How did the Germans and British interpret events at Dunkirk so differently? How did they select and edit information to suit their point of view?

        Now the synopsis of the evacuation has been alleged, but was it a victory or a disaster for both sides and how did they administer to edit the evacuation to suit their side.  To start with the Germans a victory for their side because they made British troops retreat.  This was a superior source of propaganda.  Secondly the allies were weakening.  This intended the German diplomacy were functioning.  The disaster for the Germans is they allowed several thousand men to escape their boundary of defence and security.  Also this meant that the English would have had the chance to penetrate their barrier to regain control of France, but Winton Churchill’s main resolution was to evacuate as many troops as possible.  

        Now onto the English side.  They could have believed it to be a victory because of all the misinformation by Churchill, but no one could have came up with enough material evidence to show it was a disaster.  I shall begin with the disasters.  Firstly the British and the French had to pull back (this won’t look good in history).  This basically meant the BEF and the French troops made no progress.  This leads on to many other catastrophes.  Moreover Churchill’s strategy weren’t working.  Then came the underestimation of the enemy forces.  Pull back could furthermore mean they considered on changing routes.  To articulate all this together, the British had appeared to lose the battle.

        With the reference to the disaster for the Germans the British had infinitesimal to commemorate about.  The main aspect for the British to praise themselves is that about 200,000 British and 140,000 French soldiers were taken across the channel to safety.  Additionally there were many killed with the heavy fire from the Germans, fishing boats and pleasure steamers were sunk.  

To recapitulate all the accomplishments and calamities, the Germans had further substantiation to say it was a victory and the British had a reduced amount of verification to declare it was a success.  It was presented to the public as a major victory for the British people – the rescue of a huge army.  Had it not been for the evacuation at Dunkirk, our armed forces would have been seriously reduced and we might not have been able to recover.  Nevertheless, the allied armies had been outclassed by the German army and suffered a humiliating defeat.

        At the end of the day a video was presented to German and British civilians on their sides triumph and not defeat.  The Germans had shown the killing of the allies and the continuous pressurisation of forcing the allies into confined space.  On their video they had their tanks through France and should victory on the troops.  The British summed their victorious evidence by making a film to demonstrate the mass departure of the BEF and French soldiers.  The English edited the scene of the truth with a lot of propaganda.  There were showing that all their boat got through the restrained German barrier, yet no sides illustrated the victims.  All this propaganda is false due to; there was no witnesses or reporters at the battle of Blitzkrieg.  In conclusion no sides can allege triumph or disaster; or victory or defeat.  I have first hand bystander that this is a controversial topic and there is no precise or immoral answer, as Dunkirk can be presented both a victory of a defeat.