How useful are sources A, B and C in understanding what the battle of Dunkirk was like?
To determine the usefulness of sources A, B and C we must first look at the value, limitation and reliability of the sources towards the question, what was the battle of Dunkirk like?
Source A tells us what the state of the army was like at the time of the battle. It does not however tell us what the battle of Dunkirk was like. The person who wrote the article is a commander in the navy. He is commenting on the state of the army so he does not have as much expertise as a commander in the army. However, he was there at the time of the battle so it is a primary source which makes it more reliable than something written after. Although he was there at the time he may still be bias. I know that the army and the navy were not best terms with each other so he may want the army to look worse than it actually is. The source itself is of that period of time so the access to evidence will be good. However, the commander was only at one section of Dunkirk so he couldn’t see the whole army. I know that the whole was not in one place and that some of the army were evacuating without it turning into a rabble. Source D, the painting by Charles Cundall, shows the troops in some sort of orderly line waiting to get on the boats. This may have been another part of the beach were the commander couldn’t see. Overall, the source is not useful on telling us what the battle of Dunkirk was like. The source does show us what the state of the army was like but that is not the question.
