Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain - 'Dunkirk was a great deliverance and a great disaster (AJP Taylor). Is there sufficient evidence in sources A to G to support this interpretation?

Source C is also a photograph supposedly taken at Dunkirk in 1940. It shows British forces attacking the German Stuka Dive bombers, while a ship is moving closer, getting ready to evacuate the British and French forces from the beach. That suggests that Dunkirk was a huge success because lots of lives were saved on the beaches. Some things that suggest that Dunkirk was a disaster is the facts that there didn't appear too be many soldiers on the beach, which could suggest one of three things. The first one is that lots of men have been evacuated, or that a lot of men have been killed in action or even the photograph could have been staged. But a photograph can be taken so that it makes you see what the photographer wants you to see. I would presume that the soldiers have been evacuated would be the right one because there aren't many dead bodies lying around on the beach and that the photograph looks realistic, so it probably wasn't staged. A bad point is that the soldiers appear to be firing nowhere, because guns in World War 2 could definitely not reach the Stuka Dive Bombers in the sky. From my own knowledge I know that the soldiers had meant to have dropped their weapons on the way to the beaches so they could get to the beaches quicker and be evacuated faster to prevent the Germans killing more British and French soldiers. So overall I feel that source is reliable because it doesn't miss too many points and the photograph looks quite realistic. I feel that from this photograph there is evidence to agree with both points that AJP Taylor makes that Dunkirk was a success but a disaster at the same time because there are valid points to support both things. However it is also a piece of propaganda is shows our soldiers doing well, which would boost morale on the home front.

Unlike the previous two sources Source D is a written extract from the British Minister of War. That alone signals that it was probably biased because he would write to promote British soldiers and he would say that the evacuation was going really well to keep hopes up back home and avoid turmoil, which would help the war effort let alone the evacuation. Most of the things that are included obviously suggest that Dunkirk was a huge deliverance. Some of these things include that the BEF have a good spirit within each other and that the war has made some inexperienced soldiers, seasoned professionals. Also he states that the army had a never-say-die attitude and they never gave in and did their best, even if it meant giving their lives. One of the few things that he says that was bad is that they had big losses in ammunition and weapons, but that is all he says as far as bad things go. So of the things that this source misses out as far as bad things go is the fact that they lost many lives, including the lives lost when the Queen of the Channel (the first boat to use the moles) was sunk. Also it doesn't include the great number of men that were wounded fleeing from the attacking Germans. Overall this source is extremely biased, so it will certainly say it was deliverance and not a failure. Also it was certainly used as propaganda and it doesn't give any information on the evacuation itself. So source D says that Dunkirk was a HUGE deliverance and not a failure at all. I feel that source D is a quite an important source and it clearly does give enough evidence to agree with part of AJP Taylor's interpretation. That part being that Dunkirk was deliverance, and in the source there is the odd reference to Dunkirk being a failure, but clearly there is not enough evidence to support this interpretation.

Source E is newspaper extract from daily express on May 31st in 1940, which is a different type of source from the previous four that I have evaluated This source enhances words to make the reader more interested and to persuade them to read on such as 'Histories strongest armada' and Inferno of the bombs and shells'. In the newspaper extract it says that tens of thousands of soldiers were already safely back home when the report was written and also that the relationship between the British and the French was getting better all the time because they were working together as a team and relying and each other more and more as the evaluation progressed (French more than British). It also says some facts like the weather were good and that the boats were saving the BEF. Which makes sense because the fine weather fits with my knowledge, it was also a main element of the success of Dunkirk. Some of the bad things that the newspaper says are that there have been many wounded soldiers and that there were Germans bombing the ships and sinking few, while damaging others. We lost 3 destroyers and lot of ammunition and weapons, which could've cost lives. There were also lots of fire inferno's and shells all around the soldiers causing injuries and delays in being evacuated. Like most of the other sources source E is used for propaganda, because if they were saying bad things about the army the British public wouldn't but the paper because that would make confidence worse and damage morale. We had the strongest fleet in history, which helped morale. Also because it is an English paper it would be biased and over exaggerated, however is success to improve morals on the home front. It is patriotic propaganda to show Britain is doing well. There is a massive lack of detail in this report. So overall this isn't an important source because although the source does vaguely agree with both of AJP Taylor's point about Dunkirk, there is clearly not sufficient evidence to support both of his points or not even one.

