New film portrays the retreat from and desertion of France as heroic

>The French army was a national disgrace in both wars

They did pretty good in WW1
They stopped the German advance at the First Marne (which ruined the Schlieffen Plan and effectively lost the war for Germany) and then basically single-handedly held the Western Front until the British could get their shit together and finally send some help by late 1916.
Then they had a few issues in 1917 but by 1918 they were back at it and lead the decisive Hundred Days Offensive

France was easily the Allied power that contributed the most to victory in WW1

>France was easily the Allied power that contributed the most to victory in WW1
You are not a historian

The british blockade is what caused Germans revolution and surrender in 1918

The BEF held up Von Clucks army at Mons leading to the gap between the german first and second armies at the marne.

The French army would not have attacked alone in 1918 without British and americans

>The BEF held up Von Clucks army at Mons leading to the gap between the german first and second armies at the marne.
Pfffffttt found the deluded bong
The BEF was like 35,000 strong at the First Marne, and its contribution was literally irrelevant (both French and German armies numbered over the million)

>The French army would not have attacked alone in 1918 without British and americans
The French and the Americans would've been enough
As a matter of fact, at the end the AEF was the second biggest allied army on the Western Front after the French and had more troops that Britain

Brits really overestimate their contribution

Retreat, yes, desertion of France, no. That was Petain and other fascistcucks who saw France being bent over by the boxheads as advantageous just so they could line up a few Jews and commies against the wall.

Typical Anglo revisionism when their only major contribution (inb4 muh d-day) was intelligence, a fitting role for a nation whose national trait is perfidy.

>Despite this, some historians have defended the British soldiers' conduct by arguing that the aftermath could not have been avoided considering the ferociousness of the battle. Ian Fletcher argues:[13]

>Let us not forget that hundreds of British troops were killed and maimed by the fury of the respective assaults, during which men saw their comrades and brothers slaughtered before their very eyes. Should we really condemn them for feeling some degree of bitterness, for wanting to vent their anger upon somebody? The storming of a fortress is not the same as a battle where men expect casualties to occur. But when a force was asked to storm a fortress when practicable breaches had been formed, such casualties would have been deemed unnecessary. Given the enormity of the task facing the stormers in the Peninsula, I for one begrudge them none of their feelings of anger and desire for revenge.

Top fucking kek Anglos are amazing. SUCH cognitive dissonance.

The boys in trailer look utterly terrified. Seems more like a horror movie vibe than a war movie.

>deploy second most amount of troops on allied side aside from Russia
>overestimate contribution
Shut up you cretin

A proper war movie is a horror movie

>you're packed in tight with your mates on a pier, waiting to get on a boat back to England
>suddenly a Stuka comes screaming down on, seemingly right at you
>do you jump off the pier and risk harming yourself and/or becoming a POW because you gave up your place in the line, or do you stay put and potentially get bombed/strafed?

I'd say it's a pretty terrifying situation to be in.

Dunkirk is like the biggest propaganda myth established in Britain during WW2 so of course they're going to keep up the charade.

>Are the french the nation that gets its history the most cucked by modern entertainment media?
No, that would be Germany. France takes a solid second place though. Poland on bronze, because nobody takes them seriously in their WW2 warfare.

Why is Veeky Forums so butthurt about Dunkirk?

Managing to evacuate all those soldiers was impressive, and I don't recall hearing a single version of this story that didn't include the French holding the line while the French left, which was what saved the Brits in the long run.

>New film portrays the retreat from and desertion of France as heroic
It's like you're just looking for something to be pointlessly angry about, the trailer literally only shows a bunch of dudes waiting on a beach, some dead guys, some guy looking annoyed and throwing his shit to the sides while walking into the water and a bunch of Brits shitting their pants at a Stuka. How the fuck did you manage to reach your conclusion from just that?

Why do people keep doing this? Always picking the presumption that makes them most angry, or just plain speaking from a position of total ignorance just to talk shit?

So much this.

In Britain we aren't taught in school that it was a heroic victory or anything like that, everyone knows it was a retreat. The reason we remember Dunkirk is that so many French and British lives were saved from a such a hopeless situation. Yes, British propaganda made a big deal out of it during the war but no one in Britain takes that seriously anymore. Look at the fucking trailer for instance, those guys on the pier are standing there looking like they've just taken the greatest beating of their lives. How in the fuck did you arrive at your conclusion?

