|
warspite1 -> RE: Dunkirk details... (9/12/2013 12:21:14 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: veji1
this type of discussion is largely nonsensical. In the end one can only be thankful that Dunkirk happened the way it happened, that the Germans made the mistake of not reducing the pocket fast enough and that the english and french soldiers trapped saved what, and I am a frenchman, had the most value to be saved at that time, the english soldiers.
Now what one has to grasp, accept and in a sense forgive, is that both countries have a vastly different feeling about dunkirk. For the brits it is the battle of britain part 1, the first proof of their heroism, foretelling what is to come : One year of resisting alone against hitler's forces. Ie an exhilarating story, the light of future victory in midst of defeat.
For the French dunkirk is the shame of defeat, the shame of military defeat, compounded by political defeat (ie the 100 000 french soldiers than crossing again to France to be prisonners of war), their land being occupied by the nazis for 4 years, etc... So Dunkirk just 100% sucks, and to read an watch british media basking in this grandiose example of the resilience of the british people in face of overwhelming odds yada yada yada... You see how the bitterness can come to the surface.
Add to this, and one has only to read Churchill's memoirs, how many french political leaders felt they had shouting for years about german danger only for the british among other to consider it paranoid, and actually to go back to the old island way of thinking : we don't want a dominant power in Europe, and right now the danger comes from France not Germany... Peace in our time was not a sentence uttered by Daladier as far as I know... Not saying that the french elite was by any means perfect, but just to give a bit of perspective on the bitterness the Dunkirk episode elicits in France.
Ah well still, the french lost pretty badly, their command sucked, they were fighting the previous war against new methods. Nevertheless they lost close to 200 000 casualties (killed and injured) in 6 weeks of fighting, a decent pool of blood if you ask me. Did many run, sure when the General Staff doesn't give orders and the officers start to waver, what is the rank and file to do.
So let's be thankful for the success of the Dunkirk evac, which mitigated the disaster, but let's not also forget the context of it all, and keep in mind that well for the French, the Dunkirk pocket is just part of an unreally painful process of utter, complete defeat and shame, that took just 6 weeks time.
warspite1
I hoped my initial post made clear that the French rear-guard action deserves its rightful place in the annals of war.
What was unhelpful about the YouTube video was that it was not designed with an objective point of view i.e. that life is not as simple as black and white. It is so disappointing that so many people go through life with such a blinkered view and cannot see there are two sides to every story.
Churchill knew full well that in no way shape or form could Dunkirk be seen as a victory, but the fact was that the British people needed a morale boost to keep fighting. Remember too that Churchill was a Francophile not a Francophobe. The "victory" of Dunkirk message was designed to raise morale in the UK - not to kick the French in the gonads.
As for the actions of Britain and France in the build up to WWII, this has been debated on this forum before and, as with the Dunkirk episode, should be looked at from the point of view of the countries at the time and not through some 21st century - we-know-how-it-turned-out lens.
Bottom line, the British and French were democracies, their leaders were desperate to avoid another war - not because they were cowardly appeasers, but because they had lived through the horror of the trenches and wanted to avoid a repeat at all costs.
BTW I can imagine how the French feel about WWII - the Malaya, Singapore, Burma episode is very painful to us.
|
|
|
|
