Evaluating the Success of Dunkirk There are many opinions on how successful Dunkirk was; one point of
view can be argued that it was a defeat for the British. There are
many meanings to defeat; these include lose of troops and equipment,
demoralisation of troops and a disorderly nature of evacuation. From
looking at pieces of evidence and from my own knowledge I know that
the following definitions of defeat did occur in Dunkirk.
There are three main aspects of defeat- Nature of the evacuation which
refers to the panic and the disorganisation that takes place, military
equipment and finally loss of morale which concerns the disheartenment
of troops and civilians. I think the most important aspect of defeat
is military due to the fact of heavy bombardment from the Luftwaffe
killing many B.E.F and French troops. This view is supported by a
number of sources such as source 3.
Source 3 is two pictures taken by an unknown person. This first image
shows some scattered litter on the ground which is actually equipment
abandoned by the B.E.F and also shows shipwrecks on the beach. The
second picture shows shipwrecks again abandoned equipment and also
dead British soldiers. This source supports military defeat as the
scattered equipment illustrates the B.E.F loss of equipment. Also the
dead British soldiers on the beach reinforce the military aspect of
defeat. The reliability of this source is good in the way that it was
taken at Dunkirk at the time of th...
... middle of paper ...
... he wasn't actually
there which weakens the source.
Finally the last aspect of victory is the fact Dunkirkallowed the
British to continue the war when it looked like disaster was imminent.
This is supported by American Historian Norman Gelb writing about
Dunkirk and its effects. It shows that the victory of Dunkirk allowed
British troops to take the first steps in the collapse of Hitler's
Nazi empire. This source is written by a historian, so it would be
well researched, balanced making it reliable. Also it's useful as the
book is specifically on Dunkirk so Gelb should be well informed on the
events that took place. However the weaknesses are evident in the
book's title "The Incredible Escape.2 This suggests Gelb had already
made up his mind on Dunkirk and therefore wrote a one sided argument
to back up his view.
Evaluation of the Success of the Evacuation of Children from Major British Cities during World War II
The Battle of Fredericksburg is remembered as the Confederate Army’s most one-sided victory in its campaign against the Union Forces of the North. It was the first battle to occur shortly after President Abraham Lincoln had delivered his “Emancipation Proclamation” and the President was hard pressed for a victory to bolster public support for it. It would be remembered as the first major campaign for the newly appointed General of the Army of the Potomac. General Ambrose E. Burnside was given command of the Union Army due to an increased frustration President Abraham Lincoln was experiencing with his predecessor. However, General Burnside’s inexperience would cost him dearly on the battlefield. Historical data and battlefield analysis reports show what led to the Unions defeat at Fredericksburg. An alternative outcome was possible had General Burnside
BANG, BOOM, BLAM,TAT-A-TAT, TAT. My ears are assaulted with noise, my eyes witness squirting blood a soldier is shot. I observe soldiers blown away by bombs. I see blood that saturates an infantry man. I view maimed men and observe limbs with fragmented bone. I witness militia dead on the ground. I listen to screams, grunts and gurgling blood in a man's windpipe. WHOOSH, flame throwers make a path with flames blazing burning men instantaneously. My eyes reveal the emotion that rips through my heart, tears drip down my cheek. I turn my head. I cannot watch a soldier cradle his buddy as he dies.
At the beginning of the war, the preconceptions of each side show exactly why Britain was destined for failure. On the American team,
In this essay I will explain the battle between Germany and Britain, discuss how important winning this battle was, what Britain had that the Germans did not have, and what could have happened if Britain would have lost. It is known cleverly as “the Battle of Britain”.
