The evacuation of Dunkirk, which took place between 26 May and 4 June 1940, code-named "Operation Dynamo", involved the rescue of 338,000 British , French and Belgian troops from the beaches of Dunkirk in northern France. The event has remained seared in the memory of the British public, changing over the decades since the evacuation. The 1950-60 period was crucial in shaping popular memory of Dunkirk, as the immediate post-war generation reflected on the war and their own experiences in it. In the words of historian Geoff Eley, “official and popular culture” in the 1950s was constantly linked to the war and how Britain behaved in it. In order to evaluate the significance of this time period, this essay will discuss three primary sources. The first of these sources is a Manchester Guardian article on the 10th anniversary ceremonies of Dunkirk, published on 5 June 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 the BBC radio program entitled “20 years after Dunkirk”, which contains the first-hand account of Sergeant John Bridges, who was in Dunkirk during the evacuation. These sources contain three themes that are important in assessing how critical a time period is to remembering Dunkirk. First, they all show the growing 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 growing recognition of the mistakes made by the military leading up to Dunkirk. Finally, the representation of the “little ships” that aided the evacuation varies from source to source. These themes all change over the course of the decade and, therefore, the sources will be approached from a chronological perspective. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay To discuss the significance of a certain time period in relation to the formation of popular memory of a certain event, it is crucial to examine popular memory of the event in the present day. The three themes just mentioned will be used to compare contemporary sources with those from the 1950s and 1960s to evaluate how much popular memory has or has not changed. To do this, two small sources will be used throughout this essay to compare and contrast popular memory of the present day with that of 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, outlining the ceremonies marking the 75th anniversary of the Dunkirk evacuation. Each source references the experiences of the men at Dunkirk, some of whom are more focused on this than others. This shows that in the immediate aftermath of the event a variety of aspects were taken into account when remembering Dunkirk, rather than focusing exclusively on the “small ships” and the evacuation itself. This attention increased over the decade, which in turn shaped how Dunkirk is remembered today. The Manchester Guardian article regarding the tenth anniversary ceremonies, written by their special correspondent in 1950, shows the level of attention on the experiences of soldiers at Dunkirk at the start of the decade. The intent of this source was to inform the British public about the anniversary ceremonies at Dunkirk and, therefore, how they should rememberthe event, making it valuable when examining popular memory of the event. The article's subtitle reads “'Small Ships' Men Honored,” highlighting their role in the evacuation. This focus on "small ships" is reflected in the article, which receives much more attention than the soldiers rescued from the beaches. Furthermore, their status as guests at the mayor's dinner is praised, as is their honor at the service of the drums. Alice Palmer suggests that this perspective is correct for that of the time, as the civilian role in Dunkirk's success was described as "crucial" at the start of the decade. The saved soldiers, however, are only mentioned indirectly through the war memorial and through a medal given to a young girl whose father had died winning. This focus on "little ships" at the start of the decade shows how the commemoration of Dunkirk changed over the time period, influencing its popular memory. Eight years later (1958) the film Dunkirk, from Ealing Studios, premiered. A review of this film in the Manchester Guardian shows how, as the decade progressed, there was growing interest and attention towards those on the beaches of Dunkirk. Geoff Eley argues that cinema, and entertainment media in general, were hugely important in terms of how the British public remembered the war. The production of numerous war films in the 1950s brought World War II nostalgia to a “monumentalized apotheosis.” This is reflected in the way Dunkirk was received, being the second highest-grossing film in Britain that year, with an estimated revenue of $1,750,000. This shows that the context for a review of Dunkirk would have been a popular one, as the nation was at its most interested in the memory of the war. The reviewer acknowledges that part of the film's narrative focuses on a section of British infantry under Corporal John Mills, retreating to Dunkirk, and a small group of men who take small boats to assist in the evacuation. By contrast, Peter Bradshaw's 2017 review of Dunkirk describes the audience as "immersed" in the evacuation, with less attention paid to the context and narrative of the British Army's retreat to the beaches. While this may suggest that the 1950s had little impact on shaping popular memory, it reinforces its importance. Thanks to the renewed spirit in remembering the war, the 1950s and 60s allowed the public of that time, and future ones, to have a more informed view of the events