Bloody Sunday.

Authors Avatar
The events that took place on Bloody Sunday, 30th January 1972 have been discussed frequently and certain aspects of the event highly debated. The events of the particular day were of significant influence in further procedures in N. Ireland an on other related events. The event began after an illegal march took place in the centre of Derry, N. Ireland; the police and government banned the march as it was thought it would provoke violence. The march was lead by Catholic supporters who were demonstrating for Catholic rights, the Protestant-biased government and the internment of Catholics. As the march approached the city centre where Army barricades were set up, the first shot of many was fired. The question of who was to blame was then introduced, with neither the Army nor the Catholic marchers accepting responsibility. Thirteen people were found dead after the incident with many others left injured. With neither side accepting blame for the incident and instead blaming the incident on the opposition, the question of who is to blame is a difficult one. It is thought that the previous violence of the summer of 1969, particularly the Battle of Bogside, in which Catholics violently fought with the RUC and B Specials, provoked the introduction of the British Army. The role of the Army was supposedly to keep the peace, defending the Catholic population from Protestant attacks, a scenario that has turned out to be somewhat ironic. The British also reintroduced the use of internment in August 1971, which allowed the government to arrest and imprison anyone without trial. Many rumours surrounded the event before it took place and the results were not hugely shocking to those who were already expecting a gunfight to take place. It was thought by some that the IRA wanted a major gun battle, although others thought that if similar events to those that took place in Magilligan, London would be shamed and therefore it would seem that the British paratroopers would want to hold their fire against the Catholic demonstrators. Another stance is that the Catholics were simply holding another peaceful protest. About a week before Bloody Sunday, a two hour gunfight to place at Forkhill in County Armagh between British troops and the IRA. About 1000 shots were fired. Because of all the violence of the previous weeks, which was blamed on the IRA, the Protestant unionists felt that a tougher approach must be made to stop further violence from occurring.

After Bloody Sunday had taken place, the question of who was to blame and more importunately for some, who had fired the first shot. Different accounts of the day can give us an idea of what happened, although the evidence is far from conclusive. The official statement released by the army and approved by Lieutenant General Sir Harry Tuzo stated that, ¡¥The paratroopers came under nail bomb attack and a fusillade of fifty to eighty rounds.¡¦ Although the statement simply offers the Paratroopers version of what happened, it simply cannot be trusted as it is undoubtedly biasedtowards the acts of the Army, however, as the other statements are just as reliable, it may or may not be true. The statement also states that ¡¥Fire continued to be returned only at identified targets.¡¦ This statement can also be highly debated as thirteen people were found dead and many more injured, many of which posed no threat to the army, therefore if the statement is true, It must mean that the injured victims were only shot at through inaccuracy. As well as that, the statement also reads ¡¥¡Ka total of well over 200 rounds was fired indiscriminately in the general direction of the soldiers.¡¦ Meaning that the Army claimed the protestors started the gunfight and that the soldiers were simply returning fire, this section of the statement is also likely to be biased and may or may not be true. Simon Winchester¡¦s views of Bloody Sunday are taken from a different perspective, his report of the event was written for the Guardian, a paper that is known to support Catholicism. In his report of the series of events, he claims that the paratroopers arrived in armoured cars and started firing, unprovoked, at the crowds of Catholic protestors. Like the statement released by the army, the article written is undoubtedly biased and can be just as trusted. Therefore the two statements contradict each other, leaving no solid evidence and the question of who fired the first shot still debatable. Further views, this time from Catholic priest, Father Bradley also offer little evidence in terms of finding who fired the first shot. Father Bradley claimed that ¡¥I saw no one shooting at troops¡KI only saw the army shooting.¡¦ As Father Bradley is a Catholic priest, his version of the series of events which occurred, can also not be trusted as he is blaming the entire incident on the acts of the British Army, claiming that they were unprovoked and shot ¡¥indiscriminately.¡¦ Further film footage cannot confirm who fired the first shot either, as the videos could have been edited both visually and with sound, there is also no video footage of where the firing started, although what it does show is both sides showing hostility. The British Army can be seen firing shots into the crowds and the Catholic protestors can be seen throwing stones and smoke bombs at the British Army, although who started the violence still cannot be proven by the evidence. Because of the different statements from either sides contradicting each other and the lack of solid evidence, the question of who fired the first shot still cannot be answered, although certain aspects of the event can be proven:
Join now!


Using the sources we can gain some information concerning what the motives of the Paratroopers were and what there original intentions were. Source F claims that the Paratroopers acted very violently and without provocation. The source also states that the Paratroopers had to be restrained by their own NCOs when they ¡¥began wielding their batons fiercely on their own men.¡¦ This suggests that the paratroopers were totally out of control and that their objectives were unclear as they were being restrained. However, the source does take evidence from a Daily Telegraph reporter, a newspaper that openly supports rightwing ...

This is a preview of the whole essay