The events that occurred in Derry on January 30th 1972 became known as 'Bloody Sunday'. Why have these events produced such different historical interpretations?

Modern World Study: Conflict in Ireland

Question 2

Target: Why interpretations Differ

The events that occurred in Derry on January 30th 1972 became known as ‘Bloody Sunday’. Why have these events produced such different historical interpretations? Refer to sources A to C and any other interpretations of the events from your studies to help you in your answer. (10 marks)

In this essay I’m study two interpretations of the events that occurred on Jan 30th 1972 that, because of the tragic events that occurred within that day, became known as ‘Bloody Sunday’. Bloody Sunday or BS, started out as a what was meant to be peaceful march by Catholic civil rights marchers but ended up with 14 dead, shot by the Para regiment of the British Army. The long standing debate and unsolved investigation is who was to blame for the shootings. On one side they say that the Para’s were reckless and fired on innocent marchers. On the other hand they say that some of the marches were responsible for firing weapons and dealing with nail bombs ect which resolved in the Para’s defending themselves and shooting dead 14 marchers, who could have been involved in the IRA. The marchers marched within the Bogside and Creggen, which is within free Derry, an IRA run area of Northern Ireland.

There have been two large-scale investigations into the events of Bloody Sunday. One by Widgery (1972) and the other by Lord Saville (1999).

Widgery’s investigation was held directly after the Jan 30th. Because of this immediate timing his final conclusion is said to be not as full and thoughtful as it could have been because he has only had a short amount of time and this would result in limited findings and a restricted amount of interpretations and interviews. He also does not have enough time to consider causes of Bloody Sunday. Saville on the other hand has run his investigation since 1999 and, has said to have had ‘time to find the truth’. He has interviewed many people and looked at the causes of the march including that of the catholic fight to stop internment and the right to regain catholic civil rights. Saville has taken the time to interview all paratroopers who were present. He, unlike Widgery, has made his report accessible to the public.

This is a preview of the whole essay

It has been argued that the Widgery report was pre-determined to have found the army not guilty. This is because Widgery needed to calm the situation and if the army were found guilty the Catholics would turn against Britain and the government and there would be chaos on the streets of N.Ireland. If the Para’s were to be found guilty their status as ‘peace keepers’ would be looked down at and undermined. Saville, however, was the complete opposite. The Daily mail say the Saville enquiry was set up to please Sinn Fein and the Catholics. Saville was also from a different political background, which was pro labour, who wanted to increase the peace in N.Ireland. Saville felt compelled to review Widgery and offered a more balanced judgement to aid peace process. If the army were found guilty and Catholics were innocent this would relive the tension within N.Ireland. The Catholics have still not forgotten the events of Jan 30th and say it’s a cause of resentment against the British Government. It’s caused young Catholics to join IRA and bomb places like Manchester and London. Saville’s intentions were to stop that and resolve the situation.

Widgery’s enquiry was held after the event and therefore his enquiry’s did not have the technological advances of Saville’s. For example in his enquiry he performs tests to show that the Catholics who were shot had had lead contaminated hands. He says ‘there was a strong suspicion of Catholics firing arms’, John Martin, who carried out the tests, it could have been because of either the lead from the Para’s hands, car exhausts or lead from the army vehicles. This questions the reliability of Widgery’s enquiry. Saville has investigated the matter for almost 30 years after the actual events and because of this has had increasing advancements in forensic technology throughout. With this he has refined Widgery’s lead test to point where he is almost certain that the Catholics were not carrying or firing weapons.

Another factor that increases the reliability of the final verdict of each investigation is the number and range of interviewees. Widgery has only interviewed a small number of people because of the short time he conducted his investigation. Saville, on the other hand, has had the time to conduct interviews with all the Para’s that were present on Bloody Sunday, but has said to have only done interviews with either the Army or pro army supporters. One of his pro army interviewees was Tory MP Gerald Howarth, who Aldershot constituency covers the Para’s base. This immediately will show support for the Para’s.

The three sources that I’ve collected most of my information from are two newspaper articles and a final summary of the conclusions of the Widgery Tribunal. These sources differ and therefore can alter the final interpretations given by them. Source A is a newspaper article from the Daily Mail written on Fri 17th September 1999. Immediately, just from the newspaper that its written it I can get the impression that it could be a pro army point of view, favouring the innocence of the Para’s. I know this because the Daily Mail is a Conservative and will be biased towards a conservative and pro army point of view. Within the article it challenges Saville’s new forensic enquiry. The enquiry states, “There is no credible evidence that the 14 people killed by the army in Londonderry in January 1942 had been handling firearms.” The article goes on to find that the Para’s are furious about the findings and say that it is a “small and misleading part of the full picture.”

Source B is another newspaper article, but this time written by the Guardian on the same day as the previous article. The headline of this article reads “This backs up what we have been saying all these years: the victims were innocent”, this shows immediate Catholic support and what will turn out to be a pro Saville enquiry. Within this article it goes on to merit that the killing were a massacre and deserved a murder prosecution. Evidence to back this up is Lord Saville’s enquiry that rules out Widgery’s investigations that show that the victims were carrying weapons. Other evidence shows that one of the victims, Jim Wray, 22, was shot twice whilst lying on the ground from less that 2 metres away, this concludes the murder prosecution. The article also goes on to show that forensic reports from Kevin O’Calliaghan and Dick Shepard, prove that one of the victims, Barney McGuigan, 41 and father of two, was shot in the back of the head by a ‘Dumb Dumb’ bullet. Dumb dumb bullets were banned and are illegal because they fragment on impact.

The final source, C, is a Series of extracts from the conclusions of the Widgery tribunal. It contains eleven statements that give a balanced overview of the events of Bloody Sunday. Widgery is slanted towards the army’s innocence because many of the statements within are pro army. For example “There is no reason to suppose that the soldiers would have opened fire if they had not been fired upon first”.

In conclusion to my essay I can see that the Saville enquiry finds the Para’s guilty of murder on Bloody Sunday. Lord Widgery finds the Para’s innocent because of tests that show that the Catholics were firing weapons. It also has to be said that he was pre determined to portray this outcome to settle the situation in Northern Ireland. Even though there are two points of views there are certain facts that cannot be changed with new enquires or modern technological advances. These are that 14 catholic marchers, who were marching against Internment and Catholic discrimination, were shot dead by a British, peacekeeping, Para troop regiment.