How far do the sources support or contradict this view?
May 1940. Germany had attacked France, Belgium and Holland. Within six weeks all three countries had surrendered. Germany’s success lay at the feet of a new and successful war technique: Blitzkrieg. This was the fast and overwhelmingly successful invasion of a country using tanks, air craft, artillery and infantry all working together communicating by7 radio. The BEF (British Expeditionary Force) was sent to help in France in 1939 at the start of the war, but was caught up in disaster, retreating from the German Front back to France and eventually the beaches of Dunkirk. On the 27th of May Winston Churchill (PM) ordered the Royal Navy to retrieve and evacuate as many of the BEF as they could. For seven days the British soldiers waited on the beaches of Dunkirk. It was believed only 30,000 would return. However thanks to small boats from the British public, by June 4th Navy was able to rescue nearly 338,000 men. It was described as “A miracle of deliverance” By Churchill himself. These men would be core in the army for the next five years and help to win the war. Without them all would have been lost. Therefore the evacuation itself could be argued a triumph. However as Churchill said “wars are not won by retreats no matter how glorious” and the amount of equipment and men left behind was enormous. And for those reasons it has been argued either side since 1940. In this essay I’ll be evaluating sources that support the interpretation that Dunkirk was a triumph and sources that contradict that statement. First of all sources that support this interpretation.
Source B3 is taken from a modern GCSE text book written by Teacher Ben Walsh. “Modern World History” published 2003. The source lists positive outcomes of Dunkirk, emphasising how many men were rescued and how much of a “powerful