ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Mostly for the worse. Anything that leaves doubt as to the fate of England without an Army to defend it is counterproductive. Especially assuming that people ("average viewers") have some sense of the historical context of Britain's plight that a passing remark about its vulnerability is sufficient? "Understated" is itself an understatement.
warspite1
Except of course the UK's fate would still have been in doubt. i.e. it was not a black and white situation - successful evacuation = Guaranteed survival - unsuccessful evacuation = Guaranteed surrender because there were of course various shades of unknown grey - the Battle of Britain for one thing, the political fall-out from a partial evacuation, does the lack of an army make Hitler grow a set and give the order for Sea Lion? etc.
But understandably that is for the grognards - not the average cinema goer who likes to keep things simple. So to make it more black and white Nolan would need Churchill or someone similar basically coming out with some dramatic (but false) line when addressing the cabinet: "We get our army back - or we must surrender". This works of course in terms of getting the seriousness of the situation over to the paying public - albeit at the cost of being a true representation.
Churchill had only been PM for a short time before Dunkirk, and he had many enemies in Parliament, plus a public that still remembered the fiasco at Gallipoli (few cared that it was not Churchill's fault that the operation was botched). Had the evacuation at Dunkirk not turned into a huge inspiration for the British people, and Churchill given a forum to wax eloquent, he would probably have been ousted by his own party. That would have been a disaster for Britain's morale.
warspite1
Maybe. Against removing Churchill was that he had been Prime Minister for less than a month - and so blame for the defeat in France would be difficult to reasonably pin on him.
But moreover, who is going to replace him? I think there is a reasoned argument to be made for Halifax not wanting the job enough when Churchill took it - is he going to want it now?
I suppose it comes down to: would failure to get the army back mean the doves gained ascendancy - or would that trait (not exclusively peculiar to the British) come through - you know the one where the anger at what has happened courtesy of some big bully (in this case defeat of the army) actually makes the populace even more determined to stick it out?
Interesting question.
