“ To the Irish all history and the past is simply a convenient quarry which provides ammunition to use against enemies in the present.”
One man once said of the Irish problem
“ It seems we must go back three centuries to explain any fight outside a chip shop.”
I believe that there is an element of truth in both points of view – you have to look back for explanations but activists can use the same past as an excuse.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Source E as an interpretation of what happened on “Bloody Sunday”?
Source E is from a history textbook, therefore it would automatically be trusted to state the facts, it would not be expected to contain any bias. However, I think it must always be remembered that although the author may not have intended to show any bias there may be an element of unintentional bias within the article, this could be due to nationality or personal opinion.
The source is entitled: “ The Facts”, and was published in England and Wales in 1985, therefore it is a secondary source. Its purpose is to teach and inform.
I am now going to go through each of the seven points and try to decide whether they really state the facts and how useful they are in informing us of the events on Bloody Sunday.
I cannot see anything that can be argued with, within points one and two. Everything mentioned in them can be checked and as part of point two is in speech marks this means that it can definitely be verified and is therefore fact. Likewise I think point three is also fact. It is point four that in my opinion shows an element of unintentional bias, it says:
“ Specialists in fierce attacks on enemy targets, not crowd control.”
This is surely showing favour to the side of the protesters. It suggests that the army acted recklessly without thinking and without clear instructions. It makes you think that maybe the army did act mercilessly, violently and indiscriminately. However, I do think that the first half of point four is fact and only the second half opinion.
Point five and point seven seem to be all fact but point six says:
“ Unarmed civilians”
This again seems to be on the side of the protesters. This factor of Bloody Sunday provokes many heated debates and there are continuous arguments that still go on to this day. Colonel Derek Wilford says:
“ We came under fire from the bottom of the Flats, from the Flats; we were also petrol bombed, and some acid, in fact, was poured on us from the top of the Flats.”
Whereas Father Daly says:
“There was nothing fired at them. I’m absolutely certain of that; I can speak of this without any difficulty whatsoever because I was there, I was just standing at the Flats when they started shooting first of all, and there was nothing fired at them, positively nothing fired at them whatsoever.”
These opinions differ greatly, this is because one is from the side of the army and one from the side of the protesters. There is no actual solid proof to show that the protesters had no weapons so some of them may indeed have been armed. We cannot be sure on this issue as at the time it was so chaotic and nobody can have been in more than one place at one time so rumours and facts were confused.
After analysing these points I would say that the majority of the source is reliable apart from those two points I have mentioned. To me it appears that the author of this source has been very selective with his facts whether this is intentional or not I do not know. In my opinion he has not meant to appear on either the side of the army or the side of the protesters, but through no fault of his own he has let some factors of unintentional bias slip in. For this reason I would say that this source is more biased then it originally seems.
To answer the question I would say that, no, source E is not a good piece of interpretation. In fact it is barely an interpretation at all and this is definitely not its purpose, it is just meant to be a list of facts, like the title says. The only thing that makes it an interpretation is the bias presented within in it. It is strong in that it presents some very reliable facts that cannot be argued with, but it is weak as not one view of the army is put forward. To make it stronger the army viewpoint needs to be address in order to counterbalance the unintentional bias towards the protesters.
Sources F and G disagree about who started the shooting.
Does this mean that these sources are of no use as evidence about “Bloody Sunday”?
Source F is an eyewitness of Colonel Derrick Wilford, the Commander of the first Battalion of the Parachute Regiment. It is his interpretation of what happened on the day and its purpose is obviously to defend the actions of his soldiers. After reading the source I get the impression that Wilford does feel remorse as he says:
“ It’s unfortunate . . .”
However, in my opinion this remorse is not felt because of the large number of deaths and people injured but at the fact he maintains that it was the army who was fired at. I also feel that he has added a significant amount of information to back up his own argument, he is exaggerating upon the truth. For example he says:
“ We were also petrol bombed, and some acid, in fact, was poured on us from the top of the Flats.”
It appears to me that he is adding more and more pieces of evidence like this just as they occur to him. He says that acid was poured on them, but who’s to say it really was acid it is just as likely to have been some form of bleach or even just water.
Source G is also an eyewitness account but this time it is made by Father Bradley, a Catholic priest. It differs greatly in content to source F in that it defends the Irish protesters. Father Bradley believes that every Irish civilian was innocent and it was the paratroopers that acted violently and indiscriminately, he believes it was a ‘ massacre’. He says:
“ I was administering the last rites to a boy of about 15 who had been shot by the soldiers in Rossville Street.”
This shows that he is trying to use emotion to persuade us to his way of thinking. However, just like source F this is a very biased interpretation from a certain persons point of view, both are trying to defend the side they believe is right. For this reason neither piece of evidence should be taken on its own, a wider range of sources is necessary.
