Nevertheless both of these sources contain several weaknesses. They are both selective pieces of information, in source 14(ii) we are not informed of when it was written and at what stages during the war and thus only shows 1 element of the evacuation, and again from knowledge I know that certain stages of the war was worse than others, i.e., there were a lot of bombing present on 30th and 31st of May whereas on the 29th the poor weather conditions prevented much bombing. Source 15, is selective in the way that it talks about the AFTERMATH of Dunkirk. Not directly about what happened on the beaches. Source 15 might also have been slightly exaggerated, as it is written for a book, which naturally wants to the audience to be grabbed by it. Overall I would say that both sources are quite reliable as it confirms with my knowledge of what the other sources I’ve looked at suggests, i.e. source 19 an account by RAF pilot and source 20, A German fighter pilots’ account of Dunkirk. Both these sources along with sources 14(ii) and 15 gives us a real insight of panic, demoralization and loss of troops equipment etc, which all imply that Dunkirk was a defeat. All these horrific experiences must have had some effect on the civilians, as their family and friends are battling for survival in Dunkirk, in one form or another both the troops in Dunkirk and the family and friends at home waiting must have been demoralised by the whole thing. This fact itself could suggest that Dunkirk was a defeat, the sheer amount of panic, worry and frustration not only the BEF and French troops were put through, but civilians the friends, family and the rest of the nation. All these factors I’ve looked at i.e. panic and disorder, demoralisation of troops and civilians, and most importantly the loss of equipments and troops all seems to suggest that Dunkirk was a defeat
Victory
What is victory? Is it the fact that a huge amount of troops were evacuated? Could it be because the evacuation was calm, ordered and well improvised? Or could it be the fact that Dunkirk boosted spirit and morale? Or could it be the increase in Churchill’s leadership, which made it a psychological victory or was it the fact that Dunkirk allowed Britain to continue with the war, due to their deliverance which also made it a setback for the Germans?
The main aspect of Victory for me has to be the number of troops evacuated. From my knowledge I know that nearly 340,000 men were saved. To me machinery can be replaced but lives cannot. Source 10 evidently supports Dunkirk as a victory in the aspect of number of troops evacuated. It is an admiralty record quoted by Winston Churchill; it clearly proposes that an enormous amount of troops were evacuated. It is an official statistical piece of evidence and thus making fairly accurate and it was recorded not long after the event. It shows that the majority numbers of troops were evacuated via the harbour not the beach, which is ironic as most people view Dunkirk as a patriotic event, escaping from the Germans in their desperate souls via the beach.
As for the reliability of this source, I would say it is fairly biased, as I know from my knowledge that 68000 were either killed, wounded or taken prisoner and a huge sum of equipments was lost. In this source it doesn’t mention any of the casualties. This source was probably used to boost both Churchill’s leadership and reputation. Theses official statistics were probably manipulated to make Dunkirk as a great success. Overall it clearly suggests a vast number of troops survived. Sources 1 and 3 both confirm this aspect of victory. Source 1 is by A.J.P Taylor, an English history, 1914-1945 and source 3 is a picture showing the landscape of the attacked beaches. Although both sources have different flaws in their reliability, i.e. source 1 is not a specific work on Dunkirk and it’s a secondary source so it could well be misinformed. Source 3 was taken by Germans so it is not very reliable and again it only shows a partial view of what happened. But having said that, in some respects both of these sources posses a similar meaning –the amount of troops evacuated, source 1 is a textual source, written by a famous historian and although it implies that ‘… it had lost virtually all its guns…etc’ it proudly comments that Dunkirk succeeded beyond all expectations and that over 300,000 evacuated and this sheer amount of lives saved suggests that it was a Victory. Source 3 on the other hand shows an empty beach, although the pictures itself contains several disapproving images i.e. a dead corpse on the beach, the equipments lost and the mess left on the beaches and sunken vessels, but the mere fact that the beach is empty suggests that Dunkirk was a victory, as the troops must’ve evacuated.
Linking with this is fair to say that another aspect of Victory was the nature of the evacuation. From my knowledge I know that boats, ships and other vessels were in aid for the evacuation, making it as sufficient as possible. Sources 5 (i) by Major L.F Ellis, history of the WWII, source 16, J.B Priestley a popular speaker during WII and source 21 by General Sir Harold Franklyn, his experience of Dunkirk, they all suggests that the evacuation was calm and well –improvised. Although there are many weaknesses in the reliability of these sources, source 5(i) was written by a major and the tone is very upbeat and patriotic so it shows Dunkirk in the best possible light. Sources 16 and 21 are biased in the sense that they don’t fit in with my knowledge of what happened in Dunkirk. Source 16, was a radio broadcast at the time of the incident, probably used to boost Churchill’s leadership and certainly used as a piece of propaganda to boost the spirit of the British.
