Richard Wiseman 11GH
Bloody Sunday
Why interpretations differ.
January 30th 1972 was a dark day for Northern Ireland. During a civil rights march in the Bogside the British army opened fire on marchers. The result was fourteen dead Catholics. The exact facts about the event still remain controversial. I will attempt to look into why interpretations of Bloody Sunday differ, using the sources provided and my own studies.
In source A when confronted with evidence that points towards blaming the paratroopers for the deaths a soldiers denounces it as "rubbish". He then goes on to say, "For years people have accused us of firing indiscriminately. We weren't." The paratroopers were against another enquiry into Bloody Sunday as they saw that justice had had its way in the first inquiry, they saw another inquiry as just to appease the Catholics. Another reason was that the paras were afraid that the new enquiry would uncover some things that they would rather was kept secret, did the paras have something to hide? One of the reasons for the enquiry happening now is to help peace talks in Ireland. What is the army's story for the events of Bloody Sunday? The Army claims that when protesters near "Aggro Corner" started to confront soldiers with stones and missiles they attempted to disperse them using CS gas, a water cannon and rubber bullets. Which is recognized as truth. Next the soldiers were told to go into the Bogside to arrest protesters. Soldiers claim that when they attempted to make their arrests they were fired on from the nearby Rossville flats. The army then returned fire. As explained by Col Wilford, found on the BBC website, "that's just what we got, snipers" and when he said to a BBC reporter "I personally had shots fire at me." He believes that some protesters were shot by their own "indiscriminate firing." There are reasons that the army would say this. The government could not show the British army to be killers, which would be bad publicity for Britain. There are other reasons why the army have upheld their story for so long. If a soldier had admitted that the army did fire on innocent civilians other soldiers may have struck out against him. Although if the Army did decide to change there story it could be seen why. One reason would be to appease the government in Ireland, this may have helped with the peace talks in Ireland and may be to Britains advantage. Also more and more evidence is surfacing against the paras, forensics is coming on leaps and bounds and now more and more can be proved. This is shown in source B. A forensic report shows that one of the victims was shot in the back of the head with a type of bullet made illegal by the Geneva Convention. It seems difficult to believe the Army in light of this evidence.
