"Does Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk ignore the role of the" Topic

…Indian Army?

"Christopher Nolan's epic World War Two film, Dunkirk, which tells the story of the mass evacuation of Allied troops from the northern coast of France in 1940, has been getting glowing reviews in India.

But many are glowering over Nolan turning a blind eye to the role of Indian soldiers in the battle. The Times of India wrote that their "significant contribution" was missing from Nolan's "otherwise brilliant" work. Writing for Bloomberg View, columnist Mihir Sharma said the film "adds to the falsehood that plucky Britons stood alone against Nazi Germany once France fell, when, in fact, hundreds of millions of imperial subjects stood, perforce, with them".

Few can deny the role of the subjects. Some five million Commonwealth servicemen joined the military services of the British empire during WW2. Almost half of them were from South Asia. Indian soldiers played a key role in major battles like Tobruk, Monte Cassino, Kohima and Imphal. A multinational force of British, Indian and African units recaptured Burma (Myanmar) for the Allies…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Given its failure to properly appreciate the roles that a number of other nations played in the Dunkirk evacuation, is this really a surprise?

The movie had about a dozen actors who had any significant screen time. Based on how little you saw of them, you could argue the movie ignores the role of the German army in the evacuation of Dunkirk.

I think Hilary Mantel probably made the best suggestion to "fill that gap".

The Indians were a tiny minority of the force. I would have thought their contribution was very little.
If we were talking desert war then that's a different story.

" hundreds of millions of imperial subjects stood, perforce, with them"."

I don't think that many people could fit on that beach.

That wasn't the story he was telling. If The Times of India wants to tell the story of the Indian Army at Dunkirk, then make they can make that movie. If not, stop attacking people who don't make the movie you want.

Yes and no.

Yes, Nolan's film makes no reference to the Indian Army.

No, because – as far as I can see – the Indian Army played no role in the retreat to Dunkirk or the evacuation.

I had a hunch that there was an Indian Army Service Corps mule subunit in France in 1940. Looking at the Order of Battle of the BEF, I found it – 22nd Animal Transport Company, IASC – attached to 51st Highland Div. That is one ancillary company in a three-Corps Army formed entirely of British Army units at that time. Since Nolan's film focuses on personal experience, the likelihood of his boys crossing paths with these Indian muleteers seems pretty remote. Particularly since the 51st famously was not at Dunkirk but lost at St-Valery; I imagine correct me – that the IASC Company followed a similar path of retreat.

So I feel that the Indian critics protest a little too much, mixing indignation with ignorance. This isn't a film about the whole War. Had it addressed the Western Desert, or Italy, or (heaven help us) Burma. it would have appropriate – maybe even incumbent – to make the point about India's war role. The Indian Army in WW2 was, after all, apparently the largest EVER volunteer force in history. But this is irrelevant to the Dunkirk story.

I'll turn the point around. I quite enjoyed watching '1917' at the level of an adventure, sort of history-as-video-game. But for a lesson in tactics or command works, it was worse than . Companies and Battalions separated by miles, including a town in the middle; a Division GOC descending to earth to sending runners one Battalion to another which has advanced to fight the awar on its own; plucky Tommies struggling through an Armageddon landscape and then conveniently being picked up by a passing convoy for a ride across clean ground; white-water rapids in the plains of Artois or Picardy …. God, the list of bloopers goes on and on. 'Journey's End' is an infinitely more grown-up depiction of WW1, not surprisingly since Sherriff was there.

Why mention all this? In today's post-Windrush Britain, it would be monstrously wrong to represent the British Army of our times as white-faced from end to end. But the number of non-white extras in '1917' was striking, to say the least. Perhaps it is indeed important in today's society not to exclude minorities from our collective past – I agree. But a film which took such care to braze cap badges to the tin hats being worn the places a remarkable number of non-white faces in … 9th Battalion, the Devonshire Regt … in 1917! There can scarcely have been a non-white in its whole recruiting area. (Yes, I know that by then recruit batches were being assigned willy-nilly to any unit that needed them. But still ..)

In short, shouldn't film-makers, their audiences and their critics pay some attention to the declared subject of the work?

This is old news.Why revisit it 3 years later?

The article speaks of "a few hundred in tens of thousands", so, historically it'd be a "blink and you miss it" scene – the film only really features a dozen or so main characters.

He couldn't cover every unit at that in France in the movie. But yes, the Indians really were more in numbers in North Africa, Italy and the CBI.

And as we know many times the movie gets it "wrong". But I think generally Dunkirk did a pretty good job overall.

The John Mills film captured the whole thing far better.

Nolan was brilliant in showing aerial combat. Brilliant, but even then very very few planes shown. But then anything is better than CGI where fighters twist and turn like Star Wars X wings.

The ships were disappointing, as far too modern, with fantastic radar fittings. The scene trapped, under fire, in the grounded boat dragged terribly. But I came out of the cinema thinking that film was brilliant…… in places

To properly show the actions of the Indian Army in WW2, someone should make a film about Imphal/Kohima, though preferably not Hollywood or Bollywood. I'm sure the audience doesn't want wokeness combined with corny song and dance numbers.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

American films routinely ignore the contribution of non-Americans and even fabricate an American contribution where there wasn't one. Why shouldn't a British director do the same?

You want a film about India in WW2, go ahead and make it, nobody's stopping you. Don't forget the role of Chandra Bose in the interests of balance.

As I have said before, if you are looking for complete historical accuracy … Don't expect it to find in in many Hollywood, etc., movies.

I suspect that eventually there will be complaints that the mules weren't shown being rescued from Dunkirk as well…

laretune on point

I am an unrepentant critic of Dunkirk. It has been pointed out to me by people who liked the movie, my wife among others, that if I wasn't expecting to see a movie about the evacuation of Dunkirk, but instead was expecting to see a movie about men at Dunkirk, I might not view it as harshly.

I am not sure though that it would be possible even in my kind of Dunkirk movie to work in the participation of the Indians in a way that would satisfy these Indian critics. I don't think they would be satisfied with Indian faces. They would want Indian heroes. India certainly provided a large number of heroes during WW2, but how many of those were at Dunkirk.

India certainly provided a large number of heroes during WW2, but how many of those were at Dunkirk.

That really is the bottom line. For that look at WWII North Africa, Italy and the CBI. No shortage of Indians serving there. And heroically …

Dare I point out that India has a robust film industry that puts out about three movies a day? If they want a movie of Dunkirk with Indian heroes, make it.

Good point !

I think this is a case of complaining "but there isn't anybody that looks like ME, so how can it be good?"

Bollywood can make a Dunkirk movie featuring ONLY the Indian military units using only Indian actors/actresses with English subtitles. I don't think India had any boats or planes in the battle either but they could put them in if they like. It's an entertainment movie, not a historical documentary.

Wolfhag

Interesting discussion

As noted, the BEF in 1940 had pretty much no Indian soldiers, as compared to Eighth Army for example who had lots and lots

My uncle (WWII Canadian infantryman) did make the comment to me as a lad that the British senior officers were happy to fight to the last Canadian/Australian/Indian

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand