A civil rights protest march took place on 30th January 1972, though the marchers were confined by the authorities to the Bogside and Creggan areas of Londonderry to prevent possible hooliganism or riot damage taking place in the city centre. The Army was on its guard about the marchers intentions and had erected barriers to confine them. Stones were thrown and insults directed at the soldiers. The Army gave orders to arrest troublemakers and then shots were fired which resulted in the death of 13 Catholic men and the wounding of 13 more.
The Army was blamed for these killings, accused of firing at unarmed protesters. However, a number of soldiers and their commander insisted they were fired at and were under attack. A report of the Lord Widgery inquiry in April 1972 implicated four of the dead marchers as possibly firing weapons, though no conclusive evidence was provided. In August 1973, the Londonderry City Coroner, Major Hubert O’Neill said unreservedly that the Army had committed ‘sheer unadulterated murder’.
The tragedy of Bloody Sunday has become a vivid example to Nationalists of the bloody, oppressive British presence in Ireland. The Saville enquiry into the events of 30th January 1972 was established after campaigns by the victim’s families and much of the sources A, B and C are all linked to this enquiry.
Source A is an article from a British newspaper that is usually sympathetic to the military. The suggestion that the army was at fault on 30 January 1972 is firmly rebutted. The Daily Mail is known as a conservative newspaper supporting the military, which one would expect to defend their cause
Source B is an account of the Bloody Sunday enquiry, suggesting that the army were to blame for the events that occurred, written in The Guardian newspaper. The author describes recent scientific evidence that those killed were posing no threat, as claimed by the Army.
Source C is a transcript of a witness witness recalling how he overheard soldiers talk of “clearing the Bog”. The account is only taken from one person. The source may be unreliable for giving a sound historical interpretation of Bloody Sunday, though the statement is vivid and credible.
Source 12b is a quotation from a British paratrooper colonel. It records that violence was used against the British and implies that troops were not the first to fire, which provides justification for the Army’s actions from a senior officer.
However, Source 12c gives a very different interpretation. It’s a quote from a Catholic priest, who can be assumed to be sympathetic to the protest marchers. The source describes how Father Bradley did not see protesters shooting at the army, but did witness the British troops “indiscriminately” shooting at the rioters.
Source 12d is from The Guardian newspaper. The writer explicitly states that he did not see any weapons on the side of the IRA and therefore that the army were to blame for shootings. This may be one of the more objective accounts of the events provided by the selected sources; given the writer has no obvious cause to align himself with either side.
12e, from the Daily Telegraph, is inconclusive and does not blame any side for the firings.
Source 12f is from Lord Widgery, leader of a British enquiry into the events in Derry soon after the killings. The source does not say which side fired first, but does suggest that the army at times “bordered on the reckless” which may provide a clue to his feelings on the outcomes of the shootings.
Source 12g is from the Londonderry coroner. The coroner says the army “ran amok that day”...”Shooting innocent people”. He blames the army for the firing and murder of 13 Catholic men and injury of a further 13. His source is historically close to the events, close to the community, and of a Protestant and military background. This source is particularly revealing.
Source 12h is an extract from a book written 15 years after the firings by Patrick Bishop and Eamonn Mallie that seeks to explain the behaviour of the IRA. The source is says there is no way that the rioters could have shot first.
The views expressed are divided, as many of the authors either come from a background which would defend the army or from a nationalist background, usually meaning that the source would defend the protestors.
Aside from the polarity of background and purpose, the time of writing should be taken into account when examining these sources. Those that appear to have no clear sources of bias may be more useful to the historian in evaluating the event in question.