English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Michael Collins is regarded as one of the greatest ever Irishmen for his role in the Anglo-Irish war. However he signed the treaty that divided Ireland in two and laid the foundations for the troubles in the north of the country at the present day. He used borrowed British guns to drive Anti-Treaty forces out of central Dublin and started the Irish civil war which was the most bitter war in 20th century Ireland with Irishmen killing Irishmen. Many say that when he was killed in an ambush by Anti-Treaty forces in West Cork in August 1922 that he got what he deserved. What do people think about this?

2007-01-12 02:28:20 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities History

3 answers

There are pros and cons about this.....

To many Irish Republican fighters, he represented an end to the bloody conflict that had torn Ireland apart for centuries. To others he was considered to have "sold the Republic out", when he was sent by Eamon DeVelera to represent the IRA in talks with British officials.

There were many in Ireland that viewed the division of North and South as a victory for the British. The fact that it only established an Irish State that had to swear allegiance to the British Crown made it an insult to those that were fighting for an independent and sovereign country of Ireland.

To some he was a hero, to others he was a traitor to the cause. In the North part of Ireland you have predominate Catholic Irish, in the South predominate Protestant Irish. The Catholic religion was nearly eradicated by England during the 1500's. Much of the conflict in Ireland stems from this.

There is a good movie out that you can rent or purchase that is very close to the true events that led to Micheal Collins demise. It stars Liam Neeson as Collins. It tends to lean a bit toward the side of the South Irish, but is very good.

2007-01-12 02:32:01 · answer #1 · answered by southwind 5 · 1 0

No. But Micheal Collins was ahead of his time. It is thought by some today that if he had lived there wouldn't have been 70+ years of bloodshed between England and the IRA.

He was probably the first public proponent of shared power in the north with a hope of unification later. Yet, he was also the only man who could challenge De Vires for leadership of the Irish Government. That was not what the IRA wanted so he was killed and that lead to the worst problem that Ireland has had in it's history it allowed the IRA to run as a paramilitary force in Ireland and lead to many of the problems that Ireland has had with England.

Without the death of Micheal Collins there would be no IRA, or UDF in Ulster and less bloodshed in that part of the world.

2007-01-12 02:54:19 · answer #2 · answered by redgriffin728 6 · 0 2

I say definitely, NO.

2007-01-12 02:36:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers