The Spirit of the Blitz
History Controlled Assessment- Part 3
Representations 1, 2 and 3 all focus on civilian’s reactions to the experience of the Blitz. In this essay I am going to identify which representation I think gives the most accurate impression on civilian reactions to the experience of the Blitz and the reasons for this.
The reliability of a source is one way of suggesting whether or not it is accurate. Rep 1 is written by a history graduate and has been published in an academic journal. This makes it seem reliable as it would have had to be fact checked, however the author can give an inaccurate impression by selectively choosing sources that back up his point of view. It is also biased as it gives very little information on alternative points of view and there is little discussion to reach a conclusion, this is likely to be because the author was taken a more controversial stance. Rep 2 is the least reliable of the sources, this is because it is not supposed to be factual so it is unsure how much of the information it presents is based on facts, this is mainly due to the purpose of Rep 2 being to entertain rather than to inform meaning they can be more lenient with the truth to make a more exciting and captivating story. It could be argued that Rep 3 presents a more balanced argument, it says good and bad things; “there was widespread fear” suggesting that people may not have always maintained a very stoical attitude but also “many people continued to turn up for work” suggesting that many things did carry on as normal. However there is a lack of information in Rep 3 due to it being so short and this puts limitations on the amount you can draw from it about civilian’s reactions to the Blitz.
Another aspect of judging how reliable sources are is to see if the information they present seems to confer with that of other pieces of evidence relating to the issue. Rep 1 talks about there still being social divides and a lack of unity for civilians. The article can be backed up
Representations 1, 2 and 3 all focus on civilian’s reactions to the experience of the Blitz. In this essay I am going to identify which representation I think gives the most accurate impression on civilian reactions to the experience of the Blitz and the reasons for this.
The reliability of a source is one way of suggesting whether or not it is accurate. Rep 1 is written by a history graduate and has been published in an academic journal. This makes it seem reliable as it would have had to be fact checked, however the author can give an inaccurate impression by selectively choosing sources that back up his point of view. It is also biased as it gives very little information on alternative points of view and there is little discussion to reach a conclusion, this is likely to be because the author was taken a more controversial stance. Rep 2 is the least reliable of the sources, this is because it is not supposed to be factual so it is unsure how much of the information it presents is based on facts, this is mainly due to the purpose of Rep 2 being to entertain rather than to inform meaning they can be more lenient with the truth to make a more exciting and captivating story. It could be argued that Rep 3 presents a more balanced argument, it says good and bad things; “there was widespread fear” suggesting that people may not have always maintained a very stoical attitude but also “many people continued to turn up for work” suggesting that many things did carry on as normal. However there is a lack of information in Rep 3 due to it being so short and this puts limitations on the amount you can draw from it about civilian’s reactions to the Blitz.
Another aspect of judging how reliable sources are is to see if the information they present seems to confer with that of other pieces of evidence relating to the issue. Rep 1 talks about there still being social divides and a lack of unity for civilians. The article can be backed up