What’s Dunkirk got to do with it?
Bookworm on Feb 03 2007 at 6:23 pm | Filed under: Congress, Iraq, Media matters, World War II
The story of Dunkirk is an amazing one. In May 1940, about 250,000 British troops (as well as about 120,000 French troops) found themselves stranded there, victims of the spectacularly successful German Blitzkrieg. They had virtually no weapons, no organization and nowhere to go: the seemingly unstoppable Nazis were to the East, the impassable British Channel to the West. Their choices seemed to be death or imprisonment. Churchill had ordered the Navy to rescue these men, but that order carried with it its own problems. The soldiers weren’t waiting at nice, neat docks with well-organized boarding passes. Instead, they were waiting on flat beaches to which Naval carriers had no access. The prospects for their survival seemed grim.
Britain dealt with this problem by putting the call out to her amateur boaters (she was, after all, an island). And so the miracle occurred: from all over England, private boat owners, some in boats that were little more than rowboats, set sail for Dunkirk to help with the evacuation. For nine days and nights, these citizens, working with the Navy, successfully evacuated 330,000 men, enabling Britain to have a core military troop that would allow her to fight another day. That’s the story, and it’s a wonderful one, with high notes of patriotism, and faith, and individual risks, and brave sacrifices.
Interestingly, though, it may not be the actual story. I’m reading a lovely little book by Robert Lacey called Great Tales from English History (Volume III)
In certain respects, the story of the little boats was exaggerated: many had sailed for money, a good number were commanded by active naval officers, and it was the ‘big ships’ of the Royal Navy that transported the vast majority of the soldiers home.
Nevertheless, Lacey believes that the myth itself — namely, that it was a citizen navy that saved the British army — was a significant factor in Britain’s ability to withstand the Nazi juggernaut (p. 248):
But if it was a myth, it was a necessary and inspiring myth, symbolising how ordinary people could make a difference. In the weeks that followed, over a million men enrolled in the Local Defence Volunteers; roadblocks and concrete pillboxes sprang up all over the countryside; signposts were removed or craftily rearranged to fool invaders; and the coast was wreathed with barbed wire. ‘We shall fight on the beaches,’ proclaimed Churchill, ‘we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.’
Britain had drifted rather vaguely through the opening months of what had been known as the ‘phoney war.’ Now she started to believe in herself — and helped others to believe in her too. Previously detached, America removed the restrictions on getting involved in the European conflict: half a million rifles were dispatched to Britain in the first weeks of June 1940, for, as the New York Times explained to its readers, the issues at stake had been made clear at Dunkirk:
In that harbour, such a hell on earth as never blazed before, at the end of a lost battle, the rags and blemishes that had hidden the soul of democracy fell away. There, beaten but unconquered, she faced the enemy, this shining thing in the souls of free men, which Hitler cannot command. It is in the great tradition of democracy. It is a future. It is victory.
In modern American wartime culture, as played out in the mainstream media (which is the loudest and furthest reaching voice in the world) our myths and our resolve are somewhat different. Our soldiers aren’t plucky warriors, they’re mercenaries, sucking wealth and luxury out of our society:
Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don’t see very many “baby killer” epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?
I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don’t get it, that they don’t understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoovers and Nixons will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If it weren’t about the United States, I’d say the story would end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, would save the nation from the people.
But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.
The September 11 assault on American soil that, in two hours, left almost 3,000 dead and that aimed to wipe out our government (something that would have succeeded but for the brave passengers on Flight 93), was a mere nothing, and we’re overreacting, quite badly:
But it is no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces, to say that, by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States. As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down.
Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents.
Of course, the 9/11 attacks also conjured up the possibility of far deadlier attacks to come. But then, we were hardly ignorant of these threats before, as a glance at just about any thriller from the 1990s will testify. And despite the even more nightmarish fantasies of the post-9/11 era (e.g. the TV show “24’s” nuclear attack on Los Angeles), Islamist terrorists have not come close to deploying weapons other than knives, guns and conventional explosives. A war it may be, but does it really deserve comparison to World War II and its 50 million dead? Not every adversary is an apocalyptic threat.
(It’s worth pointing out here that, if America grossly overreacted when a mere 3,000 civilians were killed in two hours on American soil, then liberals/progressives are really, really overreacting when they get their knickers in a twist over the fact that just 3,097 troops have died during almost four years of aggressive warfare in Iraq.)
