Poo in Loo's are upset because they believe the movie Dunkirk doesn't portray enough Indian soldiers who fought in WWII.
>Times of India newspaper calls the “significant contribution” of Indian soldiers at Dunkirk. The article, titled "How Nolan forgot the desis (Indians) at Dunkirk", notes that the omission should be seen in light of the fact that the “British public is more well-informed today about the Indian role in the World Wars."
hollywoodreporter.com
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
telegraph.co.uk
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Yeah, I'm sure there was plenty of Indians in France.
Instead of making shitty musicals, Bollywood can perhaps step into the war films and make their own.
I would watch a Bollywood WWII movie.
There's plenty of stuff they could use. The fights with Pakistan, for example, offer something people in the West know little about (general public that is). There's was big tank battles and also submarine/naval actions, both offering epic scope and good chance of historical storytelling.
Their own part in WW2 also.
Lol, India fought under the British Empire numbnuts
And there was little the way of Indians in the actions depicted in Dunkirk, genius.
Didn't the British Empire have Indian soldiers?
the problem is that people watch war movies to see and learn about heroic, selfless, courageous, cruel, and indifferent actions of soldiers under fire.
the indian army service corp provided four mule companies at dunkirk. they were quarter master units. while they probably saw some hairy stuff, the british expeditionary force abandoned almost all their kit.
which makes the presence of indian mules companies at dunkirk more of tragic footnote than a storied example of colonial forces bravery.
Mostly against Japan, Canadians and Yanks helped Brits in Europe mostly.
>fights with pakistan
m8 do you even know how to use the internet ?
>en.wikipedia.org
>en.wikipedia.org
>en.wikipedia.org
India contributed 2.5 million soldiers in world war 2 to the Allies and 40,000 to Axis
We also contributed 1 million+ troops in World War 1
Here you go buddy
>implying big budget ones for international audience like Dunkirk is
>India contributed 2.5 million soldiers in world war 2 to the Allies and 40,000 to Axis
>We also contributed 1 million+ troops in World War 1
And almost none at Dunkirk.
If Indians were in the action to a reasonable amount, the author the article would have a point. It doesn't apply to Dunkirk unless you cherry pick and force the diversity; forced is poor storytelling.
Calm down mr.taxi driver
If any soldiers actually fought in Dunkirk, there would have been a lot of shit on the shores.
>Implying production quality can't come at cheaper cost
youtube.com
It's not about Dunkirk, it's about the not representing India in any of the world war 1 or 2 movie. We provided millions of troops in both wars and yet every British or American War film never portrays the Indian contribution to the war.
Like there were American soldiers with shit in the pants in Normandy?
>implying the brits and the french weren't shitting on beaches.
If you actually seen that movie , you could see that Fionn Whitehead was going to take a shit , then he saw the German lad burying a body and then he went to help him.
>We shall poo on the beaches, we shall poo on the landing grounds, we shall poo in the fields and in the streets, we shall poo in the hills; we shall never surrender to the loo
Thanks.
>Watching war (((films)))
It was a French lad m8
...
Next time someone makes a movie with india we'll be sure to include shitting streets and everything realistic about india in crisp 4k hd.
Nobody gives a fucking shit about indian soldiers in a european war you dumb fucking loo's.
Besides the ONLY FUCKING REASON indian soldiers were even there is because the UK controlled india at that time. It was a european war so nobody gives a fucking shit about weither or not poo soldiers are featured in it.. I FUCKING HATE "DIVERSITY".
The only indian soldiers that matter were the SS Tiger Legion. I thought Sup Forums knew that?
D E S I G N A T E D
>British or American War film never portrays the Indian contribution to the war.
what about making INDIAN war film ?
>pls mister occidental make movie about my own country because I can't do shit beside action comedy bollywood
>fought
Surrendering and waiting for the Russians and Americans isn't fighting...
Indians can make their own Poolywood adaptation why is this a problem?
India never fought in any European war. Go to school Khajit
Imagine if people complained that there are not enough white/black people in Bollywood movies.
