yr13_ia_2007_burge_c

=Evaluation of Sources (250-400 words)=

//‘I know that the destruction of so large and splendid a city at this late stage was considered unnecessary even by a good many people who admit that our earlier attacks were as fully justified as any other operation of war. Here I will only say that the attack on Dresden was at the time considered a military necessity by much more important people than myself, and that if their judgement was right the same arguments must apply that I have set out in earlier chapters in which I said what I think about the ethics of bombing as a whole’//
 * Source 1**

The above source is an extract from the autobiography of Sir Arthur Harris who was the Marshall of the R.A.F its purpose is for Arthur Harris to tell people about his life, this could create limitations if using it as a source as it could also be his persuading people [**speculation! You MUST be more specific here about this source, you can't just deal in "maybe"s**]. For example when talking of something so widely disputed like the Dresden bombing people would not want to go round saying that it was their idea, for instance in this extract Harris explains that the decisions were made by people much higher up than himself before saying he did not think much of it at the time.

The value of this source is that it comes from the autobiography of the head of bomber command. Although the limitations could be overpowering with Harris trying to cover up for him, there is still other values to the source such as the reference to opinion from ‘much more important people than myself’ and opinion ‘at the time’ [**I don't see your point here. Harris just throws up a smokescreen and tries to get himself off the hook - why is this valuable?**]

At the time of the bombings newspapers made it out to be a needed strike to help the advancing Russian forces, the London times explained that //‘at the moment Dresden is a place of vital importance to the enemy. As the centre of a railway network and a great industrial town, it has become of the greatest value for controlling the German defence against Marshall Konev’// accounts like these had the purpose of showing how the attack was aiding the coming of the end of the war, and to blind the public to the truth. Sources taken from newspapers at the time of the event can often be unreliable for finding out what happened exactly but they can always be useful to show how public opinion was meant to be swayed for example in the New York Times ‘//Batter the Nazis thrice’// screens the public from the fact that Dresden was mainly full of civilians and added to the propaganda that has been streaming through TV and newspapers the people believe that the Nazis are terrible people and deserve the battering so to them it will seem like a victory.

[**What has this paragraph got to do with the autobiography of Harris? It seems completely unrelated to it...you must really comment on things like when Harris's memoirs were published, the fact that he was not given a Knighthood because his reputation was controversial, that his memoirs therefore are likely to be an attempt to restore his reputation - and so on! You MUST be specific about your sources, their authors, the time they were written and why they were written - comments like "it might have been..." and "maybe..." are just vague, amateurish, lazy speculation that get no credit at all**]

//‘This story will certainly bring an avalanche of queries because it contradicts all of our announced policies and purposes of precision bombing. This is certain to have a nation wide serious effect on the Air Force as we have steadfastly preached the gospel of precision bombing against military and industrial targets.’//
 * Source 2**

The origin of this source is a memo which Colonel Rex Smith sent to General Arnold [**when? Who are they? What was their role, attitude before and after?**]. The purpose of this source is a warning to General Arnold as to the consequence of the Dresden bombing. The value of this source is that it shows the opinion of the people leading the attack and how it was a complete change in policy for them. Limitations to this source are that it just sees like a message between friends and not a message between a colonel and a general.


 * Still poor - a very superficial analysis of the source, no reference to its origin and when / why it was made public, and who these people actually were in relation to the event described.**