This overreaction means that our cause isn’t really the cause of freedom and democracy, but is, instead, a manufactured war relying on fear to abuse third world victims so as to benefit American imperialism:
Like the great imperialists of bygone days, America’s rulers share a long history of creating fear – one “evildoer” or another always threatens the destruction of “the American way of life.” Then, while the frightened population huddles gratefully under the umbrella of power, the government pursues an agenda calculated to transfer vast sums of public wealth into the hands of the corporate and political elite.
***
Government use of fear on a population to manufacture consent for bad policy is not new and only succeeds because we allow it. Noam Chomsky was correct when he stated, “units of power – corporate, political and military – will only act in their best interests. For them to do otherwise would be illogical.” As citizens, we must act in our best interests. We owe it to ourselves and our society to be skeptical of our leaders, question authority, demand the truth and hold them accountable.
And so, rather than having “necessary and inspiring myth[s]” that show how ordinary people can make a difference in a war dedicated to freedom, we have the bipartisan defeatist Levin-Warner Iraq Resolution, one that proudly announces America’s lack of resolve and her commitment to failure. You can see the Sad Sack, “we are pathetic losers” (not to mention bullies) tone in the following selections from this proposed resolution:
(4) Many American service personnel have lost their lives, and many more have been wounded, in Iraq, and the American people will always honor their sacrifices and honor their families.
(5) The U.S. Army and Marine Corps, including their Reserve and National Guard organizations, together with components of the other branches of the military, are under enormous strain from multiple, extended deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
(6) These deployments, and those that will follow, will have lasting impacts on the future recruiting, retention and readiness of our nation’s all volunteer force.
***
(9) Iraq is experiencing a deteriorating and ever-widening problem of sectarian and intra-sectarian violence based upon political distrust and cultural differences between some Sunni and Shia Muslims.
***
(12) U.S. Central Command Commander General John Abizaid testified to Congress on November 15, 2006, ‘‘I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps Commander, [and] General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It’s easy for the Iraqis to rely
upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future’’.***
(14) There is growing evidence that Iraqi public sentiment opposes the continued U.S. troop presence in Iraq, much less increasing the troop level.
And so on….
It’s impossible to imagine a more self-denigrating, demoralizing, depressing statement to read during a time of war. As Hugh Hewitt said in a 30 second Townhall radio segment,* this defeatist statement isn’t just being read by the American electorate. It’s being read by troops, emotionally abandoned in the field; by Iraqis reliant on US support to create a stable society; and, most importantly, by Al Qaeda and Iran, et al., utterly delighted that their low tech battle tactics and high tech propaganda have successfully defeated the American will to win.
All of which leads me back to my opening question: What’s Dunkirk got to do with it? The answer, of course, is everything. When a nation believes in itself, and is willing during wartime to shape its myths around its own moral courage and self-worth, it engages its population in the war effort and creates a momentum that can help it fight off an enemy much more powerful than itself. Sadly, the converse is true: when a nation lacks faith in itself and its efforts, this momentum is a downward drag so strong that an immensely powerful nation can be brought to its knees by propaganda, negative media pressure, low tech weapons and self-loathing.
___________________
*I heard the spot when I was in my car. I can’t find it at Townhall.com. If you know where it is, please send me a link.
UPDATE: It seems appropriate here to bring your attention to a Christopher Chantrill article in the American Thinker about the fact that Republicans are trying to figure out how to reverse their electoral defeat in the 2004 election. Chantrill’s point is that, unlike the Democrats who did a lot of blaming others, Republicans are intent upon cleaning their own house. One of the things Chantrill thinks will help is for Republicans to reshape the mythology (or, as he calls it, the “narrative”) of the War and our times generally, and to stop defining it in Democratic (or even “Bushian”) terms:
It is our job, especially on a page named American Thinker, is to do the thinking, and then show the American people how to make, in the words of F.A. Hayek,
“the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage.”
It was the great achievement of Ronald Reagan to do exactly that, and perhaps the greatest failing of President Bush to characterize the war on terror as a grim duty rather than as a mighty calling.
What we must do is build a new narrative. Our postmodernist friends have poured scorn on the idea of narrative. The great western Judeo-Christian story is a conspiracy to justify eurocentric phallocentric oppression, they write. And they have a point.