But overall these sources are well informed, source 16 was from a speaker so the knowledge must’ve been detailed and source 21 was an eyewitness account. Source 5(i) was an official account of the war, and it is specific to the incident and it shows the spirit of Dunkirk been created ‘family affair’
Linking with this the heroic side of Dunkirk was the spirit and the morale created throughout the whole evacuation, even when the Luftwaffe was bombing the beaches. The spirit and morale of the people are shown evidently in sources 2, a photograph showing the beaches, with equipments to facilitate the evacuation, source 11 from Churchill’s memoir published 1959 and source 14(i) Charles Lighttoller, retired sailor, took his yacht Sundowner to Dunkirk. Its interesting to see that Source 2 shows the spirit the most, as the photos were probably taken by the Germans, to be used as a piece of propaganda. It indicates although low in resources, the troops trapped on the beach made the most of their equipment, building trucks to facilitate the evacuation. Source 11 and 14 also suggests this. Both sources are reliable in the sense that source 11 was written by Churchill so it must’ve been well informed given his position as prime minister. However his position diminishes the reliability factor, as the source will be very biased, probably used to boost his reputation as the wartime leader after Dunkirk. Similarly there are weaknesses in source 14 (i) because the source is a selective piece of information, probably used for personal aggrandisement. However Source 14(i) is reliable in the sense that it is a piece of primary first hand evidence and it’s a personal eyewitness account from a sailor.
Overall all the sources show a great boost to morale and spirit words like ‘united and unconquerable’ used in source 11. The title of Source 14 itself suggests the spirit of the British, i.e. both from my knowledge and source I know that vessels, boats and small yachts were used in aid of the evacuation and how it shows that Dunkirk was a ‘family affair.’
Family affair indeed, it certainly boosted Churchill’s leadership, making him the wartime leader afterwards. The whole Dunkirk affair must’ve been a psychological victory not only for Churchill, but both the troops and civilians. This aspect of victory is shown clearly in sources 12 and 17. Both of these sources are taken from Churchill’s memoirs. Both suggest that Dunkirk was psychological victory; words like ‘we shall fight on’ and ‘victory inside this deliverance’ were used. Although there are many flaws in these sources i.e. source 12 tells us nothing about the causalities, equipment loss etc, which we know from looking at previous sources, and source 17 is very selective in what its saying, and it doesn’t tell us much about what happened in Dunkirk. But undoubtedly both these sources are used as propaganda for the British, and they certainly illustrate Churchill’s leadership very well, especially if Churchill wrote it, making him gain self-publicity. In source 17, it indicates how worried Churchill was at the beginning of Dunkirk and from my knowledge I know how due to spirit, determination, and Churchill’s ‘go head with the evacuation’ which did inevitably saved a lot of troops, i.e. mentioned in sources 1,3, and 10. This ‘go ahead’ speech was inevitably make or break situation for Churchill’s leadership. I have noticed that all the aspects of victory are interlinked, which all contributes one way or another to the boost of Churchill’s leadership, as his ‘go-head’ signal saved well over 300,000 troops.
Because of Churchill’s instinct, which saved all these troops, it allowed Britain to continue with the war and caused a military set back for the Germans. This is unmistakably pointed out in sources 9, A book by a famous British historian provides an overview of Hitler and Stalin, and source 22, Norman Gelb, an American Historian in Dunkirk, The Incredible Escape. (1990). Both sources emphasizes on the fact that Britain was going to continue the war, and both of the sources alerts the long-term implications of Dunkirk. Source 22 in particular it suggests how Dunkirk was a massive set back for the Germans and it was the beginning of defeat for the Germans 5 years later. As for the reliability, both of these sources are quite biased as source 9 was written by a British historian, which wants to put Dunkirk in the best possible light and source 22, was written by an American historian, who is a close ally to Britain. There is no downside of Dunkirk mentioned in these two sources and as I know from my knowledge and other sources that there were tremendous amount of casualties. Source 9 in particular is not a specific detailed work on Dunkirk. On the whole a historian wrote both of these sources, so the conclusion must’ve been well researched. They were written quite a long time after the war so it’s fairly honest, without the fear of upsetting people. Source 22 in particular was published quite recently so its up to date. Overall both of these sources suggests victory in the aspects of both military set back for the Germans and also allowing Britain to continue with the war. This is mentioned in source 4, Basil Collier, history of World War II and source 11, from Churchill’s memoir.
