Source B is written by a seaman who was at Dunkirk. This source gives us a good view of Dunkirk but like the previous source has its limitations. This source gives a personal account of the German forces attacking. This source does not tell us much other vital information, such as the public opinion of Dunkirk, the government opinion, the role of the navy, and whether any problems were encountered whilst trying to evacuate the beaches. We know that there where problems because the soldiers had to rely on small ships to save them from the Germans. These weaknesses mean that the source is a little bit unhelpful in giving us an understanding of what happened at the battle of Dunkirk.
Source C is an account given by a Cornish able seaman. This source also has a few weaknesses, which make it less helpful. One of these weaknesses is that it does not give us an opinion of how organized the men on the beaches were like Source a does. In addition, this source does not tell us the role, which the Navy played at Dunkirk and how successful they were. This source also does not list the problems, which were faced at Dunkirk, like the fact that many resources had to be destroyed or left behind, as they could not be carried on the boats. This meant that many ammunitions and vehicles were destroyed.
Although many factors make the sources weak and in some cases unreliable they can also be quite helpful in giving us an idea of some of the things which took place at Dunkirk.
Source A is helpful in many ways because it gives us a personal account of how well the navy performed and gives us a view of how organised the men on the beaches were. We get this view of how organised they were when the Naval officer who is giving his account refers to the soldiers as a rabble. This source also gives us a little view of the losses at Dunkirk because it says that they had: “the odds and ends of an army not the fighting soldiers” This suggests that many soldiers had been killed fighting and that not many were left. We also get the impression that the soldiers were poorly organized and there were few officers to help: “there where hardly any officers” This could mean that if there were more officers then the soldiers may have been more organized.
In contrast to Source A, Source B gives us the impression that the men on the beaches were well organized. We get this impression from the mention of the word columns: “his machine guns cutting through columns of soldiers like a reaper through corn” This suggests that the soldiers were fairly organized as they were in ‘columns’ which implies neat and tidiness. This also suggests that the losses were high as many soldiers were killed in one swipe of a German fighter. Although, there appears to be a large number of casualties, the men on the beaches also appear quite brave to us. This is suggested when the person giving their account mentions how the: “guns were hammering away furiously.” This gives us an image of the men standing their ground and battling through the disadvantages, which they faced. Finally this source clearly gives a view of the German fighter attacks because it mentions a German fighters machine guns and a dive – bomber.
Source C can be seen as similar to Source B because it gives a detailed personal account of the type of losses experienced at Dunkirk: “I saw several fall dead.” This source also suggests bravery of the soldiers with the description of a sergeants actions: “grabbed a Bret gun, stood his ground in the middle of the beach and blazed away at them” This gives us an image of a brave sergeant surrounded by dead bodies and standing his ground. The bravery of this sergeant is then further emphasised: “When they came back he did the same thing again and drove them off.” The fact that the sergeant has driven away eight German bombers makes him look very heroic and brave. This source is similar to Source B again because it gives us a view of the German attacks at Dunkirk. This helps to gives us a better understanding of what the battles were like and who was in control.
All of the sources give us a personal account of seaman who was at Dunkirk helping the evacuation. All the sources together give a rough outline as to what the battle of Dunkirk was like, helping our understanding of Dunkirk. However, all of the sources fail to give us the public and government opinion on the war, which means they fail to give us an overall view of whether the majority of the people supported the war. This means that their accounts can be seen as unreliable as they do not have the backing of a majority to support their view. I think that all of the sources are equally as helpful as they all give a personal account of different aspects of Dunkirk, which means they cannot be measured against one another because they give us different information. Although the sources had many weaknesses, they also had strengths. Overall, I think that the sources had more strengths than weaknesses and were useful in giving an account of Dunkirk.