Which of these 2 sources (A and C) would an historian studying the effects of the Blitz on the British people find most useful?

      On the other hand unlike Source A, Source C is written very precisely to the point and based on hard facts like addresses, dates and times. In contrast to Source A, produces as late as 2003, Source C was written at the actual time of the of the Blitz and the information was recorded by air raid wardens who were there on the ground helping the ‘Blitzed’ people. They provide historians with interesting and useful information on the though enforcement of the blackout and the way in which it was sometimes disobeyed and resented by the British public. It might not be typical, however, as this part of 1942 did not see much city bombing and people were probably more co-operative at the height oh the Blitz in one local area, also, so it doesn’t give the picture for the country as a whole. We would need more sources from all the country to effectively get a picture of the behaviour of wartime British people as a whole.

       My conclusion is that both sources make valid points but their usefulness depends on what the historian is researching. For instance Source A is useful for showing a commonly held modern view of courage, but Source C contradicts this to a certain extent. It shows individuals being selfish by neglecting their blackout duties and making the whole area a target for being bombed, this even included a middle class professional man, a doctor, showing his dark side beige rude and offensive to an air raid warden who was just doing his job and was a volunteer and didn’t even get paid for it. This was the type of behaviour that didn’t see much of the public eye for obvious wartime censorship reasons but it is very useful for historians to know about it in the present day. For this reason I would conclude that Source C is the most useful even thou it may not be typical of the whole country.