The information about the deaths of soldiers on the beaches and the air raids in the source above is backed up by source 3. This consists of two photographs which depict the beaches and seas of Dunkik. They show bodies and debris scattered over the beach the distribution of the debris presnt seems to portray the disunification of the army that has retreated. there are sunken ships, and does not seem to be any kind of organised structure to facilitate evacuation. this leads us to the conclusion that the troops merely left without any planning or regard for anything but their own position on a ship. As this source consists of pictures, it is unable to be untruthfull or baised (as mentioned later), unless the pictures have been altered or faked. But this is highly unlikely and so they are usualy considered to be relaible sources of information. As with most photographic evidence, this provides a very detailed view of Dunkirk, and it is obvious from this picture it seems to have been a disoranised ad rushed evacuation, leaving things which are not essential, and not not making an effort to help those who are left behind. one of the other sources which shows the disordered and panicked nature of the retreat is the account of Charles Lightoller, a retired sailor who took his yacht sundowner to Dunkirk, this source displays the desperation of troops to get onto a ship. The extract from Atkins, Dunkirk: Pillar of fire shows the lack of co-operation when the troops are asked to helpand also a lack of organisatio or leadership. From these sources we can see that there were times at which the BEF was disorderly and rather panicked, and as a result not many people were evacuated. As time passed the evacuation became more efficient, around the third day order was restored to a relativley normal state allowing faster and more efficient evacuation of troops. I know this because of the figures about the numbers of troops evacuated, which is low on the 1st and 2nd days but is considerably larger on the 3rd day rising from 17,804 on the 2nd to 47,310 men evacuated on the 3rd day.
Another aspect of Dunkirk which could be atributed to defeat would be the loss of military equipment, ammunition and supplies. This is very important because weapons are a crucial to the victory of any major war. during the evacuation at Dunkirk and the preceeding retreat, many armoured vehicles and amunition sores were lost to the Germans. A source which shows this aspect of Dunkirk is source 2 which consists of two pictures of the evacuated beaches at Dunkirk. The pictres show the lines of tanks on the beaches which have been used as a makeshift pier, and the scattered debris made up of tanks and vehicles. It shows the haste with wich the BEF was evacuated, and the sheer volume of equipment which was left behind. These are photograhs, and so, cannot be baised, untruthfull or misinformed, and they were also taken at the time. This makes them eccelent for historical interpritations. There is however a very serious flaw in using photographs to base a view of a event on. The person with the camera is responsible for choosing the area to photograph, and if he is baised in any way he may choose to photograph a certain area, for example; he may choose an area of particularly concentrated debris or vice versa. I am not aware of the origin of these photographs, but they were most likely either taken by a reporter for a newspaper, or a German photographer, as I believe it is unlikely that a soldier of the BEF would have stayed behind to take a photo. If this was the case, then i believe both parties would have wished to take a picture of the worst looking area of beach. In the case of the reporter, he would have wished to make the pictures look as dramatic as possible in order to cause most impact (and probably fetch a higher price). If the photographs were taken by a German photographer, then they would probably have been for the purpose of propoganda and would be extremely baised. Though the pictures are most probably baised, they are still usefull as thay do give an idea of what one area of the beach looked like. I know that during the retreat to Dunkirk and the following evacuation the BEF was forced to abandon 63,879 vehicles, and over 500,000 tonns of stores and ammunition. Based on this, it is highly probable that the photographs could be representative of the majority of the beaches in the area. This is highly important evidence and would sway the argument toward Dunkirk being a defeat.
Another source which focuses on the same aspects as the above source is the extract from Basil Collier's History of the Secod World War : The Defence of the United Kingdom (1957). this extract concentrates mainly on the fact that the army lost a vast amount of its equipment, and is the only source to mention the what the situation would be like after the elation of Dunkirk had worn off and troops needed weapons. The source uses the metaphor of "the narrow escape of the flower of the British army" in order to convey the fragility and preciousness of the army at this point. The first paragraph is devoted to commenting on the various military and personel losses and goes into detail about the casualties and amounts of specific supplies which were left behind. The figures that are given however are very vague and only roughly fit in with my own knowledge of the true events. He writes that "more than 224,000 officers and men came back from Dunkirk and its neighbours towards the end of may and early june, and ultimatley another 144,000 from ports further west" this does not fit in with my knowlede of events, as i know that 338,226 troops were evacuated in total. This leads to doubt about the credibility of this piece of evidece. Although he has no reason to lie, and being a popuar historian he would want to protect his reputation and give as balanced a view as possible. This leads me to the conclusion that he was misinformed. If the information he is using is flawed, and largely untrue it means that his deductions cannot be entirely trusted. However although his information is not accurate, there is no reason to assume that the evidence is unusefull. It provides us with his own insight into the events, and because the information is close to the truth, it is probable that his deductions will be valid. The details he brings up, are hghly useful as they provide new insight into the situation after the war. The second paragraph describes the situation caused by the deficiency of arms and ammunition, writing "equipment must be provided or replenished largely from new production". This source increases the importance of the loss of arms by the BEF as it puts strain on the manufacture industries. They wil hav to replace a vast amount of equipment in a relativley short amount of time, as the BEF was forced to abandon 2,472 guns and 90,000 rifles.
