Sources B and D most definitely disagree with the interpretation. Source B is a cartoon by David Low published in the Evening Standard on 8th June 1940. It shows the British and French soldiers on boats evacuating Dunkirk whilst being bombed. Meanwhile Source D is an extract of the commentary about the Evacuation of Dunkirk from Movietone News. It tells us that the evacuation was a success and that many different types of boats helped bring off the gallant British and French troops betrayed by the desertion of the Belgian king. The news real would a documentary that would boost morale and show the Dunkirk Spirit.
Both sources are British and were used as a form of propaganda, meaning that they were likely to be viewed from a successful point of view to boost morale. The information the government gives would be positive rather than negative about Dunkirk. Therefore making the sources limited as you don’t get the whole perspective of the evacuation of Dunkirk.
Source B is useful because the cartoon shows us that many soldiers escaped and with different kinds of boats. However it is also limited because it is a secondary source and was under censorship. Also we only see one aspect of the evacuation meaning we do not get a full overview.
Source D is useful to our enquiry because it tells us that many different boats such as steamers, yachts and rowing boats helped out to bring the gallant Bri and Fre troops. However it is limited because the NR ignored the military defeat and that all of the equipment were left behind.
From our own knowledge we can say that source B is accurate and reliable because we know that 350,000 troops were evacuated. With Source D we know it is accurate and reliable because we the documentarily was directly from the government
Overall the 2 sources disagree with the statement
Source I disagrees with the statement as well but does shows signs that the evacuation may have been a disaster. Source I is a painting about the withdrawal from Dunkirk, painted by the official British war artist Charles Cundall in June 1940. From the painting we can see bombings in the background, pleasure boats on the beaches and large number of troops on the beaches. There are also navy vessels out in the sea. As Cundall is an official war artist, he would have been appointed by the government, so you are not sure whether this was painted for propaganda purposes or that this was what Cundall had seen. As presumably he should have been there at the time, but we are not sure. If Cundall was not there, then Cundall may have had no choice but to portray Dunkirk as a success because the government would have given information that would be positive. In the painting the evacuation seems to be portrayed better than it actually is and that it was not a failure. Therefore this source does link in with source A, in that you get the sense of a moral victory which was supported by Winston Churchill view in source A. A ‘miracle of deliverance’ which both sources have and also turning defeat through to victory by the means of propaganda. In some ways source I is limited as the painting could be portrayed to boost-morale and show the unity of Dunkirk, the Dunkirk Spirit. It is heroic, being evacuated under fire, thus creating a particular image.
From our own knowledge we can say the source is useful because we know around 350,000 men were evacuated and clearly in the painting there are vast amount of troops being evacuated. In the middle of the painting there is a sunken boat, which could have been sunk by the GAF, as we know the GAF would be bombing the beaches. This is useful as the evacuation wasn’t all that it seemed, there were major problems for the British and French. Therefore from what we know we and see from the painting we can say the source is reliable
Sources K and F have mixed reactions with the evacuation from Dunkirk, they all show their views. Source F is an extract from J Jackson’s The Fall of France: The invasion of 1940 published in 2003. Jackson tells us that the French delayed too long in preparing their troops and that the British hadn’t fully helped out France. While source K is an extract from an article by J.Burn in the History magazine Hindsight. Burn tells us that the evacuation was catastrophic but that it was portrayed consistently as a huge success. The source tells us the evacuation was a disaster but a propaganda victory.
Source F was written in 2003, so Jackson had time to analyse the information and it was written in hindsight. Therefore he has a clear overview of the evacuation, has access to extra information that would have been censored at the time, meaning the source should be reliable and useful. Source F is useful to our enquiry
Source K was written in 2008 and so just like with source F, J.Burn wrote in hindsight and so would have access to all records and should therefore make an accurate and reliable account. ‘
Source K is useful in telling us that even though Dunkirk was catastrophic the image of little ships and seamen pulling together were exploited in British propaganda. Also it tells that valuable equipment had been left behind and that troops were retreating by Luftwaffe gunfire.
Both sources are limited because the sources may have been affected by hindsight and that they may have had a particular view about the evacuation. In source K J.Burn is offering opinion rather than fact making the source limited. Whereas with source F
Sources C and E agree the statement, saying the evacuation from Dunkirk was a disaster
Source C is a photograph taken by a German soldier of the beaches of Dunkirk a few hours after the evacuation. The source shows many rifles were left behind in the evacuation. Source E is an extract from Brian Horrock’s autobiography A Full Life (1960). Horrock served in WW1 and WW2 and was a brigadier at the evacuation of Dunkirk. In the source Horrock tells us that the retreat from Dunkirk was a disaster. He felt the army had let the Belgians down
Source was taken by a German soldier at the time, it is a primary source. It was just after the evacuation had happened and the soldier probably took it out of interest. The source is useful to our enquiry because this shows that much equipment was left behind the evacuation. From our own knowledge we know that 475 tanks, 1000 heavy guns and 400 anti-tank guns were abandoned and therefore suggesting that Dunkirk was a major disaster for Britain and France. This also shows that the men weren’t even able to carry their rifles when retreating, probably meaning that the evacuation was a complete disaster. If rifles were left behind you get the feeling anything heavier or bigger was left behind too. However the source is limited because this shows only one aspect and show the troops evacuating or what sort of ships were used by the British to evacuate the troops. Overall the source is reliable because it was not for publication, not from the government and so not for propaganda either. There was to perspective for the photo, just another person who owned a camera taking a photo.
Whereas in source E, Horrock was there at the time so it is a primary source however he wrote it around 20 years after Dunkirk so his memory have been distorted or his emotions have taken over his writing. He was also writing in hindsight and he knew what happened at the end as well, which may have changed the way he thought during the time. He was a Brigadier and so was in charge of many soldiers, so he must have some authority. The source is useful because it shows that troops were ashamed and exhausted, it was a complete shambles, they made a mess and shows that they were not organised. However it is limited because he was writing it 20 years after the event itself and therefore he may have changed the way he thought about Dunkirk.
Overall this source is reliable. The source is useful to us because there is a lot of information and the source agrees with the question.