How far could the historian use sources 10 and 12 together to investigate the Amritsar Massacre? The Amritsar Massacre occurred on the 13th of April, 1919. Both sources 10 and 12 are useful for investigating the Amritsar Massacre, however source 12 is more useful due to its nature of being a report by an investigational committee, whereas source 10 is a report by Dyer himself, making it more defensive. Both sources were produced at a time where the tensions between the British and the Indians were at a high, and this is reflected in their content and usefulness. Source 10 is convincing as it is written by General Dyer himself. However, in order to reduce the public backlash from his actions he would have a greater incentive to falsify his intentions in order to justify his actions. For example, he states "I …show more content…
Whilst he states that his intention was just, it is less convincing as it is in a report to his superior officers and he would have to justify his actions to them. Moreover, the purpose of his writing was to warrant his actions, and thus it makes it less convincing. Despite this, it is a convincing first person account which can be used to investigate British attitudes toward the Amritsar Massacre. This is as it reflects British perspectives to the massacre. It conveys their fear of revolt, "I was very