Source F is a view of Dunkirk written by AJP Taylor, from 'English History' published in 1965 (written after the battle). Although we do have to be cautious to see if he says anything that might contradict himself, and that does not match with his interpretation. This source gives us accurate figures such as 860 boats of all sorts helped men from beaches. The weather was good and came as a main advantage. There were 39,997 soldiers saved and returned to English soil almost all of the BEF was saved. Both of these points fit with my knowledge. This source tells us that the BEF lost most of their weapons including tanks, 6 destroyers sunk, 19 destroyed and 474 aeroplanes were shot down. All the damage and cost Britain a lot of money and many lives. Many men starved for a few days due to shortage of food and a small blockade of boats. Overall there is enough evidence within this source to help balance the deliverance and disaster because he would not contradict himself. He would like to state that his interpretation is correct so he has give bad points but good points as well. I won't be using this source in my overall evaluation as it is AJP Taylor's own work and he would support his own theory anyway, although it does give enough evidence to support his own interpretation and another factor is that he doesn't contradict himself, he supports his own theory about Dunkirk. This source isn't biased because it was written 25 years after the war. And also it is an extract from a history book therefore it must show both sides and must be factual. This is the most reliable source.

Source G is a newsreel extract from ' Evacuation of the BEF June 1940' and most of it was staged, however a small part was original lasting only a few seconds. This source shows us the different types of ships, which were used due to the help from the public. The ships were returning full of men waiting to be honoured with valour. We fought with the French which made our relationship much stronger and which also meant that the more men were ready to fight again. Also, it gives the audience a few facts such as how many men were saved etc, which made a difference to the war effort. It shows us that men were wading into towards the ships to save time in the evacuation. Also men were fighting back during the evacuation to give the soldiers more time to get onto the ships and get away from Dunkirk. Some of the bad things that it says are that the Germans took a few lives and damaged a lot of ships. Also that Dunkirk was constantly being bombarded with bombs and machine gun fire there were sunken ships and a lot of injured men. Thousand's were killed. Also it shows us that black smoke, from the burning tankers, didn't help things at all. It blocked vision and made the evacuation harder to be successful. The final thing is that the men were dirty, ragged and very tired after the experience and some were even left traumatized by it. So overall this source won't be a major part in me determining whether AJP Taylor is correct for numerous reasons. Firstly the newsreel is very biased and is completely from a British view. Also it only has one clear shot of Dunkirk which suggests the idea that it may have been staged, although it does only show one part of the beach and that something different could have been happening a few hundred yards away. Also the newsreel was made within days of Dunkirk, which makes us think it was used for propaganda. So overall this supports both ideas, although it does suggest that Dunkirk was more of a success than a disaster.

By looking at all the sources I can see that some do not contain my knowledge of the event. If you look at source A you will see a lot of action, and creates the impression that it was very chaotic, however if we look at source B that is also a picture of a beach we can see the opposite. It shows soldiers relaxed and organised. A main element to the success of 'The evacuation of Dunkirk' would be the existence of the moles, however none of these sources mentioned such meaning. We were not told of a huge disaster including 'Queen of the channel' which was sunk whilst moving out to sea with 1000's if soldiers. Another thing that we are not told about is the huge number of deaths and wounded that resulted in the evacuation from Dunkirk. We are not told of the tactics that the British soldiers used to camouflage themselves from the attacking German planes from above. Some of these tactics include the fact that the British soldiers buried themselves in the sand to prevent the Germans seeing them.

Therefore I conclude that looking back at my statement 'Dunkirk was a great deliverance and a great disaster' I think that there was not sufficient evidence to support this quotation because I sources that I have read apart from one have been totally biased towards Britain. The only exception was source F this showed both sides and point of views and contained sufficient evidence although it would because it was written by AJP Taylor. Most of the other sources lacked evidence and didn't fit with my knowledge and were used for propaganda to boost morale. However taking into account that evidence was more for the patriotic feel, which boosted morale on home front, therefore balanced deliverance of Dunkirk.