The evacuation of Dunkirk, which took place between May 26 and June 4, 1940, called “Operation Dynamo”, made it possible the successful rescue of 338,000 British and French people. and Belgian troops from the beaches of Dunkirk, in northern France. The event has remained etched in the British public's memory, changing over the decades since the evacuation. The period 1950-60 was instrumental in shaping the popular memory of Dunkirk, as the immediate post-war generation reflected on the war and its experiences. In the words of historian Geoff Eley, "official and popular culture" of the 1950s was constantly linked to the war and Britain's handling of it. In order to assess the significance of this period, this essay will examine three main sources. The first of these sources is a Manchester Guardian article on the Dunkirk 10th anniversary ceremonies, published on June 5, 1950, written by their special correspondent. The second of these sources is a Manchester Guardian review of Ealing Studios Dunkirk (1958), published on 22 March 1958, written by their London film critic. Finally, the third source is an extract from a BBC radio program called "20 Years After Dunkirk", which contains the first-hand account of Sargent John Bridges, who was at Dunkirk during the evacuation. These sources contain three important themes for assessing the importance of a period in the memory of Dunkirk. First, they all show the increasing focus on the men on the beaches and how they got there, instead of focusing on the evacuation itself. Second, the sources show that as the decade progressed, there was increasing recognition of the mistakes made by the military leading up to Dunkirk. Finally, the representation of the "small ships" which assisted in the evacuation varies according to the sources. These themes all change over the course of the decade and so the sources will be discussed from a chronological perspective. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In order to discuss the importance of a certain period in regards to the formation of popular memory of a certain event, it is essential to examine popular memory of the event in modern times . The three themes just mentioned will be used to compare contemporary sources with those from the 1950s and 1960s in order to assess to what extent popular memory has changed or not. To do this, two small sources will be used throughout this essay in order to compare and contrast popular memory in modern times with the past. The first of these is a Guardian review of Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk (2017), by Peter Bradshaw. The second is a BBC article from 2015, which describes the ceremonies for the 75th anniversary of the Dunkirk evacuation. Each source references the experiences of the Dunkirk men, with some focusing on them more than others. This shows that from the day after the event, various aspects were taken into account in the memory of Dunkirk, instead of focusing only on the "small ships" and the evacuation itself. This attention grew throughout the decade, shaping the memory of Dunkirk today. The Manchester Guardian article regarding the 10th anniversary ceremonies, written by their special correspondent in 1950, shows the level of attention given to the soldiers' experiences at Dunkirk at the start of the decade. The intention of this source was to inform the British public about the anniversary ceremonies at Dunkirk and, therefore, how they should remember the event,which made it valuable when examining popular memory of the event. The article's subtitle is "'Small Ship' Men Honored", emphasizing their role in the evacuation. This focus on "small boats" is reflected in the article, which receives far more attention than on the soldiers rescued from the beaches. Additionally, their guest status at the mayor's dinner is praised, as well as their honor at the drum service. Alice Palmer suggests that this perspective is correct for the period, as the role of civilians in the success of Dunkirk was described as "crucial" at the start of the decade. The rescued soldiers, on the other hand, are only indirectly referenced through the war memorial and by a medal given to a young girl whose father had died winning. This focus on “small boats” at the start of the decade shows how the memorialization of Dunkirk has changed over time, affecting its popular memory. Eight years later (1958), and the film Dunkirk, from Ealing Studios, was created. A review of this film in the Manchester Guardian shows how, over the decade, interest and attention grew for those on the beaches of Dunkirk. Geoff Eley argues that cinema, and entertainment media in general, played a hugely important role in how the British public remembered the war. The production of numerous war films in the 1950s brought nostalgia for World War II to a "monumentalized apotheosis". This is reflected in how Dunkirk was received, as it was Britain's second highest-grossing film that year, with estimated earnings of $1,750,000. This shows that the context of a Dunkirk review would be popular, as the nation was of the highest interest in the memory of the war. The reviewer acknowledges that part of the film's narrative focuses on a section of British infantry led by Corporal John Mills, retreating to Dunkirk, and a small group of men taking over in small boats to help evacuation. In contrast, Peter Bradshaw's review of Dunkirk from 2017 describes the audience as being "immersed" in the evacuation, with less focus on the context and narrative of the British army's retreat to the beaches. While this might suggest that the 1950s had little impact on popular memory, it instead reinforces its importance. Because of the renewed spirit in the memory of the war, the 1950s-60s allowed the public of the time, and the public of the