The problem isn't the film, the problem is all these butt-hurt people thinking they know the way Brits view their history better than the Brits themselves when in truth they don't know shit.

OP, kill yourself you fucking shitbag

>Yes, British propaganda made a big deal out of it during the war but no one in Britain takes that seriously anymore.

Tbh, no one with a good knowledge of history takes Britain's role in WW2 seriously anymore

>Almost half the troops evacuated are french
>they do nothing but complain

My granda shot a German in the head with an anti-tank rifle at Dunkirk. He said the war was great craic.

S M E L L Y
A N D
U N G R A T E F U L

>implying Hitler didn't ALLOWED the Britshits to retreat

He could have smashed you, but he still believed there some reason left on that inbred little piece of shit of an island.

No historian believes this meme you autist.

The German generals halted the advance because they were afraid of overextending and getting cut off.

Not many real historians take Hitler's claim made later in the war (when Germany was losing) that he allowed the Brits to retreat seriously.

inb4
>Am I out of touch?
>No it is the historians who are wrong.

That's a gay ass meme Werhaboos spout to excuse their failure and Brits use to feel self-important
The truth is that the halt happened because the lines were overextended and Hitler feared it would lead to something like the First Marne in WW1

The half didn't last long, and after it the Germans continued the case with full force
Had it not been for the French rearguard, the BEF wouldn't have managed to escape, regardless of the German half

That's a gay ass meme Werhaboos spout to excuse their failure and Brits use to feel self-important
The truth is that the halt happened because the lines were overextended and Hitler feared it would lead to something like the First Marne in WW1

The halt didn't last long, and after it the Germans continued the chase with full force
Had it not been for the French rearguard, the BEF wouldn't have managed to escape, regardless of the German halt

>they do nothing but complain

If by "do nothing" you mean having single-handedly delayed the German advance despite being outnumbered 4 to 1 while Brits were sitting on the bitch and whining about the sparse aerial raids, sure

Most of the BEF would still have got away without the French rearguard action. Not many of the French soldiers Churchill insisted on saving once the Brits had been evacuated would have done though.

>while Brits were sitting
>implying half the people sitting on the beach weren't french

My Grandfather has a very different version of Dunkirk than you. It involves holding trenches, drinking tea, holding off armoued advances and watching his friends being blown to pieces.

I'll take your word for it though big man.

In fairness the user does sound very well informed. He doesn't sound like someone completely clueless about history who just comes onto Veeky Forums to drag the place down into /int/ style country vs country shitposting competitions at all.

Haha no
Without the French rearguard, the Germans would have been in Dunkirk a week prior to the date they arrived, and less than 10% of the BEF alone would've been evacuated

Is this the British version of "my grandfather was a resistant"?
Your grandfather was a liar and a coward
He sat on the bitch and shat himself everytime a German plane flew over him, until his pussy ass got thrown in a boat and shiped back to his inbred island

Funny how until 35k of people who aren't french show up the French are fucking useless at anything but digging in the ground. If the britbongs didn't starve Germany from supplies the Feench were done. Face it your country is useless they were a disgrace in WW2 and WW1 was then standing still until real countries could lead them.

>It involves holding trenches

How to detect a big fat lie (either from you or your grandfather)
I really wonder against what he would have held that trench given that the German army, thank to the French rearguard, didn't get to approach the city until all of the British troops had been evacuted

>Although Churchill had promised the French that the British would cover their escape, on the ground it was the French who held the line while the last remaining British soldiers were evacuated. Enduring concentrated German artillery fire and Luftwaffe strafing and bombs, the French stood their ground.
>On 2 June (the day the last of the British units embarked onto the ships),[Notes 2] the French began to fall back slowly, and by 3 June the Germans were about two miles (3 km) from Dunkirk.

...

You should read up on Dunkirk before challenging the first hand experiences of people that were there lmao. Ignoramus.

This doesn't even make sense. The Brits didn't even start to withdraw forces from the fighting and focus on evacuations more that week before the evacuation of Brits was complete so pretending that a sole French rearguard action delaying German forces for an entire week took place is ridiculous.

Maybe if the French fought as hard as you are saying the entire time they wouldn't have been in this position to begin with.

>British calling anyone else useless

Kek
Is there anything in this world funnier than British delusion?

Are the French just angry about Dunkirk because their country got occupied and ours didn't?