Having said this, it does not mean that neither source is useful. Although the accounts hold totally contrasting views both portray what happened on Bloody Sunday from the views of different groups of people. We know that both sources hold some element of truth. For example some would say that when source G says ‘ shot indiscriminately’ it is totally correct as it has be proven that some people were shot with their hands in the air and there is also the issue of soldier H who shot two more rounds of ammunition then he was issued, not only did he do this but he did it recklessly with no aim or targets. However others would agree with source F when it says ‘ we came under fire’ as at least one civilian was seen with what looked like a gun.
Although both sources are useful in stating some clear facts, it must always be considered that if both are discussing the same day and the same set of events, why do they differ so greatly. The answer is obvious, personal opinion, position in society, upbringing, nationality etc. All these factors play an important part in explaining why there is so much intentional bias shown in both sources.
In my opinion source F is more useful as evidence about Bloody Sunday. I say this because source G is the impressions of just one man; it does not possess all the facts. As sincere as Father Bradley is in what he says, he cannot possibly have seen everything that went on, on the day. For example, just because he didn’t see or hear any shooting it doesn’t mean it didn’t take place it just may have been elsewhere.
I feel that source F is significant as Colonel Wilford is the man who would feed back information to the British government. If this is what he is saying then this is what they are going to believe, they do not accept the views of the protesters. Source F, therefore gives a good idea of the general feeling in Britain after the events of Bloody Sunday and of the position of the British Government. For this reason I believe to be more useful.
Another point I think is relevant to this question is that when determining how useful a piece of evidence is it must be remembered that it depends greatly on the questions asked. If you ask the question:
“ What are the opinions of the Irish protesters?”
You will receive a well formulated answer but if you ask the question:
“What was the cause of Bloody Sunday?”
You will receive a very confused response as there are so many groups with different views and there is no proof to determine either way. Sources F and G are prime examples of this, neither Father Bradley or Colonel Wilford are going to back down, they may have too much to lose and will do whatever they can to prove they are right.
To arrive at as balanced an interpretation of the events of Bloody Sunday as possible and to try to reconcile the opposing viewpoints of sources F and G it is necessary to consult a wide range of sources. I have done so, taking care to examine all sides. I find the following points helpful in developing my understanding of the events and in assessing the usefulness of sources F and G.
According to Simon Winchester of the Guardian:
“ I do not think, from what I saw that the IRA opened up first… even if they did, I do not think it would have justified the return of fire into crowds of people.”
Nigel Nade of the Telegraph says:
“ It was impossible to tell who fired the first shots.”
In The Times Brian Cashinella says:
“ I think there was at least one sniper … I was told to watch out because there was a sniper reported in the attic of a three-story building. As far as I know he never materialised.”
It seems to me that the truth will never be known because of the great amount of confusion portrayed in the eyewitness reports. Sources F and G simply fit into the pattern of confusion and chaos.
Source H is an eyewitness account which was written by a newspaper reporter. Does this make it reliable as evidence about “Bloody Sunday”?
Source H is written for the Guardian, an English newspaper. It supports the Irish view of events. It agrees that the army acted ruthlessly with minimum provocation. The journalist’s eyewitness account stresses how he did not see any guns, nail bombs or petrol bombs. It also stresses that he was familiar with such weapons and by using the phrase “ honestly and truly” he impresses me with his sincerity. It is a cautious account and as such contrasts greatly with the certainties and passion expressed in sources F and G. However, we must bear in mind that Winchester was a left wing journalist writing in a left of centre newspaper. The Guardian is traditionally critical of the establishment but equally it has a reputation for pursuing the truth. My view of this source is therefore that it has integrity. It stands as one credible eyewitness report among many written by politically committed journalists. We must be cautious in accepting its version as the absolute truth but we can use it as one piece of a complex jigsaw that will help us reach an understanding of the events. A wide range of information needs to be studied to enable us to come to a full understanding (if this is possible) of the chaotic and tragic events. Even the government Widgery Report has been seen to be unsatisfactory and we now await the verdict of the Saville Inquiry.
Finally I would like to observe that however credible newspaper sources like this appear to be I have leaned that you should treat them carefully because they cannot present the objective truth, being one mans view point. The same is true of films and documentaries on the topic that are very persuasive in portraying events. We must remember they portray one version of events; an example of this is the recently broadcast docu-drama “Bloody Sunday” and documentaries such as “ Cutting Edge”.
Source J and K give different interpretations of the actions of the British Army on “Bloody Sunday”. Why do you think these interpretations differ?
Source J is from the Widgery Report. The Widgery Report was a special investigation ordered by the British Government after Bloody Sunday. It clearly supports the army’s version of events. It says that the soldiers only acted on instructions and only fired when once they had been shot at themselves. If they did fire, it was in accordance with their orders. There is muted criticism, however. It says that with some soldiers “firing bordered on the reckless.”
