Controversy Surrounding Nolan's "Dunkirk"

You knew this would happen.  Christopher Nolan's recently-released World War II film Dunkirk has drawn heavy criticism from the French, and ridicule from the Russians.  The French, of course, object to the "writing out" of the heroism of the French forces who defended the pocket which allowed the massive evacuation to succeed.  And to the lack of mention, apparently (I have NOT seen the film yet, so none o' youse bastids spoil it for me!) of the more than 100,000 French soldiers evacuated along with about 310,000 Tommies which constituted the vast bulk of the British Expeditionary Force.  

That the film would come under criticism is both instructive and expected.  (Which is a step up from the average American's understanding of the Second World War, even the American chapters.)  But I have little sympathy for the French and their complaints.  While it is undoubtedly true that several tens of thousands of French soldiers fiercely defended the shrinking salient, had France and her massive military been anywhere near ready for modern war, doctrinally, mentally, and spiritually, there never would have been a Dunkirk.  The expectation that Great Britain owed them the expenditure of the bulk of her young men in uniform in a hopeless gesture once the Wehrmacht had overrun most of northern France is both absurd and typically French.  The 120,000 or so French soldiers rescued from the beaches were carried on British ships and craft, beneath air cover provided by the RAF and its precious remaining fighters.   And when they got to England, they were re-equipped with British, and then American, arms and equipment.   

As for the Russians, terming the film a "celebration of British cowardice" is about as disingenuous as it gets.  Stalin's Soviet regime, having murdered the brains and competence of the Red Army's Officer Corps in the Great Purges, expended its soldiers in futile, foolish, costly, bumbling disasters in 1941.  Should the British have kept the BEF on the continent to be captured by the Germans?  One would think perhaps the Russians think so, judging from their track record in July-October 1941, where the Wehrmacht captured nearly 2.7 MILLION Soviet soldiers in the great encirclements at Kiev, Smolensk, Briansk, Vyazma, and smaller cauldrons before the cold weather and Hitler's indecisiveness caused BARBAROSSA to grind to a halt.  So perhaps the Russians should be reminded of the callous and wasteful stupidity with which they squandered the lives of their soldiers, as a response to criticism of Britain.

The British Expeditionary Force suffered some 70,000 casualties fighting for France in the six weeks between 10 May and 25 June 1940.  With the concomitant losses of precious aircraft, tanks, vehicles, artillery pieces, supplies and equipment.  When England stood alone following France's capitulation, she did so with much of her ability to defend herself rusting away on the beaches and battlefields of Northern France.  For which the French (the government, at least) remain somewhat less than grateful, to the surprise of nobody.   Which is why General Swartzkopf's words in 1990 rang so true.  He wondered why we would count on the French in Desert Storm.  Because, after all, they didn't even help us kick the Germans out of France, why would they lift a finger to help kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait?

Perhaps, as Max Hastings relates, 

'The French will have to make their own film if they want their national story properly told.' 

But rather than do that, they expect others to do it for them, and then they'll likely complain about it when they don't like the result.   Here's an idea, then.  Next time?  Be ready for war.  And then fight like your country and your freedom depend upon it.  Because it does.   URR here.

Comments

[Casey]

Not much to say except "Well written."

...If one is an especially tender-hearted snowflake, one might be upset that Dunkirk didn't include stories about womyns and people of color. I'm not kidding, some critics are complaining the movie is all about white men.

Jeez louise.

[elizzar]

Nice post, URR. It's a film mostly about a British event (disaster in many ways), filmed by a British director. Around 75% (ore more) of those rescued were British - working class British young men at that. There were, as you say, around 100,000 non-Brits rescued too, including French and some Polish I believe. The RN and RAF fought to evacuate as many as they could, supported by unarmed civilians in "little boats" - many of whom were too young or too old to be soldiers. Quite a few were Great War veterans, too. The French politicians can sod off with their complaining; I think a lot of the older French, Belgian and Dutch public still remember and are thankful for their Allied (Brits, US and Canadians mostly, with some Free French) liberators in 1944+. The Soviets - well, when you think 20 million plus Russians died, I think that says it all. They were close to losing Stalingrad and Moscow, and even through 1940/1 were being supported by the British and American winter convoys. "Enemy at the Gates" is a good film to watch for the way the officers and commissars treated the common soldier. I hope to go and see Dunkirk next week sometime with my dad.

[Berzrkr50]

The French: "Cheese eating surrender monkeys."

[Paul L. Quandt]

After reading Berzkr50's comment, I have nothing to add.

Paul L. Quandt

[timactual]

To be fair, the poor poilu suffered from appalling leadership rather than lack of courage or willingness to fight.

[ultimaratioregis]

@timactual,

Agreed. One cannot study the Battle of France and have anything but empathy for the poor French rankers. Nor much but contempt for most, if not all, the senior military and political leadership.

[Heh]

"Wehrmacht captured nearly 2.7 MILLION Soviet soldiers in the great encirclements at Kiev, Smolensk, Briansk, Vyazma"

And the ones who survived German captivity, Stalin had them shot or sent to the gulag for cowardice and treason.

[Casey]

Agree with Tim. More than enough froggies were ready to hop when it came to Resistance, when the average expected life of a Maquis fighter was 6 months.

Jean Moulin was twice arrested & tortured by the Gestapo, having never given anyone up. He died during the second incarceration in 1943. Moulin was tortured to death.

[Timmy]

And the Russians were of course allies of the Nazis in 1940

[Quartermaster]

Swartzkopf had a great deal of respect for the French Foreign Legion.They performed well in Desert Storm and made Swartzkopf and honorary Legionaire after it was all over.

Stalin was an idiot and suffered the typical weaknesses of a supreme tyrant. Frankly, As Victor Suvarov said, to the effect, had Hitler treated the Russians like humans, Stalin would never have been able to win. Russians would have turned on Stalin like the rabid dog he was.

[ultimaratioregis]

@QM,

You realize, of course, that other than the Officer Corps, very few Legionnaires are French...

[Ron Snyder]

Good post URR. Educational. I've not seen the movie yet either.

[Casey]

I'll add that Nolan made the concious choice to focus mostly on the British experience. One also doesn't see any Germans in the movie, either. Or so I've read. Haven't seen it yet, but supposedly the IMAX version is fantastic.

In fact Nolan made several choices which upset the nit-pickers. For example, German fighters didn't feature yellow noses until after the evacuation, but Nolan wanted to make it easier on the audience to ID the planes.

[Quartermaster]

@URR

Of course I know.