> In England our heroes tend to be characters who either have, or come to realise that they have, no control over their lives whatsoever – Pilgrim, Gulliver, Hamlet, Paul Pennyfeather (from Decline and Fall), Tony Last (from A Handful of Dust). We celebrate our defeats and our withdrawals – the Battle of Hastings, Dunkirk
I'm having rouble reconciling the first sentence with the second. At Dunkirk, the English displayed massive control over their own fate. Yes, I suppose it was a military defeat, but it's so famous and moving because the agency of everyday Englishmen saved the war effort. Perhaps that's the American in me speaking.
> it's so famous and moving because the agency of everyday Englishmen saved the war effort
The day was more saved by lots of French soldiers who fought heroically, quite a few of them to end up stranded and then utterly forgotten in the British collective memory. Had they not held the Germans for so long, there would not have been that many British to send across the channel. The standard British vision of Dunkirk is highly misleading.
Besides the point. Human agency shaped the fate of the nation. Yes the French were necessary, but they also caused the encirclement in large part. The situation can obviously not be summed up in a single line. The relevant point though is that the example doesn't make much sense in context of the belief that men are powerless to shape their fate.
No, it is not. The previous post’s words were that "the English displayed massive control over their own fate". They did not. Their arses were saved by French battalions who resisted well beyond what was expected from them. I am happy for them. I am an Anglophile and they were, and still are, friends and allies. Allies lives are also worth the sacrifice. But then I think you at least owe the truth to your friends that gave their lives to save you. All the other efforts would have been utterly futile otherwise.
> Human agency shaped the fate of the nation.
But now you’re saying something completely different. Yes, human agency was at play, but not theirs. They were saved by actions outside their control. Not completely, because the boat evacuation in itself was an achievement, but still. They could do it in 10 days; they could not have done it in 2.
> The relevant point though is that the example doesn't make much sense in context of the belief that men are powerless to shape their fate.
Dunkirk is a terrible example for what you were trying to prove. So yes, the example does not make sense.
What do you think would've happened had the British not acted the way they did? The French would've carried them home? More than one group is able to exercise agency in a situation, and its absurd and ahistorical to pretend the English did not play a major role in their own salvation at Dunkirk. My claim was never "100% save themselves with 0% outside help".
I'm having rouble reconciling the first sentence with the second. At Dunkirk, the English displayed massive control over their own fate. Yes, I suppose it was a military defeat, but it's so famous and moving because the agency of everyday Englishmen saved the war effort. Perhaps that's the American in me speaking.