But without a narrative to make sense of our origin and our noble destiny where would we be? We would be just like secular, childless Europe-or even secular, childless blue-state America.
del.icio.us
digg it
Email This Post To A Friend
19 Responses to “What’s Dunkirk got to do with it?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Socrates know thyself However if a nations myths are a questionable mish mash of warped hubris from the get go(Beacon on the Hill,1600’s),it can create havoc on earth for others. Americans chose revolution with Britain(1770-80’s, they were using you,can’t have that,lets kill each other),chose to eliminate the native population(1800’s,not nice - yeah I know ,Social Darwinism ,some call it greed) ,and chose to enslave the African Americans(yeah I know ,they weren’t doing anything worthwhile in Africa . . hmmm . .) and imprisoned Japanese American citizens(racism)( ah what the heck,who’s perfect ? ). Americans chose to relieve the French in Indo-China(ouchie for ideologies).
And of course ,Americans chose their Middle East policies(habit to feed).
If you operate on MIGHT IS RIGHT and MY COUNTRY RIGHT or WRONG but ALWAYS my COUNTRY you will face some challenges from others,today and tomorrow.
What does this have to do with Dunkirk ? Well, the people in Britain, rallied around an inspirational leader(WC), and feel good story (Dunkirk), to resist a ego maniac (Hitler, don’t vote this type in to power).The Brits had a legitimate cause to save their nation.Do the Americans today have the same equal cause in saving the nation IN THE WAY Quick Draw McGraw Bush(bring it on,we hang em out West) Gang has chosen to do so? Most Americans and the world don’t think so.
Is radical Islam ,the same as ,less than, or more of an evil than Nazism ? Is the Twin Tower tragedy enough of a fair myhtical rallying point as in Dunkirk to defend your nation by accelerating war ?
Am I a week need,bleeding heart pinko who can’t see the FOREST LIGHT beause of the trees ? Maybe,maybe not.Do Americans know who they are ? Maybe,maybe not.
ps I am pro American but caution more reflection,introspection and cooperation for my friends.
ps some of the greatest boxers in the world were intelligent counter punchers.
“Most Americans and the world don’t think so.”
John Vinocur, in his Page Two column in the IHT, reported on a meeting arranged by Dick Luger and Joe Biden with European diplomats to discuss the Iraq situation. The Europeans didn’t approve of the American plans. Biden finally told the guests that when asked for alternative proposals, all he heard was blah, blah, blah. I’m sorry I didn’t save the column so that I could put my remarks in quotes, but I remember it clearly. World opinion is not serious unless it offers real options.
Just read Bodissey’s article at Gates of Vienna. I agree radical islam is as irrational an as dangerous as was Nazism(I believe more so, because of the literacy issue,even without the Teutonic organizational skills).But Bush and cohorts unleashed a sledgehammer respone to 9/11 ( Bush doesn’t know counter punchers are the greatest boxers ,they last forever,and in the end ,make the most money . . not that that is an issue here),where a nut cracker would of sufficed,(yes,yes I know he could of nuked em with a pole driver).
The point is ,that the Pandora box is opened and “stupid is as stupid does” has been unleashed(not Bush this time but the Jihadists ).Today the Americans are swatting at flies that breed quicker than rabbits thanks to STRAUSSIAN NEO-CON strategies.
And I don’t want anyone telling me to wake up and smell the Jihadist coffee cause you think it’s been a brewing and wafting my way for a long time.NO BUSH brought it on.There was a better way.You know and I know it !
Of course it is all water under the bridge.
My only question is ,if the Conservatives got us into this mess, will they get us into a bigger mess ? Pass me the flyswatter.
Swampacreage, I suppose you think you are making a coherent argument. I am sorry to tell you, but you are not.
If you think that this started on 9/11/01, or that it would end there, then you have had your head in the sand far too long. Oh, wait. I forgot. You think it started with the election of George W. Bush–or as you no doubt would phrase it . . .when G. W. stole the Presidency.
“Most Americans and the world don’t think so.”
We’re back in a high school popularity contest. I see.
World opinion is not serious unless it offers real options.
People listen to world opinion because they are followers and lemmings.
They do not have the core strength to lead.
But Bush and cohorts unleashed a sledgehammer respone to 9/11
You’d be surprised to hear that a lot of the visitors to Blackfive, milblogs in general, and just jacksonians in general thought Bush went rather weakish soon after 9/11. And even immediately after 9/11 with some of his speeches.
Book, I don’t see what the descriptions in your book really changes anything. You had to have naval officers organizing and leading the rag tag coalition of the willing, otherwise people would be going anywhere they pleased and things would be pretty stalled. Of course the Navy had the capacity to drag home the army and their supplies, what they didn’t have was time and probably the small craft support to actually ferry material from shore to the big ships.
