Bloody Sunday The events that took place on Bloody Sunday, 30th January 1972 have been discussed frequently and certain aspects of the event highly debated. The event began after an illegal march took place in the center of Derry; N. Ireland; the police and government banned the march as it was thought it would provoke violence. The march was lead by Catholic supporters who were demonstrating for Catholic rights. As the march approached the city center where Army barricades were set up, the first shot of many was fired. The question of who was to blame was then introduced, with neither the Army nor the Catholic marchers accepting responsibility. Thirteen people were found dead after the incident with 13 others left injured. With neither side accepting blame for the incident and instead blaming the incident on the opposition, the question of who is to blame is a difficult one. It is thought that the previous violence of the summer of 1969, particularly the Battle of Bogside, in which Catholics violently fought with the RUC and B Specials, provoked the introduction of the British Army. The role of the Army was supposedly to keep the peace, defending the Catholic population from Protestant attacks. The British also reintroduced the use of internment in August
1971, which allowed the government to arrest and imprison anyone without trial. It was thought by some that the IRA wanted a major gun battles. Another story is that the Catholics were simply holding another peaceful protest. About a week before Bloody Sunday, a two hour gunfight to place at Forkhill in County Armagh between British troops and the IRA. About 1000 shots were fired. Because of all the violence of the previous weeks, which was blamed on the IRA, the Protestant unionist’s felt that a tougher approach must be made to stop further violence from occurring. After Bloody Sunday ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
1971, which allowed the government to arrest and imprison anyone without trial. It was thought by some that the IRA wanted a major gun battles. Another story is that the Catholics were simply holding another peaceful protest. About a week before Bloody Sunday, a two hour gunfight to place at Forkhill in County Armagh between British troops and the IRA. About 1000 shots were fired. Because of all the violence of the previous weeks, which was blamed on the IRA, the Protestant unionist’s felt that a tougher approach must be made to stop further violence from occurring. After Bloody Sunday had taken place, the question of who was to blame for firing the first shot. Different accounts of the day can give us an idea of what happened, although the evidence isn’t conclusive. The official statement released by the army and approved by Lieutenant General Sir Harry stated that, “The paratroopers came under nail bomb attack and a fusillade of fifty to eighty rounds.” Although the statement simply offers the Paratroopers version of what happened, it simply cannot be trusted as it is undoubtedly biased towards the acts of the Army, however, as the other statements are just as reliable, it may or may not be true. The statement also states that “fire continued to be returned only at identified targets.” This statement can also be highly debated as thirteen people were found dead and many more injured, many of which posed no threat to the army, therefore if the statement is true, It must mean that the injured victims were only shot at through inaccuracy. As well as that, the statement also reads “a total of well over 200 rounds was fired indiscriminately in the general direction of the soldiers.” Meaning that the Army claimed the protestors started the gunfight and that the soldiers were simply returning fire, this section of the statement is also likely to be biased and may or may not be true. Simon Winchester’s views of Bloody Sunday are taken from a different perspective, his report of the event was written for the Guardian, a paper that is known to support Catholicism. In his report of the series of events, he claims that the paratroopers arrived in armoured cars and started firing, unprovoked, at the crowds of Catholic protestors. Like the statement released by the army, the article written is undoubtedly biased and can be just as trusted. Therefore the two statements contradict each other, leaving no solid evidence and the question of who fired the first shot still debatable. Further views, this time from Catholic priest, Father Bradley also offer little evidence in terms of finding who fired the first shot. Father Bradley claimed that “I saw no one shooting at troops” “I only saw the army shooting.” As Father Bradley is a Catholic priest, his version of the series of events which occurred, can also not be trusted as he is blaming the entire incident on the acts of the British Army, claiming that they were unprovoked and shot “indiscriminately.” Further film footage cannot confirm who fired the first shot either, as the videos I have seen could have been edited both visually and with sound, there is also no video footage of where the firing started, although what it does show is both sides showing hostility. The British Army can be seen firing shots into the crowds and the Catholic protestors can be seen throwing stones and smoke bombs at the British Army, although who started the violence still cannot be proven by the evidence. Because of the different statements from either sides contradicting each other and the lack of solid evidence, the question of who fired the first shot still cannot be answered, although certain aspects of the event can be proven. Already new information has been revealed which has altered some previous perceptions, although many paratroopers are unwilling to give evidence and as the incident took place in 1972 the newer evidence may prove unreliable. For example, new information taken from a secret memo by Major General Robert Ford reveals that he believed “The minimum force necessary to achieve a restoration of law and order is to shoot selected ring leaders.” Although this confirms that the paratroopers were ordered to shoot to kill, it does not explain the deaths of the innocent civilians, if they were actually innocent. Because of all the different views of the event and different accounts of what happened, it has proved difficult to reach an agreement on what happened on Bloody Sunday and as the event goes further back in History, the evidence provided will become even more unreliable without a dramatic breakthrough, meaning that it is highly likely that the exact events of what happened on Black Sunday will remain unknown to those that were not present. Many factors have affected this, least of all the complexity of the event and whether or not it was intended as a peaceful protest given that the march was declared illegal and therefore should never have taken place. Also given the depth of emotion on the day, as well as after, as the paratroopers were left in a difficult position, Brian Faulkner wanting a tough approach and Catholics protesting against internment; which was declared illegal by the European court, lead to a very aggressive situation with both sides having significant reasons for violence. Therefore certainty can never really be considered and whether or not an agreement will be reached on what happened on Bloody Sunday is debatable.