The Widgery Report became the official line of the British Government.
Source K is comments made by the Londonderry City Coroner at the inquest on the thirteen deaths. It clearly supports the side of the Irish civilians. Within his comments the coroner admits that the protesters may have been doing the wrong thing as the march was banned, but he feels this cannot be used as an excuse to back up the actions of the army. He says:
“ They were shooting innocent people …… it was sheer unadulterated murder.”
The coroner is obviously very angry and deeply judgemental, as he has been greatly affected by the events of the day.
There are many reasons as to why these two interpretations differ. First of all two different people wrote them at two different times. The Londonderry Coroner appears to have been there at the time and so he has first hand experience, he is writing about what he saw with his own eyes and the only thing that is influencing him is his personal opinion. The Widgery Report however, was written away from the action and had many factors that encouraged it to be biased towards the army. It was a report by the British Government. The Paratroops were meant to be made up of the strongest, fittest, most well trained men in the world, they were very highly praised globally. It would therefore have been impossible for the Widgery Report to state anything other than support for the army even if it was known otherwise (this is very unlikely) as this would have ruined its reputation throughout the world, it would have been made a mockery of. It is also likely that Lord Widgery being aware of the paratroops reputation did not at all expect that they would have made any mistakes or been in the wrong under any circumstances, for this reason his report may have been unintentionally biased against the Irish protesters.
Apart from representing two different viewpoints the two sources differ markedly in tone. The language of Source J is cold, analytical and precise – it is an official report. The words of Source K come from an official figure but they are the personal comments of a man deeply affected by an awful tragedy. Both, however, are valid sources of information.
The crucial point on which both versions differ is whether the paratroopers came under fire from IRA snipers and whether their response was proportionate. Catholic testimony stresses that snipers fired no bullets, the British version is that troops were provoked by snipers. As Father Bradley says:
“ I saw no one shooting at troops. If anybody had been, I would have seen it. I saw only the Army shooting.”
Contrast this with General Ford who says:
“ There’s absolutely no doubt at all that the paratroops did not open up until they’d been fired at.”
In Bradley’s words:
“ They shot indiscriminately and everywhere around them without any provocation.”
The Widgery Report says:
“ There was no breakdown in Army discipline”
Someone once said, “ The first casualty of war is truth”, I feel that the events of Bloody Sunday bear out the truth of this statement.
Study all the sources. From these sources is it possible to make an accurate judgement about what actually happened on “Bloody Sunday”?
Source E:
“ The British Army shot dead 13 unarmed civilians.”
Source F:
“ We came under fire from the bottom of the flats.”
Source G:
“ I saw no one shooting at troops … they shot indiscriminately.”
Source H:
“ I do not think that the IRA opened up first. Even if they did, I do not think it would have justified the return of fire into crowds of people.”
Source I:
“ It was impossible to tell who fired the first shot.”
Source J:
“ There was no breakdown in army discipline. At one end of the scale some soldiers showed a high degree of responsibility at the other firing bordered on the reckless.”
Source K:
“ The Army ran amok that day … they were shooting innocent people … it was sheer unadulterated murder.”
The above quotations show that it is impossible to arrive at an objective assessment of the truth surrounding these events. They are either from eyewitnesses or official reports. The author of each source is convinced of their version of events but many of them are contradictory. The only way to approach a study of Bloody Sunday is to try to take account of the vast range of contradictory evidence, and to be aware of where it comes from. Perhaps some of the most useful sources are the pictures because they do portray the historical context against which the tragedy was played out. There are no certainties away from the bald fact of thirteen dead. The rest is shrouded in controversy of which the following is just one example:
One of the dead, by name Donaghue, was searched and nothing was found on his body, only for nail bombs to be found later. This suggests that they must have been planted although Widgery did not agree with this conclusion.
In the chaos of that day people were confused, frightened, in a state of panic. They weren’t thinking straight, discipline may have broken down amongst the protesters so that what started as a peaceful protest became at least in part, a riot. Military orders may not have been given clearly.
Surely therefore the only way to the truth is by trying to learn from as many different sources as possible and trying to arrive at our own conclusion. Government reports are of little help; Widgery could not condemn the army, as at the time this would have been politically unacceptable. It will be difficult for the Saville Enquiry to exonerate the army because the political climate has changed and the force is with republicans today.
It seems to me that mistakes were made on all sides. It was wrong to use the paratroopers, an elite fighting force not used to crowd control. Equally the idea that the protest march could pass off peacefully was perhaps fanciful. Mistakes were made by the leaders of both sides as well as by the ordinary people and soldiers caught up in the tragedy.
