people who were in Dunkirk at the time. Although it is not a secondary source as the artist was
alive at the time, which makes it contempory. Another factor that will affect the validness of the
source is that it was painted by a government artist which instantly brings the word 'propaganda'
to mind. Because of this, the painting will be glorified as keeping the morale of the British public
at a high level was a vital government aim at this stage. This was imperative due to the German's
considerably outnumbering the BEF in terms of weapons and equipment therefore the majority
of the public needed to be strong willed and determined in order to overcome these odds.
However, the contents of this painting are by no means entirely fictitious. It does show various
aspects that were probably accurate, such as the numbers of men on the beaches, there were
probably more or less that number of men there during the first few days of the evacuation. Also
the destruction of the town of Dunkirk which can be seen in the background of the painting is
accurate.
However, elements of bias I managed to pick up on are; the lack of shelling that is occurring in
and around the picture and the way the shells ‘conveniently’ land where there are no men. There
would also probably have been more corpses on the beach. I can see only one image
resembling a corpse, and I’m not even entirely sure that it is in fact that. There would also have
probably been more panic amongst the soldiers, there is no sign of fighting for boats, soldiers
can clearly be seen to be standing around casually in groups as if they were waiting for a bus!
They also display no signs of fatigue.
Another major detail that seems to be missing is abandoned equipment that was left on the
beaches in order for soldiers to escape more quickly. Even the Minister of War himself admitted
the large loss of equipment so this is a definite fact that the artist seemingly chose to ignore.
