The Republicans of Northern Ireland are seen by some to be determined to humiliate the British authorities by demanding an independent investigation, which is still on going today.
Until recently, the British Government has always accepted the view of the British Army, shown in the ‘Widgery Report’, that its soldiers had simply fired in self-defence after being fired at by IRA gunmen. Nationalists claim that the British soldiers were unprovoked and opened fire either in response to some imaginary threat or, as a deliberate act of violence
The two sides give a different view because of who they are and what they want. The only known truth is that the British government sent troops to Northern Ireland to control the violence between Protestants and Catholics.
Whether they did that or not, once in Northern Ireland, the British army quickly became a target for IRA rebel attacks. It therefore was appropriate for the British authorities to support the accounts of the soldiers policing the march who claimed they acted in self-defence. They viewed themselves as ‘carrying out their duties as a peacekeeping force’, and blame the IRA terrorists, who had already carried out many attacks on the Ulster Constabulary and British Army in Northern Ireland.
Nationalists, especially Sinn Fein and the IRA, regarded the British Army as an Army of ‘occupation’. In their view, the British Army's presence in Ireland was itself an act of aggression so in their eyes the Nationalist community had every right to protest against it. Their interpretation of Bloody Sunday is that the soldiers’ response to the marchers was the act of an aggressive invasion force trying to put down legal protest against an illegal occupation of Ireland. It reflects their view that Republicans were not simply terrorists, but occupied in a justifiable armed struggle against British aggression.
In the Widgery report the government claimed, “ Each soldier was his own judge of whether he had identified a gunman.” A Catholic priest at the scene claimed that he saw no one shooting at troops. He claimed that he saw the British Army shoot without selecting targets, “it was a massacre.” Due to his religious tendency one would expect him not to make up such a statement, however someone writing a report concluding the true actions of Bloody Sunday would have to question the priest’s reliability, because like many others present at Bloody Sunday there is the possibility of a one sided or biased view. The report went onto state “some soldiers showed high degrees of responsibility, [some] firing bordered at the reckless.” Part of Source A supports the military claim that soldiers simply responded when they came under fire. One former soldier stated how the so-called new evidence was being brought up, but the nail bombs and acid bombs he claimed were used against them were not mentioned. He made a valid point that thousands of people had been on the streets of Derry that day, and that if they had been firing so indiscriminately as people have said, then why were there no women and children killed?
Several prominent Nationalists were at the scene and claim to be eyewitnesses to the British army's aggression, but it is questionable as to whether their version of events can be trusted without independent evidence. Source K for example reflects the idea of the soldiers shooting everywhere around them without any provocation. The paratrooper responsible for shooting Damien Donaghy, stated he had “intended to shoot dead” a man he was “convinced was a nail bomber.” However he admitted he “could have shot the wrong man” or that one of the shots he had fired hit Mr. Donaghy “by accident”. Damien Donaghy, 15 at the time of Bloody Sunday’s events, denies that he was carrying any nail bombs or other weapons, but was without doubt shot in the thigh in Derry’s bog side during the civil rights march on the day soldiers shot dead 13 Catholic men and boys who were said to be unarmed. Source B supports his view as it weakens claims about supposed nail and acid bombs being used, due to new forensic evidence suggesting that the Widgery reports findings could have been caused by contamination such as emissions from car exhausts.
When two groups oppose each other, interpretations are bound to differ, however another cause for the difference in interpretation is that because Bloody Sunday happened 31 years ago, all the buildings are different now and the place itself cannot be used as evidence to support either side’s statements. Source I is therefore an example of a valid piece of evidence as it shows a reconstruction of Derry’s bog side and can portray the bog side as it was, which is needed to support peoples accounts.
Interpretations may differ because people hear, see and experience things differently and so for example a gun being fired by a soldier could have triggered other soldiers to open fire if they had cause to believe it was a civilian or member of the IRA.
Currently, the only people who know the truth are those who carried and used weapons on that terrible day and their commanders, both British Army officers, possibly acting on the orders of the British government, or the IRA leadership. This is why the “Saville Inquiry” has been set up by the British government as part of the current peace process to try to find out the truth behind Bloody Sunday.
