Primary Source: Widgery Report

The Widgery Report, conducted on behalf of the British government to investigate Bloody Sunday, is technically a secondary source since it is a recounting of what actually happened on that specific day. However, since it was published in 1972, only a few months after Bloody Sunday, and since its conclusions are somewhat controversial to the truth as we know it today, I am going to consider it a primary source. In looking at the Widgery Report, my intentions are to see how its conclusions are biased, also how they could have antagonized the nationalist community in Northern Ireland to join the IRA.

The summary of conclusions of the Report provides a great and concise understanding of Widgery believed to have happened on Bloody Sunday. His number one point states, “There would have been no deaths in Londonderry on 30 January if those who organised the illegal march had not thereby created a highly dangerous situation in which a clash between demonstators and the security forces was almost inevitable” (CAIN). In this statement alone, Widgery already proved that he was not sympathetic to the nationalist or Catholic cause occurring in Northern Ireland. Though the civil rights march was illegal, it was considered a peaceful one before the shooting. No evidence has indicated otherwise. The peaceful march (that may have broken a law which infringed upon Catholics rights) was by no means a clear sign that violence would ensue. To state that violence was inevitable is to be cliché; to criticize a march that promoted humanitarianism for Catholics is to prove that sympathy or compassion for the Catholic cause is not apparent. Widgery’s use of the word “hooligan” also seems to show that he was not sympathetic towards Catholics or nationalists (CAIN).

The second theme I saw within the Widgery Report was how its conclusions could have sparked even more fury in the Catholic/nationalist community and pushed them to join the IRA. Point ten’s controversial statement most likely aroused some tension from the nationalist crowd: “None of the deceased or wounded is proved to have been shot whilst handling a firearm or bomb…but there is a strong suspicion some others had been firing weapons or handling bombs in the course of the afternoon and that yet others had been closely supporting them” (CAIN). Two things can be taken out of this: one, the fact that Widgery declared himself that the victims did not have firearms on them; they did not shoot at the soldiers who shot at them. Yet the soldiers were still acquitted from any crime they committed against these victims. This would (and did) cause outrage among the nationalists; justice was not served for the victims. To make matters even worse, the second important note of the quote is that Widgery hints that someone must have been handling explosives or firearms, and that those who were shot most likely were supporting them. First, Widgery states that the victims were innocent of having weapons but acquits their murderers, giving them no justice; then he insults the victims by implying that they most likely were involved in some foul deed, or else they never would have been shot upon in the first place. It is not hard to imagine the kind of dissent the victims’ families and friends would feel after hearing or reading this report. And thus, it is not hard to understand why so many of these dissented people would join a group that promised true retribution which the British government obviously would not.

So, needless to say, the Widgery Report is going to be a valuable tool in my analysis on Bloody Sunday’s significance in IRA recruitment. It provides a wealth of information that I am eager to use! 

The Rt. Hon. Lord Widgery, O.B.E., T.D. Report of the Tribunal: Appointed to Inquire into the Events on Sunday, 30 January 1972, which Led to Loss of Life in Connection with the Procession in Londonderry on That Day. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1972. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/widgery.htm.