Study this source. Source A (your primary source for this question) 'The speed of our defeat was beyond anything we had imagined. On 10 May the Germans atta...

Understanding the question type: 'How useful is this source as evidence about...?' requires you to evaluate what the source tells us (its usefulness) and what it does not or cannot tell us (its limitations). You must consider the content, the author's perspective, and the circumstances in which the source was produced.

What the source tells us (usefulness): The source is a diary entry by a French army officer, written in July 1940, shortly after France's defeat. It provides specific, accurate details about the military campaign:

• The German attack through the Ardennes on 10 May, which French generals had declared 'impassable for tanks.'
• Panzer divisions crossing the River Meuse at Sedan within four days.
• German forces reaching the English Channel by 20 May, cutting Allied armies in two.
• The British evacuation of 338,000 troops from Dunkirk, leaving behind all heavy equipment.
• France signing the armistice on 22 June in the same railway carriage as the 1918 German surrender.
• The comparison with World War I: six weeks versus four years.

As a first-hand account from a French officer, the source gives an immediate, eyewitness perspective on the shock and speed of the defeat. The specific dates and figures (Sedan, 338,000 evacuated, six weeks) are historically accurate, adding factual weight. The diary format, written close to the events in July 1940, means it was not filtered for a public audience, potentially making it more candid than an official report.

Limitations of the source:

• Narrow perspective: As one French officer, the author experienced only a part of the campaign. His account does not represent the full picture of France's defeat.
• Focus on surprise and speed: The source emphasises the shock of the Ardennes attack and the pace of the Panzer advance, but does not analyse deeper causes. It does not mention the strategic decision to advance into Belgium (Plan D), which left the Ardennes sector weakly defended by second-rate divisions.
• Omission of air power: The source does not address the role of the Luftwaffe, which achieved air superiority early in the campaign. Stuka dive-bombers disrupted French communications and morale, and much of the French air force was destroyed on the ground.
• No mention of deeper factors: France's inter-war political divisions, low military spending during the 1930s, reliance on a defensive strategy built around the Maginot Line, and the failure to develop modern armoured doctrine all contributed to the defeat but are absent from this source.
• Emotional tone: Written in the immediate aftermath of a devastating defeat, the author's tone conveys shock and a sense of inevitability that may obscure the contingencies and mistakes that shaped the outcome.

Mark scheme breakdown:

• Level 1 [1-2 marks]: Simple comments about usefulness, such as 'It is useful because the person was there.'
• Level 2 [3-5 marks]: Evaluates usefulness with some support from source details. Identifies what the source reveals about the campaign (Ardennes, speed, Dunkirk) and possibly notes the author's position, but may not address limitations in depth.
• Level 3 [6-8 marks]: Evaluates both usefulness and limitations. Uses source details to explain what makes it valuable (first-hand account, accurate details, immediacy) and own knowledge to identify what is missing (Plan D, air power, deeper structural causes). Reaches a balanced judgement about the source's overall usefulness.

Exam tip: For 'how useful' questions, never conclude that a source is 'not useful.' Every source is useful for something. Instead, explain what it is useful for and then identify what it cannot tell us, using your own knowledge to fill the gaps.