Churchill Archive for Schools - Themes_Key questions_Dunkirk evacuatio
Loading
Loading

Was the Dunkirk evacuation a triumph or a disaster?

Source 1

A letter from Anthony Eden, Secretary of State for War, to Winston Churchill, 20 December 1940

Reference

CHAR 20/27/76-78

Simplified Transcript

My dear Prime Minister

You may remember that Mr. Masefield, the Poet Laureate, asked you three or four months ago if he might be supplied with material for his book about the Battle of Flanders and the retreat to Dunkirk. You gave permission, and the information was given to him.

The book was submitted to this Office, and I asked Sir Edward Grigg to read it to give me his advice. He tells me that the book (which is entitled "The Twenty-Five Days") is in the form of a diary which gives an account of events under each date. This has enabled the Poet Laureate to present a series of vivid pictures of the confusion and horror of the retreat without attempting to give any coherent account of the measures which prevented the Army from being encircled and forced to surrender. The story has much to say about individual acts of gallantry, but it leaves the impression that plans and leadership were absent.

I feel very unhappy as to the effect which such a publication is likely to produce, both here and in the United States.

We have got ourselves into rather a hole, and I have the feeling that the only way out is for somebody to tell Masefield that he has got to re-write the book under “guidance". I certainly cannot willingly see published a book which praises the services of the Navy and the RAF at Dunkirk, while making of the operations of the Army leading up to the evacuation seem unplanned and without any purpose.

Yours ever,

Anthony Eden

Original Transcript

…My dear Prime Minister,

You may remember that Mr. Masefield, the Poet Laureate, asked you three or four months ago if he might be supplied with material for a narrative of the Battle of Flanders and the retreat to Dunkirk. You gave permission, and the material was supplied through the Ministry of Information and the Director or Public Relations here.

The book having been submitted to this Office, I asked Sir Edward Grigg to read it and to give me his advice. He tells me that the book (which is entitled "The Twenty-Five Days") is in a diary form which purports to give an account of events under each date. This arrangement has enabled the Poet Laureate to compose a series of vivid pictures of the confusion and horror of the retreat without attempting to give any consecutive or coherent account of the military measures which prevented the Army from being encircled and forced to capitulate. The story as thus told has much to say about individual acts of gallantry, but nothing about plan or leadership; and it leaves the impression that both were far to seek.

I feel very unhappy as to the effect which such a publication is likely to produce, both here and in the United States. But the situation is complicated by the fact that publishers in both countries already have the book in page proof, and that Mr. Masefield is pressing strongly for its release by us.

I hate to trouble you with this kind of thing when you have so many burdens to carry, but if you could see Grigg for ten minutes or so I should be grateful. He can tell you exactly what is in the book and answer any questions you may wish to ask. We have got into rather a hole, and have the feeling that the only way out is for somebody to tell Masefield that he has got to re-write the book under “guidance", and obviously that somebody will have to be you or somebody who has your full authority. Anyhow, I certainly cannot willingly see published a book which assesses at their full value the services of the Navy and the RAF at Dunkirk, while making of the operations which preceded it nothing but a succession of isolated minor incidents unconnected with any plan or any purpose.

Yours ever,

Anthony Eden

What is this source?

This is a letter from Anthony Eden, Secretary of State for War, to Winston Churchill, dated 20 December 1940. The letter is asking for Churchill to intervene to prevent an author called John Masefield from publishing a book about the French campaign, the retreat to Dunkirk and the evacuation from there.

Background to this source

There are a few important points to consider. Firstly, the context of the Dunkirk evacuation. The BEF were evacuated from Dunkirk by the Navy, with the support of the RAF. Before the BEF could be evacuated, they had to make their way through France to Dunkirk.

Secondly, the context in which the letter was written. By December 1940, Britain was under attack from Nazi Germany after the ‘Phoney War’ had ended. Throughout the summer of 1940, the RAF had fought the German Luftwaffe in fierce battles in the skies above southern Britain as Hitler prepared to invade. By September, Hitler was forced to delay his plans to invade Britain. Instead, from September 1940 until May 1941, Germany began air raids in which they bombed many British cities at night-time (the ‘Blitz’), with the aim of destroying British war supplies but also targeting civilians. The British government realised this and knew that morale had to be kept up. In 1940, the US was still officially neutral in the war, but Britain was pressing for financial support and still hoped the US might join the war on the Allies’ side.

John Masefield was the Poet Laureate. The Poet Laureate is appointed by the monarch (on the advice of the British government) and is a member of the Royal Household. The Poet Laureate is expected to write verses to commemorate significant national occasions.

How can we use this source in the investigation?

Remember we are hoping that this source can be useful to us in investigating whether the Dunkirk evacuation was a triumph or a disaster. Sources usually help historians in two ways:

Surface level: details, facts and figures

  1. How did the poet John Masefield obtain the information to write his book?
  2. What kind of impression does Eden claim that Masefield has created about the retreat?
  3. What does Eden believe that Masefield has left out of his book?
  4. Does the book (according to Eden) criticise the actual evacuation, or just the events leading up to it?
  5. What does Eden think should happen next?

Deeper level: inferences and using the source as evidence

Which of the inferences below can be made from this source?


On a scale of 1-5 how far do you agree that this source supports this inference? Which extract(s) from the source support your argument?
John Masefield believes that the French campaign of the BEF was disorganised.

Eden agrees with him.

Eden is concerned about the impact of Masefield’s book on public morale and support for the war.

Eden believes Masefield has made up the events that are in the book.

This source shows us that Dunkirk was a disaster.

Eden believes that John Masefield has responsibilities to the British Government.

Download table (PDF)
Download table (Word document)

Need some help interpreting the source?

  • Eden says that Masefield describes the ‘confusion and horror’ of the retreat. What impression do we get of the events from this phrase? Why would the British government be worried about the public in Britain and the US reading this account of the French campaign and the Dunkirk evacuation?
  • Eden says Masefield describes the confusion and horror of the retreat ‘without attempting to give any coherent account of the measures which prevented the Army from being encircled’. Does he agree with Masefield? Does he think Masefield has got it entirely wrong, or just missed out some of the story?
  • Eden says ‘We have got ourselves into rather a hole’. Do you think he blames Masefield entirely? Does he believe Masefield has made things up?
  • Sir James Grigg was the Permanent Under Secretary of War: Churchill had worked with him before and would go on to promote him to be Secretary of State for War, the government minister in charge of the War Office.  It’s likely that Eden would know that Churchill would respect Grigg’s opinion.
  • Eden advises Churchill to censor the book. What does this suggest?

Source 2

 Back to sources page

 Back to investigation page