Basically. They ran like cowards for a month 0 resistance and are mad a tiny island of inbreds beat back the airforce the french ran in fear of.

Pretty sure the thing the French were scared off was the German army, not air force
You know, that same army the British ran away from at Dunkirk while the French were dying stop delay them, and that same army that had to stop at the sea because tanks can't swim, thus saving cowardly brits from invasion

Didn't France have similar man power capabilities as Germany? Why you so pussy?

>Didn't France have similar man power capabilities as Germany?

So did Britain desu
Didn't prevent them from running away and cowering until the US arrived

No?

Yes
Britain had an as big population as France and a huge colonial empire
The fact they pussied out on their island until Americans arrived instead of invading Germany themselves tells a lot about the British fighting spirit

The majority of their population would be from Colonies the Island did not have a massive male population in comparison. The colonies could not be mobilized in a month France gave up simply too fast.

>The colonies could not be mobilized in a month France gave up simply too fast.

Four years occured between Dunkirk and the moment Britain, thank to American arrival, finally gathered enough courage to challenge Germany in Europe
Had Britain not been such a pathetic coward nation, they'd have gathered manpower and invaded Germany by 1942, instead of conducing ridiculous irrelevant skirmishes in Africa

Not everyone cares about France. Literally all of Europe had basically fallen and France the only real major power on their side had totally surrendered. Don't blame the British for the French being such a piss poor military power.

...

>Not everyone cares about France.

Who talked about France?
Britain was at war with Germany, France or not
I'm not even talking about liberating France, I'm taking about invading Germany
Brits could have landed in the Netherlands or in Hamburg if that suited them
Fact is that Britain had the superior navy and the possibily to have a superior manpower, but due to utter cowardice they choose to wait until Americans arrived in 1944 to do something

BRAVO NOLAN
R
A
V
O

N
O
L
A
N

ITT buthurt Johnny Foreigners and Fenian nonces shit post about Bongs.

>The british blockade is what caused Germans revolution and surrender in 1918

That was the jewish global bankers and marxists, friend-o.

Empty bellies cause revolutions johnny

not even a full trailer of the film was realsed and yet you automatically asume it's going to be propaganda.

go shitpost somewhere else

Dude, you gotta read actual history books. Say what you want about the French in WW2, but they fought to the death in the Great War. 2/3 of French men between the ages of 18 and 30 died in that conflict. They fought to defend every inch of French soil unlike their successors. All that ground is soaked with the blood of over 1.3 million men.

The poilu was the backbone of the Allied effort in the Western Front. Had the French broken anytime before 1917 when the US joined the Allies and tipped the scales in their favor, the war would've been over.

And while the BEF was indeed the best army that Britain fielded, it got decimated and eventually reshuffled once everyone hunkered down into trench warfare. If you want to talk about the best soldiers of the British Empire as a whole, that honor belongs to Australia, Canada, and New Zealand on a national level.

I know this board is the official francaboo board but still you are laying it on a bit thick.

firstly the overriding at the time of dunkirk was to salvage as much as possible from a military situation which french incompetence had turned into a disaster. the british army had a choice between a glorious last stand but certain defeat and probably loss of the war, or a retreat, and a chance to win.

the situation was caused by the abject collapse of the french army, the only french that held were the one with the BEF the others had collapsed, and the only reason those french held was because they knew their only hope lay with saving what could still be saved.

its also worth noting that the almost all the french in the pocket were also evacuated.

and that the promise to return and to not make peace until france was freed was kept.

the french get butthurt about dunkirk to disguise their own failures, 'ha look at the british they ran away' while the french army was running away or surrendering all over france.

the british incidently didnt completely abandon france at dunkirk, they actally sent a second force into normandy to try and aid the french, only withdrawing once it was clear the french were seeking armistice with the germans
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ariel

what honestly could the brtish have done differently and still had any hope of eventual victory?

