Historical Interpretations of Bloody Sunday

Historical Interpretations of Bloody Sunday

There are lots of different views on Bloody Sunday about what actually

happened on the 30th of January 1972. The arguments are all down to

who shot first, the British Army or the IRA. The result of the

shooting was that thirteen innocent people were killed. An inquiry was

carried out by Lord Widgery, he criticised the shooting by the troops

but the report accepted that the army was fired upon. This report did

not please everyone and people thought that it was a cover up of what

really happened. Twenty six years later in 1998 a new inquiry was

announced by Prime Minister Tony Blair. The inquiry looks at both

sides of what happened and is interviewing everyone who was involved

in the event and to uncover the truth on what happened on the 30th

January 1972 known as Bloody Sunday.

Source A is a newspaper article from The Daily Mail printed on Friday

17th September 1999. The article is written by Paul Eastham who is the

Deputy Political Editor. Paul Eastham writes about what has been

happening in the inquiry and some of the problems which have come up.

The new inquiries on the events of the Bloody Sunday shootings are

being investigated by Lord Saville. The former Paratroopers and their

supporters were annoyed when a new forensic report was released. The

paratroopers believe that the report would change the public opinion

against them and even end up with people being put on trial. The

report was greeted with triumph from the Nationalist politicians and

the families who have longed for a new investigation. The Nationalists

wanted a new investigation because it was their fellow citizens who

...

... middle of paper ...

...unday had just happened. People may argue that medical science has

improved so that they can look at the pictures which were taken and

have a clearer idea about what happened than the scientists at the

time. Now that the event was twenty to thirty years ago it is harder

to find new evidence and to make a conclusion there are always people

saying that it is wrong and some evidence contradicts another piece of

evidence, so it is hard to find out which one is right. Some of the

evidence could be bias for example a Paratrooper wouldn’t say that he

didn’t see anyone with a gun, and he just shot innocent people. Also

any Irish witnesses at the time would likely be supportive of the IRA

because they were Catholics and would likely be supportive of the

IRA’s cause and so wouldn’t want to support the claims of British

Soldiers.