that had occurred. Therefore, there is less need for context now, given the importance of the 1950-60 period in shaping popular memory. Furthermore, the reviewer of Dunkirk (1958) suggests that the lack of "false heroism" on the part of these characters contributes to the film's greater success; his recapture of the atmosphere of "Dunkirk". This shows, at least from the reviewer's perspective, that the stories of those on the beaches and in the sea play a key role in how the event should be remembered. This is reinforced by historian Penny Summerfield, stating that during the 1950s there was a “shift” of focus from the sea to the land where the defeated army was located. This review also demonstrates how, as the decade progressed, the focus on the men on the beaches increased, and so did their significance in the popular memory of Dunkirk. Sergeant John Bridges' account on the BBC program "Dunkirk Evacuation - 20 Years Later", was broadcast in May 1960. Bridges' account was one of the first in-depth personal experiences broadcast in the nation and would help shape the popular memory ofDunkirk. It is important to note that Bridges remembers events that occurred 20 years earlier, which affects the accuracy of his account. Furthermore, it is vital to recognize that one man's experience cannot be extrapolated to the other 330,000 evacuated men, but the BBC program used multiple interviews with the intention of painting a broader picture for the public, and Bridges is one of them. . Contextually, Penny Summerfield suggests that by the end of the 1950s, the place of the "infantryman" in history was recovered, and a prime example of this would be John Bridges' short story. As the decade progressed, attention on the men present at 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 article, veterans take center stage, many of whom were asked to give interviews and comments on the events, showing the impact of the 1950s-60s on how we remember the event. This shows that without the change in focus over the time period, it is possible that these soldiers would have been forgotten, impacting popular memory of the event. In the words of the Prime Minister at the time, Winston Churchill, Dunkirk was a "colossal military disaster". Even though this was the case, public attitudes were different, regarding the evacuation as a success, and it was something of a victory in the face of imminent defeat. However, during the 1950s, much like the focus on the experiences of the men at Dunkirk, criticism and acknowledgments of the military's mistakes that led them to Dunkirk in the first place became more widespread in the media, shaping the way the event is remembered today. In the Manchester Guardian's report on the tenth 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 that traveled for the celebrations and was “surprised” by how much the city had been destroyed. The author also notes that one explanation for the lack of decorations around Dunkirk was because there were “so few” buildings left to hang the decorations on. banners. While not explicit, this conveys the failure of the Allied forces, as they were defeated in France, and in doing so, many towns and villages were razed. The failure to mention the BEF's failures may be attributable to the intent of this source. Its purpose was to inform the public on the occasion of the anniversary, not to inform them why the Allied forces had to retreat repeatedly until they reached Dunkirk. On the other hand, not mentioning the failures of the military is in keeping with the context of the time, in which historian R. Jenkins suggests that there was a “seductive tendency” to treat Dunkirk as a victory and not a failure. Even if this were not the case, the beginning of the decade shows that not much attention was paid to the failures of the Allied forces in France. The BBC's coverage of the 75th anniversary in 2015 makes fleeting reference to the location of the defeated armies that were "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 anniversary proceedings, not the military failures that led to this point. Therefore, although it could be argued that the time period is influential due to the similar nature of the sources regarding military failures, it is more attributable to the type of source. The Manchester Guardian's Dunkirk review (1958), unlike the tenth anniversary The report makes explicitreference to some errors and shortcomings made by the military, although they are not as prevalent in the entire review. The review chose to highlight the film's portrayal of the military command, described as "incapable of handling war". This is also reflected in the review of Dunkirk (2017), where Peter Bradshaw describes the British Army as “dwarfed” by the Wehrmacht's strategy. Bradshaw also acknowledges the film's depiction of the lack of air forces protecting the soldiers, leaving them "shot down" by Luftwaffe planes. This recognition of the military's mistakes and failures began between 1950 and 1960 and is still visible today, showing the impact of the time period. Perspectives like this, which suggest that the BEF in France made mistakes, were conveyed through the film. 