Dunkirk Source-Based Coursework

Christopher Lewis 12/03/07

Dunkirk source-based coursework

1. How useful are Sources A, B and C in understanding what the Battle for Dunkirk was like? Explain your answer. [10]

Source A depicts an amalgamation of scenes from the evacuation of the Dunkirk beaches. In the background, great plumes of black smoke billow from the town; these were so huge that contemporary sources claim they could be seen from Dover. This is the only real insight that we are given to the Battle for Dunkirk: this evacuation scene does not show what was going on elsewhere. We can see, however, that the bombardment of the port was extremely heavy. The large number of aircraft depicted serve as evidence that aerial warfare played a significant role in the fighting.

Source B is a photograph that shows many soldiers lined up uniformly on a beach. This demonstrates how disciplined the military were in patiently waiting for ships to evacuate them, however it does not show much about the Battle for Dunkirk. It does make us realise that there were many men who were not involved in defending the port town, and that the focus was not on fighting the Germans back but, instead, on getting everyone out. This suggests that the military command had given up any hope of regaining French land, instead submitting to an all-out retreat. I feel that this shows that the Battle of Dunkirk was condemned to an Allied failure.

Source C shows British soldiers firing at German planes with their rifles. They had no heavier artillery: all armour had been rendered useless and ditched in the process of retreating. Using rifles to try to shoot down planes was ridiculous – the chance of them causing any damage with such small guns was incredibly small. This shows the desperation of the troops and situation.

This pointless firing would also have wasted ammunition. This shows that there was no need for the soldiers to conserve their bullets, telling us that they were not expecting any combat. It is clear from this, as from Source B, that the military’s primary objective was to get out of France rather than to fight their way back into it. It also shows that the German aircraft were mercilessly attacking the Allied troops on the beaches, who were powerless to stop the strafing.

All three sources point towards the Battle of Dunkirk being a losing fight. I know ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

All three sources point towards the Battle of Dunkirk being a losing fight. I know from reading other sources that in many places positions were being held by very small numbers of men. For example, by the 31st May there was only a canal separating Dunkirk from the Germans. Fields were flooded, vehicles abandoned in the canal, all to try to slow their advance. This line was secured by just seventy men. Holding positions such as this was key to the defence of the port in order to provide extra time for ships to arrive for evacuation.

Nothing like this is shown by any of the given sources, however; I therefore conclude that although we can learn many things from them, they are not particularly useful in showing what the Battle for Dunkirk was like.

2. Study Source A. Do you agree with this interpretation of Dunkirk? Use the source and knowledge from your studies to explain your answer. [5]

I agree with this interpretation of Dunkirk to a certain extent. As Cundall had been at Dunkirk, he would have experienced the events firsthand. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that his depiction is exactly true.

Firstly, Source A is a portmanteau – an assimilation of a number of different scenes combined to form one image. Therefore, the painting was not an exact depiction of how things were, however it was based on the accounts of different soldiers who were there at the time. These accounts, and Cundall’s interpretation of them, may not have been entirely accurate, thus affecting the painting.

The artist probably faced challenges with scale, trying to fit as much detail into the painting as possible. Consequently, some of the proportions are not accurate, changing our perception of the scene. For example, I know from my geographical knowledge of the area that the town of Dunkirk is not as close to the beaches as the source seems to suggest.

The ships in the picture are very crowded together, in order to give an impression of the scale of events. It is unlikely that they were really that cramped, otherwise movement would have been challenging. I also believe that the ships would have been much further from the coast than shown, due to the shallowness of the beach.

Finally, although the painting was by no means propaganda, it is likely that Cundall made the picture appear more dramatic, in order to serve as a better piece of art. Although there are many details included within it that are corroborated by other sources, the combination of the aforementioned factors means that this interpretation is not necessarily totally accurate.

3. “Dunkirk was a great deliverance and a great disaster.” (AJP Taylor.) Is there sufficient evidence from Sources A to F to support this interpretation? Use the sources and knowledge from your own studies to explain your answer. [10]

I feel that this interpretation can be analysed from two starkly different perspectives: from the viewpoint of Operation Dynamo, and from the war as a whole. The fact that there are these two aspects of the event is the reason why the quote appears to be self-contradictory.

Operation Dynamo was being planned in the latter stages of May 1940, as the Germans swept through the Netherlands, Belgium and into France using their Blitzkrieg tactic. In the beginning, the plan was to simply evacuate all British non-combatants from the continent. This became a mission to bring back 20,000 British troops: just a tenth of the military there. By the 25th of May, however, the evacuation plans covered all troops – both British and Allied soldiers from other nations.

We are told by Source F that by the end of the operation, 338,226 men were brought to England from Dunkirk, including almost 140,000 Frenchmen. Therefore, from the perspective of the commanders, who had originally planned on bringing back 20 000, Operation Dynamo was a resounding success.

The achievements of Operation Dynamo were also a great morale boost for the British. This is shown by Source E – a newspaper report that depicts the evacuated soldiers as heroic and unbeatable. Furthermore, Source D – a speech by the War Minister in the month following the evacuations – claims that the spirit of the British army and its refusal to accept defeat would lead to an eventual victory. Again, this would have been rousing and morale-boosting. It also states that the army had “gained immeasurably in experience of warfare and in self-confidence”, showing that there may have been other benefits from Dunkirk.

In the overall context of the war, however, the outlook was not so positive. Churchill commented: “Evacuations do not win wars,” showing that he knew the rout was a backwards step in terms of defeating the Germans. Sources A, B and C show that the Allies had been defencelessly at the mercy of the Germans, and had had no hope of claiming a military victory at the time.

Despite being an optimistic, inspiring speech, even Source D acknowledges that there were “great losses in equipment” (line 2) as a result of Dunkirk, hinting at the problems and downfalls of Operation Dynamo. This loss of equipment was extremely significant: Source F tells us that the BEF had “lost virtually all its guns, tanks, and other heavy equipment”, that rifles had been abandoned, damage to ships had been heavy, and the RAF lost 474 planes. This proves that Dunkirk was by no means an unequivocal success.

In conclusion, I think that Sources A to F strongly support Taylor’s interpretation of events. The prevention of loss of human life was massive, however the military had lost much of its mechanical resources, and the Germans had all but conquered mainland Europe – a disaster for the Allied war effort.

Word count: 1250