Another aspect of defeat might be the demoralisation of troops and civilians. We know that a large number of troops and many civilians were demoralised by the events at Dunkirk. We know that the French soldiers who returned to Britain with the BEF were severley demoralised. This view is supported by various sources including Richard Hillary, The Last Battle (1941). This source shows the British troops returning disunited and low in moral. This would suggest that Dunkirk had a very negative effect on them. Written at the ime of the war, it is primary evidence and is well informed. It shows that the BEF had been thorpughly defeated, and were returning home having run for their lives, it may show a valuable insight into the mood at the time as it was written in a very personalised way. The downfall of the source is that t may be baised, the writer may have had a very bad personal experience at Dunkik which would lead to him being bitter and unfriendly towards other soldiers. The way he writes is rater informal and this would lead you to believe that he is telling te truth.
Although many historians see Dunkik as a defeat, a great number recognise its benificial factors, and instead see it as a kind of delierance which allowed Britain to continue the war in the only way possible. The features that these historians focus on are; the large number of troops that were evacuated, which allowe the British to continue the war, the huge boost to morale that it seemed to give to the British people, this coupled with the pshycological victory led to the Dunkirk spirit and the vast boost to Winston Churchill's leadership. The survival of Britain caused a setback for Germany as it now had to fight a two fronted war There are so many reports which seem to see the good side of Dunkirk, because as the victors, historians are inclined to lean towards a posotive view of Dunkirk. It could be argued that the most important thing about deciding if dunkirk was a deliverance is the number of troops that were evacuated, allowing Britain to continue the war and vastly hinder Hitler. We know that a much larger number of troops than expected was evacuated from Dunkirk and that this was a great factor in allowing Britain to continue with the war. This was what enabed the Americans to use Britain as a point to launch the D-Day landings and effectivley end the war.
A largely important factor in Dunkirk being a deliverance or victory is the orderly way in which the troops were evacuated from the beaches. A calm evacuation would seem more like a strategical retreat, than a forced evacuation and so would make the move from Dunkirk to Britain seem planned and well thought out. We know that a large number of troops were evacuated and done so with some kind of order. This view is supported by a number of sources, such as source 6, which is made up of two pictures showing troops on the beache at Dunkirk. This source shows the troops lining up in order wading neck deep towards the boats calmly. It suggests that there was no panic or disorder and that the Britih were doing this of their ow free will and not because they were being forced to do so. The pictures show men calmly sitting on the beaches with no sign of the Luftwaffe or other kind of atack. These pictures are very usefull as they are almost certainly real (i do not think the news budget at that time would stretch to paying that number of extras), and show a wide scope of the beaches which allows a view of the situation in general rather than of a specific area. It links cosely with source 8 as they show a similar picture.
Source 8 is an artists impression of the Dunkirk evacuation by Charles Cyndall, an official war artist. The picture shows a large number of men orderly filling up small boats which then take the to larger boats. This picture would be made to show the evacuation in the best possible way as it is an official portrait, and as it is a picture and not a photograph, pieces can be easily omitted to suit the purpose of the painting. As we can see, the painting does not include any losses, this is most likely, the picture of Dunkirk that the authorities wanted the public to see. It is well informed as it is primary as the artist probably saw the beaches of Dunkirk himself. The painter would probably have been slightly baised, becuse at the time his country was at war and there was a lot of propoganda, for this reason it is easy for the painting to be influenced by the painters personal bais. This interpretation is backed up by the photographic evidence in source 6, and they are very similar, this leads me to believe that at some point in the evacuation, this was the state of affairs.