"A general who wears down 180,000 of the enemy by expending 400,000 men...has something to answer for." This idea from military historian C.E.W Bean is the main line of argument from traditionalist historians. They represent General Douglas Haig, British Commander-in-Chief of the BEF from 1915 to the end of the war in 1918, in a critical, damning light: a hopelessly incompetent general with a willingness to sacrifice the men of Britain for a few metres of muddy ground. On the converse of this interpretation is a revisionist perspective of Haig as a caring ‘architect of victory’, bringing long-term achievements with his perceptive strategies. With an examination of these two seemingly polemic perspectives and primary evidence, judgement, albeit a complex and multifaceted one, can be reached on both these smaller debates and of Douglas Haig’s role in World War One: villain or vanquisher?
Saving Private Ryan starts out on June 6, 1944, which marks the beginning of the invasion of Normandy, in World War II. As learned early on four brothers from the Ryan family all go out to serve the United States, and in action three of the four are killed. This story follows a group of soldiers on their journey as they search for, the last surviving of the Ryan brothers, Private First Class James Ryan, and send him home. World War II is the deadliest and most extensive war in history that lasted six years. In World War II there were battles fought and rescue missions that took place, and the US Military showed their bravery as they went in to fight for our country.
The Battle of Normandy was a turning point in World War II. Canada, America, and Great Britain arrived at the beaches of Normandy and their main objective was to push the Nazi’s out of France. The Invasion at Normandy by the Allied Powers winning this battle lead to the liberation of France and Western Europe. Most importantly Hitler’s was being attacked from both the eastern and western front, and caused him to lose power. If the Allied Powers did not succeed in D-Day Hitler would’ve taken over all of Europe.In a document written by General Dwight Eisenhower he persuades the allied powers to invade Normandy. Dwight Eisenhower was born on October 14, 1890. Eisenhower became the 34th president of the United States. He served as the president from January 20, 1953 through January 20, 1961. Before his presidency Dwight participated in World War I and was moved up to captain. Dwight would then take part in World War II and work his way up to becoming a General.
“…the most important result was that it awakened in us a strong, practical sense of esprit de corps, which in the field developed into the finest thing that arose out of the war – comradeship.” (p23)
Operation Overlord was the offensive of all offensives. It was the largest amphibious invasion in world history, which totaled over 160,000 American, British and C...
To write this book the author, John Toland, had to devote 15 years researching different stories from all sides of the war. He studied war memoirs, interviewed war veterans, and read military documents. While doing this he focused on both the allied and axis forces to truly understand both sides of the story and be able to write such a descriptive and accurate piece of work. This research was used in the book to describe the unlikely victory of the Americans over the Germans during the “Battle of the Bulge”.
Resnick p. 15. However, these events infuriated Hitler who refused to believe that the Germans had been defeated fairly on the battlefield.... ... middle of paper ... ...
The British Faced the Blitz with Courage and Unity is a Myth Use the sources, and your own knowledge. To explain whether you agree with this statement. In this question I am asked if I agree or disagree with the statement 'The impression that the British faced the blitz with courage and unity is a myth' by using the sources and my own knowledge. I disagree with this statement to a certain extent because there is many useful sources telling me how well the British people worked together as a nation against Germany.
The movie I chose to analyze for historical accuracy was War Horse. This movie was set in the First World War, starting in Britain but the story also explored France and Germany during this time period as well. Three scenes will be analyzed: the trench warfare scene between the British and the Germans, the scene where the British soldiers were gassed, and the scene where the British were getting patched up and nursed. War Horse does well to stick to the historical accuracy of what happened during the First World War due to the fact that the three scenes that I have chosen to analyze are not embellished and are close to what really happened.
There is an intellectual discussion over the accuracy of war films and whether or not these should focus more on telling the truth or decorating it a little. Indeed, the narrative of war films has change throughout the years because the purpose of such films has evolved, especially those representing the World War II years and the aftermath. At the time of war, films were employed with diverse objectives for example to urge the public to support the war, to narrate the latest events, or to rebuild the image of the heroes. Most of the times the perspectives of films could vary depending on the country the film was produced in or which side of the story was being narrated. The plot of most war films might not be real, but they were necessary