How useful are sources A, B, and C in understanding what the battle of Dunkirk was like?

Authors Avatar

How useful are sources A, B, and C in understanding what the battle of Dunkirk was like?

The evacuation of Dunkirk in WW2 will always be seen differently as either disaster, success or both. At the time of the evacuation many people had their own opinions of what happened, from seamen to commanders to news reporters.

In source A Commander Thomas Kerr clearly thought the evacuation was far from a success. His disapproval of the operation and the army’s conduct may have been down to the fact that he himself was part of the navy. He may have wanted to put down the army to make the navy seem better in comparison because of the rivalry between the forces. This makes source A slightly unreliable because of his motives. His favouritism showed through while saying, “The sight of our naval uniforms restored some order to the rabble”. He obviously portrays the navy as a sort of saviour to the army, yet also says, “Their faith in the navy was pathetic”, which is his way of saying that the navy knew it was beyond their abilities to do everything. This could show him trying to be honest. Also being a commander he would have been able to have a good overview of the battle, so probably could see everything he said which makes this source a little more reliable.

Join now!

Bill Elmslie in source B does not give a clear view if he believes that the evacuation succeeded or not, yet he does give across the view that the manner of the evacuation and the situation on the beaches were chaotic. He uses verbs like, “hammering, hurtling and streaking”, to show that the settings were very frantic which I can believe is a reliable description of the beaches at times. Yet something which makes the source seem peculiar is the phrase, “His machine guns cutting through those columns of soldiers like a reaper slicing through corn”. For a common seaman ...

This is a preview of the whole essay