A source which depicts a calm Dunkirk is an extract from the Green Howards Gazette by General Sir Harold Franklyn Divisional Commander at Dunkirk (Nov 1962). This source, unlike the others, is a Quote from an eyewitness account. It describes the calmness of the situation at Dunkirk as being calm and almost as though it is not a part of he war, he says "never saw a corpse; there was very little shelling". This contradicts much of what i know, most other sources suggest that there was bombing and quite a few corpses. This leads me to believe that he is extremely baised. He is reporting for a newspaper, and as a military spokesman, e would want to put the best possible spin on the truth. He is very well informed in that he was present at Dunkirk, but his military position may lead him to lie slightly in orde to pu forward a more presentable view of Dunkirk to the public. As a base for a view of the nature of Dunkirk, it is quite poor. It can be used to show the vew of Dunkirk that the government wanted put forward. These interpritations may all be trthfull, but it is unlikely. I know that the Luftwaffe atacked the beaches and harbour fiercly on the 28th and 31st of may, and there was artillery bombardment almost throughout.
Another aspect of Dunkirk that could be attributed to victory is the boost to morale, along with the Pshycological victory which was propogated by Churchill, and the belief in Dunkirk spirit. A prime example of Churchill's belief in the glory of Dunkirk is in his memoirs. The second World War (1959)(source 12). This source attempts to show the unique and great nature of Dunkirk. However, he must be doubted as he was the president of the county, and to that end would want to show the country in its best light. Having said that, he is the president and would probably be well informed and would not intentionaly lie as this would discredit him and lessen his popularity. The extract is short but usefull, as it is the major governmental view of Dunkirk as it was. Churchill makes the evacuation from the beaches sound like a great victory over the Germans.
An extract from a radio show on sunday mornings by J.B. Priestley, describes the grandeur of Dunkirk, making it sound a victory. Anyone unaware of the events would be lead to believe that a great battle ad been won. He is not lying, and the primary nature of the evidence strengthens its effectivness. Priestley is a highly effective public speaker, and this talk reflects the popular mood of the nation at the time. Its main wekness is that i would probably have been very baised as it was used as propoganda to unite the nation. It links in closley with speeches chrurchill has made. Priestley was athe time, as important to propoganda as Churchill. this means that he was popular and so must have talked in a way which appealed to the audience and kept them interested.
A third aspect of Dunkirk which may be contributed to victory was the large number of troops evacuated, this allowed Britain to continue the war and forced Hitler to fight on two fronts. We know that 338,226 troops were evacuated from Dunkirk and the surrounding area over a 9 day period. This large number of troops far exceeded anyones expectations. A source from the American historian Norman Gelb in Dunkirk : The Incredible Escape,(1990) shows the importance of the survival of the BEF. It describes the extra forces which Hitler was forced to divert to fent off he British. It is a usefull source as it looks at the effects of Dunkirk in the long term. It also looks at the disadvantage Hitler faced when confronted with a two sided war, and the survival of the BEF. Gelb is an American Historian and so would have detailed knowledge and research about the events. Being American also gives him a objective vew of the situation, so he is not influenced so much by the propoganda at the time, nor does he need to give a popular view or need to worry about affecting morale. He has no reason to lie. He calls dunkirk "the beginning of the end of the Third Reich." this shows that he sees Dunkirk as playing a pivotal role in the war.
The evidence to suggest that Dunkirk was a Deliverance and to suggest it was a defeat are both strong and conflicting. It is however quit clear that it was not a victory. The BEF was forced in the decision of evacuating at Dunkirk, and only just managed to do so, "Wars are not won by evacuations". The huge number of British and Allied troops landed in Britan was more than was expected by even the most optimistic of predictions. Dunkirk was not in my opinion, a complete defeat, as a large part of the BEF and french army remained. Whether they were forced to retreat or not, in the end, Britain is uch easier to defend than France, and this allowed the British time to recover and regroup. The extra security of the troops evacuated allowed Britain to be held for long enough that Hiter was severley disadvantaged and did not have the forces he needed available to him o defeat the Russian armes. The great escape of the troops from Dunkirk provided a morale boost, without which the Americans would not have joined a mostly European war. Great amounts of ammunition and supplies were lost, but this was relativley unimportant, asproduction in Briain was working extremely fast, and Hitler stepped down production expecting an easy victory. Dunkirk was a deliverance which facilitated the continuation of Britains participation in the War. The evacuation was quite panicked at first, but order was quickly regained and the removal of troops began swiftly. The overall efect of Dunkirk on the general public was a great boost in morale which united them behind a common goal. Dunkirk gave a great boost to Churchill's leadership, due to his intelligent descisions he managed to salvage as much as possible from what could have bee a catastrophe. The bravery of many of the soldiers at Dunkir has been an inspiration to soldiers ever since. "The tale of the Dunkik beaches will shine in whatever records are preserved of our affairs."