>you gotta read actual history books.
I suggest you look up the british offensives of 1916 and 1917, both of which were mounted due to french requests to take the heat off their "backbone"

By 1917 the french army was in mutiny due to Nevellies failed offensive, and after that the majority of the fighting was done by non-white french colonial troops.

t. Lindybeige

The frogs were actually capturing ground in 1916, while the eternal anglo was JUSTing everything up at the Somme

Get a load of this disgustingly butthurt britbong
Truly pathetic

>I suggest you look up the british offensives of 1916 and 1917, both of which were mounted due to french requests to take the heat off their "backbone"
France had basically single-handedly held the Western front from 1914 to late 1916 when the British finally got their shit together and sent a significant number of troops for the first time of the war (Somme)
But even the, France still made up for half the troops at the Somme and all of them at Verdun

It wasn't until mid-1917 that Britain finally took an equal part of the burden as France, due to France having some internal issues (mutinies)
But even that didn't last long as when 1918 came, France took back the leadership of the Entente with Foch becoming supereme allied commander and launching the decisive 100 Days Offensive

>and after that the majority of the fighting was done by non-white french colonial troops.
Purpotedly lying out of buttpain...you're really pathetic and disgusting
France had very few non-whites in the war as you can see on the stats pic related
Which cannot be said of Britain...

France "capturing" land was a bit of a meme in WW1. They had a doctrine of taking as much land as possible with the mindset that they had to expel the Germans from their land. This meant taking land whether it was tactically or strategically viable or not. So they would advance in terrible conditions, set up even worse trenches than before and then lose it all when the Germans had regrouped because the French would position themselves in such god awful positions that they were just decimated.

>due to french requests to take the heat off their "backbone"

That's because the French took the brunt of the war for basically the entire war. They were the "backbone" of the entire entente line. And by 1918 the French had resolved that mutiny.

Man, I don't care. We rarely get any historical films as it is - got to take what you can get.

I'd say that's Russia. Always WWI/WWII, always shown to be underdeveloped and with an incompetent army lacking in even basic supplies.

But in reality

youtube.com/watch?v=dE5GRq0lPE0&t=1s

1. You're complaining that you have to commit the most effort out of your Allies in defending your own country
2. Britain had to divert troops to defend the Empire and moving other troops to the Western Front took time.
3. You're complaining that British troops weren't present at a battle fought in the French sector
4. You're implying that the number of African troops mobilized by the Empire were fighting men when they were, in fact, porters (whose deaths were nevertheless far too great due to British negligence)
5. Nice work trying to trivialize those 'internal issues' that were caused by French failures

>1. You're complaining that you have to commit the most effort out of your Allies in defending your own country
No one's complaining, merely stating facts
>2. Britain had to divert troops to defend the Empire and moving other troops to the Western Front took time
Sure must take time to move troops from Britain to Belgium
And France fought on every other front 'but the East) too
>3. You're complaining that British troops weren't present at a battle fought in the French sector
While French troops made half the allied forces on a battle fought on the British sector
>4. You're implying that the number of African troops mobilized by the Empire were fighting men when they were, in fact, porters (whose deaths were nevertheless far too great due to British negligence)
Just reminding that out of the thre 8.8 millions of troops British mobilized, merely 4 millions were British
>5. Nice work trying to trivialize those 'internal issues' that were caused by French failures
No trivialization, just pointing out that even during these issues France still bore as much of the burden as Britain and that these issues lasted less than a year (after which France reverted to carrying most of the burden like during the 3 years before that)

>No one's complaining, merely stating facts
So do you accept that the greatest burden naturally fell on France on the Western Front given that it was French territory the Germans mainly occupied?
>Sure must take time to move troops from Britain to Belgium
And France fought on every other front 'but the East) too
Believe it or not, Britain was committing a large number of troops to the war effort, albeit unsuccessfully, in Gallipoli. Forming entire new armies from scratch also takes time, given that Britain didn't have a large conscript army they could immediately call upon in 1914.
>While French troops made half the allied forces on a battle fought on the British sector
The Somme was the region where the French and British sectors met, that was one of the reasons why it was the area chosen for the offensive.
>Just reminding that out of the thre 8.8 millions of troops British mobilized, merely 4 millions were British
Of course Britain is going to rely heavily on Imperial troops, they had a huge Empire. To do otherwise would have been completely idiotic. That also doesn't take away from the fact that British units took the greatest casualties compared to Imperial troops.
>No trivialization, just pointing out that even during these issues France still bore as much of the burden as Britain and that these issues lasted less than a year (after which France reverted to carrying most of the burden like during the 3 years before that)
Yet the main two thrusts of the Spring Offensive of 1918 fell on the British, and during the Hundred Days Offensive the British took more casualties and took only 7,800 fewer prisoners than the American, French and Belgian Armies combined. I'm not trying to undermine the French (and Foch's) role in 1918, I just think it's idiotic to say that France carried as much of the burden in 1918 as they did in 1914.