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 mourners, as well as a lack of money. The huge box office success of Dunkirk (1958), tied to famous actors such as John Mills and Richard Attenborough, meant the film was popular in Britain. This meant that narratives, such as the recognition of the army's failures that led to Dunkirk, would spread across the nation. Sergeant John Bridges' account is also able to highlight errors and criticisms of Allied forces in France from first-hand experience. Bridges' account mentions a "series of rearguard actions" (retreats) leading up to Dunkirk, suggesting that the military was no match for the 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 jewelery and fur shops, under the justification of "what we have the Germans can't", further condemning the military's actions leading up to Dunkirk and Dunkirk. Historian Stefen Berger contextually suggests that this tale and the portrayal of the military fit its time, as he states that the questioning of traditional national storylines, such as good military performance, despite being forced to turn back, occurred towards the end of the 1950s. The popularity of films and interest in personal stories meant that narratives criticizing the military were prevalent at the time, and could continue to the present day, demonstrating the importance of the 1950s and 1960s in shaping popular memory of Dunkirk. ships” that crossed the Channel to aid the evacuation of Allied troops from Dunkirk, have and continue to play an important role in how the event is remembered. The importance of these ships has been disputed over the years, with some arguing that the ships simply aided a larger Royal Navy effort to rescue the men. All three sources refer to the small ships, however, they differ in their nature, reflecting the debate that continues today, showing how important the 1950s were in shaping how Dunkirk is remembered. The Manchester Guardian's report on the anniversary ceremonies points out that the "most" organized event of the weekend was the mayor's dinner, to which the owners of the fifty small ships were special guests. The report also recognizes the British drumhead ceremony which took place on Sunday 4 July 1950, at which volunteer crews of tugs and pleasure boats were honoured. This attention to the praise that the owners and crew have received following thetheir actions implies that the public should remember the role they played. These volunteer owners and crews are mentioned alongside former military and naval troops, further suggesting that the small ships played as important a role as the Navy in the evacuation. Furthermore, the report concludes by stating that the British troops were saved by the “Royal Navy and the 'small ships'”, implying to the public that the contribution of both groups to the successful evacuation should be remembered equally. By comparison, the BBC's article on the 75th Anniversary evacuation also refers to “small ships”. Just as the 10th anniversary subtitle reads “The men of the 'small ships' honored,” the title of the BBC article is “Dunkirk flotilla sets sail for France for 75th anniversary events.” Furthermore, the BBC article makes explicit reference to the civilian boats and their “incredible courage”. This shows that the 1950-60s played a role in shaping popular memory of Dunkirk as remembering the small ships was a narrative that grew since its inception in 1950, with the tenth anniversary and accounts of it. The Manchester Guardian review of Dunkirk (1958) makes less reference to the role of the "small ships". Acknowledged in a single sentence as a narrative plot, the review outside of this does not mention the owners, crew, or vessel taken over on the canal. This therefore implies that either they did not appear in the film enough to warrant discussion, or that their role in the film was omitted by the reviewer. If the first hypothesis is true, it is interesting that the reviewer chooses not to question this choice of the filmmakers, to give the “little ships” a minor role, when they have been recognized so much throughout the country. This implies that perhaps the memory of the event was changing from a focus on small ships to that of the navy or troops on the beaches. Historian John Ramsden states that the 1950s were the last period in which British cinema managed to capture the attention of a "national audience", with around 15 million people still attending cinemas in 1959. This therefore suggests that a change in focus from a cinematic perspective would have an impact on a national scale. This more minor reference in the Dunkirk revision (1958) contrasts with that in the Dunkirk revision (2017). In reviewing the modern interpretation, Peter Bradshaw highlights the “legendary flotilla” of small boats, underscoring their significance 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 both periods differ in their approach and focus on the evacuation, and in the role of "little ships". Sargent's Tale John Bridges continues this chronological trend by making small references to "little ships." Mentioned briefly towards the end of his story, Bridges recalls seeing a small pleasure craft in Dunkirk harbour, with three boys on board leaving with "no more than 4 soldiers on board". Other than this mention of the port, small boats are not mentioned throughout the story. This however is neither Sergeant John Bridges nor the BBC trying to influence memory of the event. Most of Sargent Bridges' reporting comes from their retreat or from the beaches themselves, where they couldn't see many boats. Furthermore, Sargent Bridges consistently states throughout his account the "confusion" and "chaos" that filled every moment of their time on the French coast, which may explain his lack of focus and description of the small ships. ,.