As well as these sources there are also other sources that confirm the theory of Dunkirk being panicked and disorderly. They are written by a British pilot shot down near Dunkirk, a German fighter pilots account of Dunkirk, Charles Lightoller a retired sailor and a painting by Charles Cundall an official war artist. As we can see there are quite a few sources that support this theory.
Another aspect of defeat is the loss of troops and equipment. The BEF had lost and left behind virtually all of its equipment. It had been forced to abandon 2,472 guns, 90,000 rifles, 63,879 vehicle, 20,548 motorcycles and over 500,000 tons of stores and ammunition. More importantly 68,000 troops did not make it safely home being killed, captured or injured. From my research I know that once on a boat, troops were still not safe from air attack, mines or submarines many ships and boats were sunk or badly damaged whilst returning back to Britain.
Source number 3 supports this view. It contains photographs of Dunkirk’s beaches taken by the Germans. The source shows sunken and beached vessels with abandoned equipment, and a few British soldiers lying dead on the beach. The scene looks disorganised and chaotic again linking in with the idea of panic. This source reinforces the idea that Britain only just managed to escape. I think that this source is quite reliable as the photographs were taken immediately after the evacuation. However the Germans would have used these photos as propaganda making this source less reliable.
The next source I looked at supporting this aspect of defeat was an article from the South Wales Echo written on 5th June 1940. The source tells us how Churchill feared that Dunkirk would be a ‘Colossal Military Disaster’ and how 30,000 British troops did not return to Britain. This source is quite reliable as it is written one day after the evacuation showing Churchill’s immediate reaction to Dunkirk. We know that Dunkirk could have been a military disaster if Hitler had not ordered the stop of his tanks, which allowed the evacuation more time. On the other hand the newspaper could be exaggerating.
Another source, in which the loss of equipment and troops is shown as a defeat, was written by a British RAF pilot shot down near Dunkirk. He tells us that a number of British soldiers would not need transport home due to the air attacks. This suggests bombing and shelling killed many. I think that this source is quite reliable, as we understand that 68,000 troops were not evacuated from Dunkirk. Although there is a possibility that this source could be unreliable as the pilot might feel bitter towards Dunkirk as he was shot down.
There is another source that confirms this theory could be the most important aspect of defeat, it was written by a German fighter pilot. It expresses how the Dunkirk beaches were full of cold-blooded killing of the British. However this source is fairly biased, as the pilot tries to support his country.
Finally the last aspect of defeat that could also be considered the most important is the Demoralisation of troops and Civilians. Many troops did not want to continue the war, as they felt exhausted and tired. The evacuation had been long and hard as it stretched to 9 days. Many troops felt sick of fighting and looked forward to returning home as their high morale soon faded.
A source that supports this view was written by Atkins and was published in a book about Dunkirk (Pillar of fire). It explains how the boat was packed with over 1000 troops but when they were asked to come above deck and use the Bren Gun not one soldier wanted to. This shows their loss of will power to fight. The source is quite reliable, as it is a British mans eyewitness account and he tells of the situation among 1000 men. Although it only informs us of the situation on one boat.
Another source that supports the view of the demoralisation of troops and civilians was written in 1941 by Richard Hilary. It describes the army as a rabble and that the men were bitter and tired. It also tells us that the troops didn’t have their equipment, this suggests that they didn’t want to continue fighting. This theory links in with the previous source by Atkins making it quite a reliable source. We also know that the long hours of air attacks from the Germans would have made the British and French troops very tired. However Richard Hilary only mentions one part of the army.
On the other hand it is possible to argue that Dunkirk was a victory for the British. This is mainly due to the number of troops that were evacuated. Although the evacuation could also be seen as well improvised, ordered and generally calm. There was also a lot of boost to morale, as the Dunkirk spirit helped civilians and troops leave safely. A psychological victory was apparent as the British and French managed to escape before the Germans had reached Dunkirk. It is possible to argue that Britain’s escape allowed them to continue the war, which could be seen as a reason for victory. This would have also contributed in a boost to Churchill’s leadership. The set back of the Germans was also seen as a victory for the British.
It could be argued that the most important and remarkable aspect of victory is the number of troops that were evacuated at Dunkirk, 338,226 troops were evacuated and only 68,111 troops were left behind. The chances of getting this amount of troops out at the start of the evacuation seemed very slim, as air attack and artillery fire continued for 9 days. This view is supported by a number of sources.
The first source I will look at is written by AJP Taylor, a very well respected historian. The source informs us that almost the entire BEF was saved and that 338.226 troops were evacuated, making Dunkirk a huge deliverance. This source seems quite reliable as the historian who wrote it was alive during the time of the war and he gives a balanced account with the relevant information.
