• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Bloody Sunday - Why interpretations differ.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

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? ...read more.

Middle

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. The other side involved in this incident were the protesters. They claim the as the Paratroop Regiment moved to make their arrests they simply open fire on the crowd. They claim that from the protesters there was no fire what so ever. In source B its tells how forensic suggest that one marcher was shot through the back of the head, not exactly an offensive stance. Other eyewitnesses of the shootings give their stories. Alana Burke says how she saw "old men battered to the ground." Alex Nash says "they were there, the three bodies, innocent boys." These were found on the BBC website. These accounts were given to the BBC reporters from the hospitals where the victims were being treated. ...read more.

Conclusion

He said that he personally saw no shooters in the marchers. As a journalist he is expected to be independent. Although he could have been looking for a good story and perverting the truth somewhat to get a good "scoop." But besides that I see him as the most reliable witness. There are many conflicting views to what happened on Bloody Sunday and it is hard to come to any conclusion about the real events. Although it is easy to see where each view comes from. With such heated conflict between the Nationalists and Unionists it seemed inevitable that something like this would happen. In some ways you can see why the Army might lose their cool with the marchers. When they were on operations in Ireland they were constantly being attacked with stones and nail bombs etc. The soldiers must have been itching to get their own back. Also you can see why the marchers, if they did, would fire on the Army. They saw the Army as a force of oppression and wanted to break free. With such heated rivalry and conflicting views it is difficult to make any judgement. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Northern Ireland 1965-85 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Northern Ireland 1965-85 essays

  1. Ireland coursework-Part AIreland has had a lot of trouble over the years for many ...

    Richard Haass, a former US Northern Ireland specialist, said "No one as yet is ruling out dealing with Sinn Fein, but with the passage of months or even years that could very well happen. Gerry Adams does not want to become Yasser Arafat."

  2. “Why has it proved so difficult to reach agreement about what happened on Bloody ...

    All, or at least most, of the sources have a potential to bias, and even in video evidence, selective footage can make certain amount of bias. But on the subject of the first shot, we can never really be sure.

  1. What happened on Bloody Sunday?

    recruit many members for the IRA, not just in Derry but across Ireland, north and south as a result of the Para's actions on that day. Also, it would raise international support for the Republican cause. If the British government admitted executing 14 innocent civilians they would face the wrath

  2. Report: Events of Bloody Sunday

    As required by the Act a Resolution will be required to set up the Inquiry. The Resolution will be tabled later today in my name, and will be in the following terms: That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public

  1. Northern Ireland - Bloody Sunday.

    Radio messages also seemed to imply that some soldiers had been shooting from the Derry Walls. The day the funerals took place for those killed on Bloody Sunday, angry crowds burned down the British Embassy in Dublin. There was also violence by different people.

  2. The History of Conflict in Ireland.

    establishment newspapers, for example, about the role that the United States has played. That indicates the United States' influence is growing, and is important. Part of the problem with the Irish-American community is one of ignorance. They have a romantic view of what Ireland was, they have a very simplistic view of the struggle.

  1. bloody sunday assignment 1

    The IRA was the Irish Republican Army- a violent and armed force. In 1918 the Great War came to an end, and immediately after an election was held. A new Irish political party named Sinn Fein (which translates as 'ourselves alone')

  2. bloody sunday assignment 2

    This would repress them, and they would bide by British Rule. It then goes onto refer to the Widgery Report as "whitewash" and says that it is "full of contradictions," as there no consistency throughout the report. I feel that this source makes some good points, but as it is

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work