'Dunkirk-Not a Triumph? Essay\r'

'Many people in addition believed that Dunkirk was a possibility; it was a casualty in a number of ways. Firstly, in that respect were galore(postnominal) casualties in the conflict. 68,000 of the British military Force perished during the barrage, along with ab come to the fore a quarter of the remaining French military. along with the loss of vital live came the ample losses of equipwork forcet. Overall, nearly 40,000 pieces of equipment were surrendered to the enemy, including 17,000 machine guns, 12,000 field of battle guns, 2,800 anti-aircraft guns and 475 tanks. This was one of the worst losses of equipment forever sustained by the British military. In this part of my essay I am going to prove how the next intravenous feeding firsts challenge the interpretation of Dunkirk beingness a jump for joy. Firstly, to help the statement that Dunkirk was not a triumph is witness B10 as it argues the event that it was not organised there was a lot of waiting around and the exorbitant state of the soldiers, â€Å"while among the crowds on the beaches were shell-shocked, fuzzy soldiers wandering roughly trying to stick some shelter from the bombing.” The rise was created by John Harris, a historian.\r\nThis source is interpreted from a book about the not bad(p) military battles. The purpose of this source is to wander and he wants other people to derive his eyeshade of view. This source is in truth un caputable because it is written by a historian, thence he ordain be in truth knowledgeable about the research and he will know what he is public lecture about, and the source was written in a poetic and dramatic way, so John Harris may be emphasize the content of this source. The usefulness of this source is very good as it keep tooshies us a slight understanding of what state the soldiers were in, and what quality of things they would experience whilst on the beaches of Dunkirk, â€Å"some of the men were even bomb-happy and on t he edge of hysteria.” message that soldiers were so tired that they were laughing; mentally falling apart and that there was no getting away from the bombs, they were constant. This source is withal useful as it gives a soldiers point of view.\r\n just, the book is John’s bear interpretation, meaning that it could be inaccurate. The next source that does support this statement is source B12 which disagrees that Dunkirk was a triumph as argues at it being â€Å"a military defeat”. However this source does portray across that it was â€Å"a propaganda victory”, this would be because newspapers started this myth of the battle being a victory and the brass just let them carry on with it, did not question their decisions. The source was created by a BBC news reporter. The purpose of this was to give out information. This source is reliable as it is by the BBC, which a British news company that is repetitively well respected and trustworthy, the BBC are al so criticising reports from starting the Dunkirk myth. However, this source is hindsight. This source would be useful as it helps prove the statement, ‘Dunkirk was not a triumph?’, because it shows that propaganda was used to manufacture of Dunkirk being a victory and almost rule out the negative side of Dunkirk.\r\nThe third source that I will use that will support Dunkirk not being a triumph is B14. It tells us about a senior army military officers experience during Dunkirk, already this source is reliable as Brian Horrocks was there, but he is remembering events that happened, but on the other hand you tend to forever and a day remember significant events. The purpose of this officer writing his autobiography is to sourceize money,( to join on sales he has written it in an emotional way that will make it more(prenominal) interesting) celebrate his life storey and use it as historical evidence. The author had first-hand experience of these events which makes it so reliable.\r\nThe source tells us what a soldier would remember about the retreat to Dunkirk, â€Å"shame and exhaustion”- this would be because when the troops had returned to Britain Churchill would not allow them to go back and bring back more evacuees. Brian Horrocks gives us some idea of what the tactical manoeuvre were like for both sides, Nazis used war and where well prepared, whereas Britain and France where making tactical errors and study flaws. The final source that I am going to use that will back up Dunkirk being a disaster is B16; superior Haw-Haw is teasing Churchill’s tactics, Churchill being a liar and how many more lives he is willing to sacrifice.\r\nLord Haw-Haw (British citizen, heavily influenced by the Nazis) broadcasted this on a radio hearing on the 17th June 1940. This source shows that not everyone believed in Winston Churchill’s views and therefore where willing to question him. The purpose was to undermine British confidence , so that eventually Churchill will start questioning himself, also undermined British propaganda.\r\n'