Another source that supports this argument is source 10, which shows the admiralty records quoted in a book (Second World War vol.2 Their Finest Hour) written in 1949. The source shows us how many troops were evacuated from the beach and the harbour. The results contain accurate figures, and as we understand more troops were evacuated from the harbour (239,555), than the beach (98,671). However, the beaches are usually spoken of more frequently because they are seen as more heroic and dramatic. I think that this source is reliable, although it is slightly biased, as it does not say how many troops failed to be evacuated.
The next source supporting this theory is written by Major LF Ellis, taken from a book (History of World War 2- The War in France and Flanders) written in 1953. It explains that 366,162 troops were evacuated and that the military significance of this is very important. We know this is correct as without the BEF Britain would have been unable to continue the war. This source is quite reliable, as a historian wrote it and it should be well informed.
There is another source that supports this argument. It was written by Allan Bullok, who provides an overview of Hitler and Stalin, but he does not go into depth about Dunkirk.
Another important aspect of victory could be seen as Dunkirk’s well-improvised, ordered and calm evacuation. We know that Admiral Ramsay and Gort led the evacuation, taking orders from Churchill. The arrival of Royal Naval personnel brought about restoration and order. I know that the help from ships, destroyers, passenger ferries and yachts were also vital; keeping the evacuation well improvised.
A source that supports this view is source 6, which contains photographs taken by the British of soldiers being evacuated from Dunkirk. It shows a line of British troops wading out to a rescue steamer and queues of men waiting calmly for rescue boats; it looks like the evacuation is going successfully. This source is not that reliable as the pictures are taken by the British and are most likely to be used as propaganda, which suggests that they have only taken photos of the more organised parts of Dunkirk. Although, they are taken at the time of evacuation.
Another source that supports this theory of a well ordered and calm evacuation was written by General Sir Harold Franklyn, a divisional Commander at Dunkirk. The source tells us that the reports of bombing were ridiculous and that there was very little shelling. He also informs us that there was not one corpse on the beach. This information does not fit in with what I have learnt, I have discovered that bombing was quite frequent and continued over the 9 days. From previous sources I know that there were corpses lying on the beaches. This source is the only eyewitness account that describes Dunkirk as a victory, and Harold Franklin was probably trying to promote his role as Commander. Therefore this source is not that reliable.
The next source I looked at was Churchill’s speech to the House of Commons on the 4th July 1940. It tells us that the deliverance of Dunkirk should be noticed and there was victory inside the deliverance. This speech was given on the last day of the evacuation when Churchill knew that the evacuation had been a success. I think this source is not totally reliable as his speech was probably given to further his own role as a war time leader, as he had only been Prime Minister for 3 weeks.
There are other sources that support this theory of a well-improvised evacuation. They are written by Major LF Ellis of the British army and AJP Taylor who explains how destroyers were aided by every sort of vessel.
It is possible to argue that another important aspect of victory is the boost to morale and the Dunkirk spirit. From what I have learnt, the courage and heroism of rescuers encouraged Britain during difficult times. The use of propaganda in Britain also suggested a psychological victory for the public, who assumed that the situation in Dunkirk was going well.
A source that supports this view is a speech given in 1940 by Churchill. It was also published in 1959. This source describes how Britain stood unconquerable after a near defeat. This supports the argument of a psychological victory. I think this source is fairly reliable as it is quite balanced with recognition of near defeat. However, Churchill had to say this to the British public to raise morale.
Another source that supports this theory of a victory was written by JB Priestly, a very popular speaker during the war. The source suggests how Britain managed to snatch victory out of defeat. I think this source is not that reliable, as I know that JB Priestly was just as important to propaganda as Churchill was. The source also omits the loss and demoralisation of troops.
The final source I looked at supporting this argument is written by Churchill in his memoirs, as he records speaking to his ministers at the beginning of the Dunkirk period. The source describes how high morale swept Dunkirk. I think this source is not that reliable as it was written a long time after Dunkirk. We also know that Churchill had to prove that he could lead Britain to victory.
There is another source that I haven’t mentioned to do with the psychological victory of Dunkirk, it was written by Major LF Ellis.
The next aspect of victory is the deliverance of Britain and how they were able to continue the war. Britain was lucky to get a lot of troops out of Dunkirk. If Britain had surrendered at this point the war would have ended in a Nazi triumph. The fact that they were able to continue the war was significant as it boosted morale and support for the ongoing battle.
The first source I looked at supporting this theory was written by B Collier, it is an extract from a book (History of the Second World War – Defence of The UK) written in 1957. It explains that even though a lot of equipment was lost, new equipment was being made more effective so that Britain’s soldiers could continue the war. I think that this source is fairly reliable as it confirms what we already know about loss of equipment and attempts to be quite balanced. However there is a possibility it could be biased, as the writer is British.
