However, the problem which firsthand sources (and therefore the problem with each of these sources), is that it is only a single snapshot of what one person saw, and it is difficult then to understand fully what the Battle of Dunkirk was like. This source is also from an officer, and it would be difficult then to understand what the battle was like for an ordinary soldier, just through this source. The fact that this is a naval officer also means that all that can be gained through this source is an understanding of what the battle was like after the arrival of the navy, and there are no details of the build up to Dunkirk. As it is unclear as to when this source was recorded, it is not certain whether later events influenced it. Kerr also depicts the army’s actions as rather negative, and it is unclear if this is due to the age-old rivalry between the navy and the army. All this makes understanding of the Battle of Dunkirk difficult.
Source B is also a firsthand account, by Bill Elmslie, who was a seaman who took part directly in the evacuation of Dunkirk. There is little doubt as to the motives behind the source, as it seems it was merely intended to inform someone of what the battle was like. It is also a fairly detailed source, which lots of vivid imagery and description. This gives a good understanding of the Battle of Dunkirk.
However, as it is a firsthand source it comes with the limitations all firsthand sources have: only a single snapshot of what one person saw, and this makes it difficult to understand the Battle of Dunkirk as a whole. It is also another testament from someone in the Navy, and therefore it is again uncertain as to whether or not this source may be influenced by rivalry. It also fails to mention a number of aspects of the battle, such as the role of the RAF and of the French, and also lacks any sort of statistics of the battle. This also makes it difficult to understand the Battle of Dunkirk.
Again, Source C is a firsthand source, and is therefore accompanied by all aforementioned advantages and limitations. It seems the motive for the source here is to pay tribute to an admirable act of heroism performed by an RASC sergeant. This is a source which depicts an incident of incredible courage, which helps us understand the phrase the “Dunkirk Spirit”. However, it is also uncertain as to whether or not this is propaganda, in order to promote the idea of “Dunkirk Spirit”. It does not precisely mention the role of the man who spoke this – a Cornish able-seaman, and it is not a comprehensive account. This makes the understanding of the battle of Dunkirk difficult.
All sources have their similarities; such as all being firsthand accounts made by those from the Navy, and none having evidence of being made for a particular purpose (such as propaganda). Source A describes the problems faced by the Royal Navy at Dunkirk and the state of the army, B describes the air attack of the beaches and C describes an individual example of the RASC sergeant’s heroism. This is useful because different aspects to the Battle of Dunkirk are given. They are also three different testimonies of people from the Navy, and so by looking at all three as a collection one can understand well certain aspects of the Battle of Dunkirk.
However, as all sources are firsthand accounts, all lack the comprehensiveness that a text book would have, as it would take more sources into account as opposed to just three. This makes it difficult to understand the Battle of Dunkirk in itself. As the three sources are only accounts from one group of people – the Navy – they cannot give the understanding that, for example, accounts from the air force, the army and the navy might give. There is also much content that is missing from the sources, such as background information and statistics. Also, as they are all naval accounts, they can only give understanding of what happened after the start of the evacuation. This makes it difficult to understand the actual Battle of Dunkirk.
Overall, it seems the understanding that these sources offer of the Battle of Dunkirk is limited. Each of them lack the comprehensiveness and detailed information required to be able to fully understand the Battle of Dunkirk, such as background information, statistics and accounts from different perspectives. The fact that each account can only described what happened after the start of the evacuation makes it very difficult to understand the actual Battle of Dunkirk before the evacuation.