future, to have a more informed view of the events that occurred. Context is therefore less necessary today, due to the importance of the 1950-1960 period in the formation of popular memory. Furthermore, the reviewer of Dunkirk (1958) suggests that the lack of "false heroics" on the part of these characters contributes to the film's greater success; its reconquest of the “Dunkirk” atmosphere. This shows, at least from the critic's perspective, that the stories of those who went to the beaches and sea play a key role in how the event should be remembered. This is reinforced by historian Penny Summerfield, arguing that during the 1950s there was a "shift" in orientation from sea to land where the defeated army was located. This review also demonstrates how, as the decade progressed, attention to the men on the beaches increased, as did their importance in the popular memory of Dunkirk. Sargent John Bridges' account in the BBC program 'Dunkirk Evacuation – 20 Years on' was broadcast in May 1960. Bridges' account was one of the first in-depth personal experiences broadcast on air in the country and is said to have helped shape thepopular memory of Dunkirk. It is important to note that Bridges remembers events that occurred 20 years previously, which affects the accuracy of his account. Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that one man's experience cannot be extrapolated to the other 330,000 evacuated men, but the BBC program used several interviews in an attempt to paint a broader picture for the audience , the Bridges interview being one of them. . Contextually, Penny Summerfield suggests that by the late 1950s the place of the "foot soldier" in history was reclaimed, and a prime example of this would be John Bridges' account. As the decade progressed, attention focused on the men during the evacuation and their stories in different forms of media increased, suggesting that popular memory of the event was changing. In the BBC's 75th anniversary In this anniversary article, veterans are the center of attention, with many invited to give interviews and comment on the proceedings, showing the impact of the 1950s-1960s on the how we remember the event. This shows that without the change in emphasis during this period, it is possible that these soldiers could have been forgotten, thus affecting popular memory of the event. In the words of then-Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Dunkirk was a “colossal military disaster.” Even if this was the case, public attitudes differed, viewing the evacuation as a success, and it was a sort of victory in the face of impending defeat. However, during the 1950s, much like the focus on the experiences of the men of Dunkirk, criticism and acknowledgment of the military errors that led them to Dunkirk became more prevalent in the media, shaping the way in which the event is stored today. In the Manchester Guardian's report on the 10th anniversary ceremonies in 1950, the only reference to the failure of the Allied forces comes when describing the destruction of Dunkirk. The article describes how the British public who turned out for the celebrations were "surprised" to see how much of the city was destroyed. The author also notes that the explanation for the lack of decoration around Dunkirk was due to the fact that there were "so few" buildings left on which to hang banners. Although not explicit, it conveys the failure of the Allied forces, as they were defeated in France and in doing so many towns and villages were razed to the ground. The lack of mention of the BEF's failures could be attributed to the intent of this source. Its aim was to inform the public about the anniversary, not to explain why the Allied forces had to retreat repeatedly until they reached Dunkirk. On the other hand, not mentioning the failures of the armed forces fits into the context of the time, where the historian R. Jenkins suggests that there was an "attractive tendency" to treat Dunkirk as a victory and not as a failure. Even if this is not the case, the beginning of the decade shows that there has not been much emphasis on the failures of the Allied forces in France. The BBC's coverage of the 75th anniversary in 2015 briefly refers to the position of the defeated armies "stranded" in France, but does not go into detail about how they ended up on the beaches. However, much like the 1950 anniversary source, the intent of this source is to inform the public about the events of the anniversary, not the military failures that led to that point. Therefore, while one could argue that time period has an influence due to the similar nature of the sources when it comes to military failures, it is more attributable to the type of source. ThereManchester Guardian review of Dunkirk (1958), unlike the 10th anniversary review The report makes explicit reference to some errors and shortcomings made by the army, although this is not prevalent throughout the review . Critics chose to highlight the portrait of the military command in the film, described as “incapable of managing the war”. This is also reflected in the analysis of Dunkirk (2017), in which Peter Bradshaw describes the British Army as being "overshadowed" by the Wehrmacht's strategy. Bradshaw also acknowledges the film's depiction of the lack of an air force protecting the soldiers, leaving them to be "wiped out" by Luftwaffe planes. This recognition of military errors and failures began between 1950 and 1960 and is still seen today, demonstrating the impact of this period. Perspectives like this, suggesting that the BEF in France made mistakes, were transmitted through cinema. War films in particular were popular in the 1950s due to the "hiatus" taken by the British film industry in the 1940s due to sensitivity towards the bereaved, as well as lack