The next source that supports this argument was written in 1990, by Norman Gelb an American Historian in a book (The Incredible Escape). The source explains how the BEF still had an army; it supports the argument that Britain was able to continue the war. I think this source is quite reliable, as it was written a long time after the war and shows no need to lie, however the writer is an American and therefore the source could be biased as America supported Britain during the Second World War.
The final source supporting this theory is from Churchill’s speech to the House of Commons on the 4th June 1940, the source was taken from his Memoirs. The source describes how Dunkirk was not a victory, but a victory inside the deliverance. I think that this source is fairly reliable as it tries to be balanced. Although, Churchill could be trying to boost morale. From what I have learned he needed to get the public’s support to continue fighting the war successfully.
The next aspect of victory is the boost to Churchill’s leadership. Churchill’s first accomplishment during the war was Dunkirk as he had only been Prime Minister for 3 weeks when the evacuation was in progress. This was a crucial time for him to take Britain to victory.
A source that supports this view was written in 1957 by B Collier, taken from a book (History of the Second World War- Defence of the UK). The source explains how Churchill announced the great deliverance of Britain and made the public determined to protect its country. I believe that the number of troops evacuated gave the public great faith in Churchill. I think that this source is fairly reliable as the writer of the source lived through the War. However the source is secondary evidence and could be misinformed.
The next source I looked at supporting the boost to Churchill’s leadership, as an aspect of victory was written in 1990 by Norman Gelb, an American Historian who’s source also supports how Dunkirk allowed Britain to continue the war. The source has been taken from a book (The Incredible Escape). This source describes how Dunkirk made Churchill’s position stronger. We know that the public began to trust Churchill due to success at Dunkirk. I think that this source is quite reliable as it was written a long time after Dunkirk and should have no reason to lie. However the source was based towards an American audience and may not be giving us the relevant information we need.
The last aspect of victory for Dunkirk is the setback to the Germans. We know that Germany made a lot of mistakes, which can be seen as a reason why they failed to stop the evacuation.
The first source I am going to look at was written by Major LF Ellis in 1953, and was taken from a book (History of The Second World War and The War in France And Flanders). The source describes Germany’s failures in the war and also how Germany did their utmost to prevent the evacuation but failed. I think this source is quite reliable as it recognises Britain had a lucky escape. We know that Germany’s failures and stop of the tanks did allow the evacuation to be a success, which was a setback for the Germans.
The final source I will look at was written by Allan Bullock a British Historian; this source is taken from a book about Hitler and Stalin. The source explains how the Halt Order delayed the Germans considerably and also how the Germans thought Britain was defeated so they put all their efforts into the approaching battle with France. I think this source is quite reliable as it is reasonably balanced and well informed on the Halt order, however it was not written especially about Dunkirk so it could be slightly misinformed. We know that the Germans were delayed, as it wasn’t until the 26th May that they realised the British were going to use Dunkirk, by now Britain was able to hold the port and beaches sufficiently long enough for the evacuation to take place.
In conclusion I think that Dunkirk was a great deliverance as a victory, I think that Britain improvised well and they put a lot of effort and hard work into the evacuation, this view is supported by source number 6 which contains pictures of a the evacuation. I believe that the Dunkirk Spirit helped the British army a lot and the help from rescuers and the public gave the army courage to fight on, JB Priestly supports this argument as in his source he tells us about the lifting of morale. I think that the numbers of troops evacuated was astonishing considering the frequent air attacks from the Germans, this theory is supported by a source written by AJP Taylor, a very well respected Historian. As nearly the whole of the BEF were evacuated safely it allowed Britain to continue the war, which worked out well for the British as approximately all new equipment was made better and worked more efficiently this is backed up by a source written by B Collier. Although I believe that it was also Germany’s mistakes that allowed the time for troops to evacuate.
However, I understand that the evacuation at Dunkirk can also be seen as a defeat. I think this was mainly due to the loss of troops and equipment, as most of their equipment had to be abandoned. This was backed up by source number 3 which contains photographs of the beach. Further more I know that 68,000 troops failed to be evacuated. As well as this I accept that demoralisation of troops and the panicked and disorderly evacuation, also contributes to why some people may think Dunkirk was a Defeat for the British.
Overall I think that Dunkirk made Britain stronger. I think that this was the first step to defeating Hitler in the Second World War. I believe the deliverance of Dunkirk helped Churchill in boosting his leadership, it made the country have faith in the army, as they now believed Churchill could lead them to victory and continue the War.