Total wars imply that the entire resources of the nation is used to achieve victory. Such resources also mean private contributions.
So in this case, the private citizens indeed contributed, and without their contribution, there would be no story, because if the Germans had hit the evacuation with planes while they were evacuating, it would be a horrible morale hit as well as a retreat.
Another little interesting bit of history I correlated from Oliver North’s program was the date of the attempted assassination on Hitler by Baron Von Stauffenberg after D-Day. The timeline was important, because Hitler had purged perhaps more than a thousand of the upper levels of the Wehrmacht. Basically decapitating his own army forces. That combined with the Allied invasion, severely restricted the German army’s ability to mount an effective and creative fighting retreat.
Nobody was willing to argue with Hitler or tell him that he was wrong, after he had summarily executed hundreds if not thousands of army officers.
http://www.willy-brandt.org/bwbs_biografie/Assassination_attempt_by_bomb_against_Hitler_fails_B1146.html
That was the legacy of Von Stauffenberg, a loyal patriot of Germany who saw where Hitler was taking Germany and decided to do something about it after returning from the Eastern Front. Even though he failed, his failure still shortened the war.
Because the Allies would have given their left arms to kill many talented loyal officers in the Wehrmacht. The most loyal and most patriotic ones were involved in the coup attempt. If you recall, Von Stauffenberg didn’t just plan and conduct the assassination attempt, but he had actually created an organization that was ready to take over in a bloodless coup once Hitler was dead. But Hitler didn’t die, so when the Baron ordered them to take control, their organization was revealed. And hitler in his rather fanatic euphoria didn’t just kill the guilty, but the innocent as well. Huge purge.
This is simply an illustration of some of the problems with dictators like Amanie and Hugo Chavez. They do not fight total wars, Book. What they fight are personal wars of conquest and glorification, the glorification of themselves, the enriching of themselves, and the sacrifice of everyone except themselves. They are unable to expend the total resources of the state because they care too much for their own personal status and wealth. They fear too much for their own selves to sacrifice a major portion of their lives in dedication or duty to their people.
When Arkin (which got huge negative feedback from the blackfive and milblog readers, even causing retired Major Matt Burden to appear on Fox News) wrote that the military industrial complex was enriching themselves upon overreacting to the small threat of terrorism, Arkin was using one of the propaganda programs used many times in guerrila warfare against communist or capitalist governments.
It doesn’t matter what the ideology of the government is, if you are the government then such a propaganda line can be applied to you, in order to undermine your ability to govern and draw in the loyalty of the people. By undermining the ability of the government to govern, revolutionaries and subversives like Arkin can come in, take over a village, and declare themselves the New Power now.
If you are fighting a communist government, then obviously you should focus on how the communist leaders get everything (Chavez) while the people get bribed for cooperation or killed if they resist.
If you are fighting a capitalist government, then you try to focus on the gap between the rich and the poor, by using the amount of wealth generated by the capitalist government in order to disenfranchise the majority folks. This doesn’t usually work if there is a large middle class, they aren’t going to go revolutionary just cause you told them to do so. So this means you must sabotage the government and make sure the government is too poor and too insecure for a healthy economy to be produced (example Iraq attacked by Al Qaeda, oil pipelines, infrastructure)
See, the truth doesn’t matter. All that matters is whether you win or you lose. Whether you are effective in your armed propagand attempts or whether you aren’t. If the enemy turns Iraq into a poor, failed, and corrupt country, and then Al Qaeda takes over with the consent of the retreating US, who will fracking care which side was right or not, the victory has already been written. Same for Vietnam. Even today you have people like Fonday saying the truth is that millions wouldn’t have died if the US hadn’t invaded, that that is the sadness of it all.
You can worry about the truth after the war, if the defeat in that war hasn’t made your family disappear that is.
People know the lies that the media tells, Book. And the truth from the US government and military. But does it matter? Does it truly matter, does it truly give victorious results in this war? No. What we see is the media propaganda machine pumping out huge amounts of disinformation and demoralization operations, which have the effect of winning for their side. They understand that victory must come first. That even if you tell the true, it won’t matter if you lose.
Oldflyer.You don’t have to be sorry.You are entitled to an opinion(I actually prefer snow over sand . . easier to ski on . . and no I don’t stick my head in it . . okay I may make snow angels now and then and eat a little of the white stuff but I don’t bury my head in it JEEEEEE . .sh)). Remember, it is just an opinion. We all have them.