of money. The huge box office success of Dunkirk (1958), linked to notable actors such as John Mills and Richard Attenborough, meant that the film was popular in Britain. This meant that stories, such as recognition of the military failures that led to Dunkirk, would have spread throughout the country. Sargent John Bridges' account is also able to highlight the errors and criticisms of the Allied forces in France from his direct experience. Bridges' account mentions a "series of rearguard actions" (retreats) leading up to Dunkirk, suggesting that the army could not match German forces. When they finally reached Dunkirk, Bridges described it as "complete hell", due to Luftwaffe bombing, lack of orders and confusion. Bridges also admits that he and his men looted jewelry and fur stores, under the pretext that "what we have, the Germans can't do", further condemning the military actions at Dunkirk and Dunkirk. Historian Stefen Berger suggests that, contextually, this narrative and representation of the army corresponds to its times, since he asserts that the questioning of traditional national scripts, such as the smooth functioning of the army, despite its withdrawal, occurred towards the end of the 1950s. The popularity of cinema and interest in personal stories meant that the narrative of criticism of the army was predominant at the time and may have persisted until to the present day, showing the importance of the 1950s and 1960s in the formation of popular memory of Dunkirk. The “ships” that crossed the Channel to help evacuate Allied troops from Dunkirk played and continue to play an important role in the memory of this event. The importance of these ships has been disputed over the years, with some arguing that they simply contributed to a larger effort by the Royal Navy to save the men. All three sources refer to small ships, but their nature differs, reflecting the debate that continues today and showing the importance of the 1950s in the memory of Dunkirk. The Manchester Guardian's report on the anniversary ceremonies highlights that the "most highly" organized event of the weekend was the Mayor's Dinner, at which the special guests were the owners of the fifty small ships. The report also acknowledges the British Drum Ceremony which took place on Sunday 4 July 1950, during which volunteer crews of tugs andpleasure craft were honored. This focus on the praise the owners and crew received as a result of their actions implies that the public needed to remember the role they played. These volunteer owners and crews are mentioned in tandem with former military and naval troops, further suggesting that small ships played as important a role as the Navy in the evacuation. Furthermore, the report concludes by stating that British troops were rescued by "the Royal Navy and 'small ships'", suggesting to the public that the contributions of both groups to the successful evacuation should be equally remembered. . In comparison, the BBC article on the 75th anniversary also refers to "small boats". Much like the 10th anniversary subtitle titled "Men of 'Little Ships' Honoured", the title of the BBC article is "Dunkirk flotilla flies to France for 75th anniversary events". Additionally, the BBC article explicitly refers to civilian boats and their "incredible courage." This shows that the 1950s-60s played a role in shaping the popular memory of Dunkirk, as the memory of the small ships is a narrative that has grown since its beginnings in 1950, with the 10th anniversary and the reports that talk about it. The Manchester Guardian's review of Dunkirk (1958), however, makes less reference to the role of "small ships". Recognized in a single sentence as a plot twist, the review beyond that does not mention the owners, crew, or craft the channel picked up. This therefore implies that either they did not feature sufficiently in the film to warrant discussion, or their role in the film was omitted by the reviewer. If the first case is true, it is interesting that the critic chooses not to question this choice of filmmakers, to have the “little boats” play a minor role, even though they have been so recognized across the country. This perhaps implies that the memory of the event changed from a focus on small ships to one of the navy or troops on the beaches. Historian John Ramsden claims that the 1950s were the last period when British cinema was able to attract the attention of a "national audience", with around 15 million people still attending cinemas in 1959. This therefore suggests that 'a change of direction from a cinematic point of view would have had an impact on a national scale. This more minor reference in the Dunkerque review (1958) contrasts with that of the Dunkerque review (2017). In the review of modern interpretation, Peter Bradshaw highlights the "legendary flotilla" of small boats, emphasizing their importance in the film and the event itself. This suggests that the 1950s may not have played a significant role in shaping popular memory of Dunkirk, as films from the two periods differ in their approach and focus on the evacuation, as well as the role “small ships”. Sargent John Bridges' account continues this chronological trend of making less reference to "small ships." Briefly mentioned towards the end of his account, Bridges recalls seeing a small pleasure craft in the port of Dunkirk, with three boys on board leaving in a boat with "not more than 4 soldiers on board". Apart from this mention in the port, small boats are not mentioned throughout the story. However, it is not Sergeant John Bridges or the BBC who are trying to influence the memory of the event. The majority of Sargent Bridges' accounts come either from their retreat or from the beaches themselves, where they could not see many boats. Plus, Sargent Bridges speaks.