Conclusion
‘We must be very careful not to assign to this the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations’
This speech by Churchill deeply reinforced my thinking. Sources 6 photographs of soldiers being evacuated, source 7 Private W.B.A describing the scene on the beach, and source 8 Charles Cundall, official war artist’s impression of the Dunkirk evacuation all show clearly that the allies were running away, not only that, they had practically lost all their weapons and equipment. From my knowledge I know that, 474 aircraft were lost, 2,472 guns were abandoned, 20,548 motorcycles lost 63,879 vehicles abandoned 90,000 rifles lost 500,000 tons of stores and ammunition abandoned
And most importantly 68,111 Britons killed and 290,000 French troops missing.
The statistics tell the story
Firstly, the whole process of Dunkirk was to rescue the allies, so from the start it’s a rescue mission, in attempt to save lives. The evacuation was so rapid and unorganised that the soldiers did not have enough time to gather up guns and vehicles. Therefore resulting in a ‘colossal disaster’ shown in source 13 an article by the South Wales echo.
On top of this, sources 6, a photograph of soldiers and source 8, official war artists impression of Dunkirk suggests that the allies were running away, which create a sense of dominance to the Germans, as if they are the controller in this game.
Secondly, from my knowledge I knew that the reaction of the Germans to Dunkirk was very insignificant, they didn’t see it as a huge setback, as they had their eyes set on Paris. I think this point is very disturbing for the British, after more than a week of hell, a week of suffering, a week of annihilation, a week of worry, the whole incident didn’t mean that much to the Germans. Was Dunkirk just a tap on the shoulder for the Germans? A tap that nearly caused a military set back for the British themselves? The main reason for the allies escape was because of the halt of German tanks, so this whole escape by the British was due to the mistakes of the Germans, this factor itself suggests that it was a defeat for the British.
‘Wars are not won by evacuations,’ indeed they are not, but ‘wars are not won by luck either.’
However, having said that, we cannot comprehend the mass amount of moral that was boosted, not only for the troops, Churchill but also the entire nation. The involvement and willingness of the nation, even though in disastrous and life threatening situations to carry on, using all the ships, boats, vessels and pleasure boats they could get their hands on the help the evacuation. This made it a familiar affair, which displayed immense amount of courage, bravery and determination; this is shown in source 3, a picture showing the attacked beaches. This factor itself could contribute as victorious, the pure fact that mankind is willing to help its allies in need.
The nation was optimistic, although in desperate needs, propaganda lightened the spirit of the British, no matter what the outcome was.
"How little holiday steamers made an excursion to hell and came back glorious"
A propaganda boost by an inspiring speaker J.B Priestley. The whole Dunkirk affair demonstrated an enthusiastic, up-beat mood of the nation.
Its true, thousands were killed, people were wounded, equipments were lost in the evacuation; short term wise, it looked a disaster for Britain as they returned were ‘a highly demoralized rabble’ this is shown in source 15. Like the saying ‘short term pain, long term gain’ Dunkirk certainly had long-term implications for the Germans. Both from my knowledge of the video I watched and source 22, Dunkirk was seen as a first step to eventual defeat for the Germans 5 years later. The involvement for the allies at the first place suggests that it was a victory in itself; I mean how many countries could stand up to the might of the Germans? The success in Dunkirk also meant that USA would have been much more prepared to enter for what was essentially an European war. Although Germany claimed that Dunkirk wasn’t of much significance to them, as their target location was France, this incident proves how people through sheer spirit and determination could escape from the Germans, it proves that defeating Germany later on was possible, and it was. This powerful message created was an inspiration for the rest of the world; this is why I know of Dunkirk, if Dunkirk wasn’t important why is it common knowledge?
From my knowledge and the sources I’ve studied, ask yourselves what was achieved by Dunkirk? Boost of Moral to the nation, American support - this process captured Americans sentiment, from my knowledge I know that they lent Britain material aids to recover, it made Churchill a best time War leader afterwards, had long-term effects on Germany and could be seen as the beginning of the end for Germany, use of propaganda, the involvement of the nation making it a family affair united the nation if the evacuation failed and Britain surrendered, Churchill with a quarter of a million men in captivity would have had to sign a peace treaty, and without the army, how would have Britain recovered?
And most importantly, not the government estimation of 40,000 men saved but an actual total of around 340,000
Was it a Victory or was it a defeat?. Dunkirk did have its advantages, an amazing amount of troops were saved, spiritual boost to the nation, the fact that it might have contributed to the later defeat of Germany etc. But the reason why the French and British troops were trapped at the first place meant that this was a rescue mission, yes and luckily it succeed, but success with a price a phenomenal loss of military equipment and lives.
And like Churchill said: -
‘We must be very careful not to assign to this the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations’
