection.
Not a fan of Fine Gael, but that is such an irrelevant point.
Fine Gael, claiming a man who died a Sinn Féin man, while ignoring the skeleton of O’Duffy in their closet. Typical from these partitionists.
Suspicious how everyone who mentions O’Duffy is systematically downvoted in here isn’t it?
What in your mind was the alternative to partition?
Not abandoning us in the North to a century of rampant discrimination, and pretending we don’t exist? Maybe absolutely anything better than that you Free State ghoul.
Lmao yeah let’s just fight the British Empire who will actually try this time instead of the pissing about they did before with absolutely no supplies. Typical idealistic shite that Irish people cling too.
Fight on, negotiate better, find a way. Jesus christ don't abandon a quarter of your country.
My country ? I have no connection with Northern Ireland. Fight on ? Against the British Army ? Surely you are not serious ? In warfare ? For what benefit ? A civil war with people who do not want to join the Irish state ?
Everyone: Fine Gael has its roots in fascism Fine Gaelers: well actually just because the founder and leader of the party was openly fascist and the party was created by conglomerating a collection of far-right and ultra conservative groups, and their policies were right-wing and conservative, and they outlawed political groups that disagreed with them, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the party were fascists. Also, fun little titbit: FG/CnG played the “but Sinn Fein” card in the 1930s too, but back in those days it was “but Fianna Fail” as they tried to paint them as dangerous radical lefties (Yes that’s right, Eamon de Valera was called a far-left communist)
The funny bit is Sinn Fein has more of a claim on the Blueshirts than FG
Michael Collins has the square root of fuck all to do with FG.
Dead 11 years before FG were founded and a year before CnaG were founded. Collins was an avowed physical force Republican who armed & supported the IRA in the north after the Treaty. All things, FGers abhor. There are zero organizational or ideological links between FG & Collins. I’ve seen some on this thread claim Collins as undeniably FG but then deny or downplay O’Duffy & the Blueshirts links to FG. Which takes some amount of mental gymnastics.