What you are saying ,correct me if I am wrong, is that the Jihadist movment started a long time ago but needed a litle boost with foreign involvement in the Middle East?
Okay, understand now .
ps Does the oldflyer nickname have something to do with the 1960’s or are you just an aviation buff ? Just wondering .
Old, good luck in figuring it out. Cause I don’t even think swamp knows what he is thinking.
Reminds me of Sodeskayan bears. Cloudless moon over cold mountain top, does not give food to crag wolves.
That a boy Ymarsucker(couldn’t resist . . you know , you being one of the Bushies and all).
I agree, the bottom line is winning (lifes and way of life are at stake ,but smartly please ).
Proud theist ideologists will never see eye to eye.
Time to move aside,November 2008.Take it to the bank and cash it.The world will be safer. Have faith.
Hey, hey, stop the Nazi assault on me . You are a scaring me!
The truth hurts but it can set you free.
Hey ,hey ,stop using fancy words like Sodeskayan bears ,and crag wolves.You can’t a fool me . I’ve been around. I once won first prize at the county fair for fence jumping and swamp crawling. And I was the best printer in grade 12 down at the local school.And yes I was a popular with the girls. They all kind of thought I was smart like Ymarsakar and Geico caveman.You know the only guy to have a read a book in high school and stuff like that.All the other guys could just say, aw shucks, but I could put words into a sentence .The girls giggled of course.
Whats grades are yous in Y ? You sound like you is smarter thans all the rests of us or at least pretend to be.
Go Colts.We are having our own Superbowl with the horsies back out hers.Are the Chicago Bears Sodeskayan ?
Man, JihadGene vs SwampA would be a thing to watch.
Good one ! Have a good Sunday !
Ignorant, rich, bored, decadent–all those terms fit the openly honest Arkin comments at the WaPo. Arkin is the real voice of what a lot of less-than-admirable Americans feel and think. –”Hey, why should we worry about the world? I’m making it good today!”
It’s gotten us where we are now.
I’ve taken sides, as a erstwhile history fan, against the ‘myth busters.’ (I agree we need great shared beliefs.) What good historians point out is that it’s not ‘what we think today’ about an event that is the final answer. Other people, other times have views of events which they lived by. We can no more correct them, than they, us.
The whole truth of Dunkirk insofar as it can be known, is probably a mixture of (1) today’s factual uncoverings about Dunkirk. (2) Plus the feelings/actions of those who participated in Dunkirk. (3) Finally, as Book says, what the British and world “thought” happened with Dunkirk. Was the real event marred by propaganda? Is there not more than that to it? as Bookworm says.
I hope your author, Book, will offer some humanity in his pronouncements. Your quotes indicate that. To share the times he studies as if they were his own. History is never black and white, especially decades after the fact. One must care about and understand the people of an era. Which can have the effect of enlightening us today about our own time and crises.
Swampacreage, if your stream of conciousness makes sense to you, then so be it.
Oldflyer means exactly what it says. Professional–not a buff. During the 60s I was helping raise a family between long periods at sea; the rest of the time my wife was holding it together on her own. We had no time for, nor any inclination toward, the 60s that I think you are referring to.
Old flyer, you may have the last word, and good luck to you !
Well put together Bookie.
[...] [Read more and Discuss With Bookworm] Share This Article With Others:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
It’s hard to accept that the bravest voice today is that of a Democratic Senator. But not just any Democrat, but one the party heartily opposes. And tried to defeat. Here is what Joseph Lieberman had to say Monday (via Captain’s Quarters). It’s worth the read.
“..Our enemies believe that they are winning in Iraq today. They believe that they can outlast us; that, sooner or later, we will tire of this grinding conflict and go home. That is the lesson that Osama bin Laden took from our retreats from Lebanon and Somalia in the 1980s and 1990s. It is a belief at the core of the insurgency in Iraq, and at the core of radical Islam worldwide. And this resolution—by codifying our disunity, by disavowing the mission our troops are about to undertake—confirms our enemies’ belief in American weakness.
and ..(skip back)..
Cynics may say this kind of thing happens all of the time in Congress. In this case, however, they are wrong. If it passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history. I contacted the Library of Congress on this question last week and was told that, never before, when American soldiers have been in harm’s way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Q2MTk4MzgxZmEzMmQ4ZmZhZDRjODc1YjJjNzJmZGI=
[...] post by bookworm and software by Elliott Back Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where [...]
[...] Bookworm Room, “What’s Dunkirk Got to Do With It?” [...]