XBradTC

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.