Bullshit. Only indian troops at Dunkirk were a couple of fucking mule companies.
Its because the theaters of which the Indians fought are almost never touched on, if there is a war movie about the British in the Pacific/China you are likely to see British Raj present.
Most WW2 films are based on the European Theater and in the case of American films about WW2 its always focused on American troop efforts.
Good goy. It is important that they train up POC to have feelings of pride for defending the Jew.
Fuck off, yeah you helped keep the Italians out of Egypt, big whoop. You come off as if you guys won both World Wars or even had some extraordinary impact.
If there were no Indian soldiers at Dunkirk, then why would they depict them as being there? Then they're just lying. You want a movie where Indian soldiers are depicted, then have one made where they depict a battle in which Indian soldiers fought. Historical accuracy trumps feelings.
>We provided millions of troops in both wars and yet every British or American War film never portrays the Indian contribution to the war.
You don't like the movie, then just don't go see it.
That's what I do, it works fine.
Whining and bitching about something no one is forcing you to do is strange.
They did show the indians they were hiding in the field shitting and playing with themselves.
They are just so irrelevant, you dont notice them.
>It's not about Dunkirk, it's about the not representing India in any of the world war 1 or 2 movie
Yet the movie is about Dunkirk.
then shut the fuck up and make your own WW2 movies retard
We actually do make movies about Indians roles in the wars, but the fact is that you have your own massive movie industry to take care of that. It's not about us saying you can't be apart of our movies, but a recognition that your own movie industry can best capture the emotions of your nation.
...they did have an extraordinary impact...
>Raj soldiers
>Involved in Dunkirk
>Not kept in Africa
Poos should be quiet you were not involved in Dunkirk, this is a fact so shut the fuck up.
>It's not about Dunkirk
But that's what this movie IS about you fucking autistic screeching cunt.
> its not about Dunkirk
> Movie title: Dunkirk
Lol, never go full retard.
>It's not about Dunkirk
>movie is literally called Dunkirk and that's what it is about.
>India in World War 1
>Saving the British Oil fields
>Fighting war in FRANCE (Marseille)
>Fighting the Battle of the Somme, the Battle of Bazentin, the Battle of Flers-Courcelette, the advance to the Hindenburg Line and finally the Battle of Cambrai
>Fighting in Africa
>Fighting in middle east
>India in World War 2
>Fought in France
>Fought in Italy
>India contributed the 3rd largest Allied contingent in the Italian campaign after US and British forces.
Yeah, we never fought in Europe since France and Italy are literal niggers.
I didn't see it, I am just talking about India in both world war 1 and 2
We already do that. We do make war movies. Why do you think Indians love their Army?
I am not talking about Dunkirk I am talking about Hollywood World War movies in gereral, geez you are fucking retards
That's not what happened. At all.
>Hungarian edjewmuhcation
Bollywood has more white people than Hollywood has Indians Kek
Nolan literally said the movie isn't about historical accuracy
>it's a movie about a specific event, Dunkirk
>"It's not about Dunkirk!"
This is why you shit on the road.
Lol read the title of the thread. We are talking about Dunkirk. Learn to read Rajpoo but first learn how to use the toilet
>not about Dunkirk
Reading comprehension 101 folks
>I am not talking about Dunkirk I am talking about Hollywood World War movies in gereral, geez you are fucking retards
But the crying from Indians in the media is about Dunkirk, did you not read it?
And there are portrayals of Indian divisions in our war movies. It's not our fault you don't go to watch them. You have your own "Bollywood" industry, why not make your own movies? There you go a market has opened up for you, go fill it with your synopsis and all that instead of a hole on a beach with your shit.
youtube.com
Enjoy the song.
See
At least read what the man said before you get triggered Kek
We know full well what he's crying about and he's wrong. Sikh/Raj divisions get constant praise in this country for their war efforts. What fucking more do they want?
Look you fucking poo, you're right for you it's not about dunkirk at all, for you it's just about putting as many fucking poo's as possible in movies made in the west. Just as it is for niggers to put as many niggers in movies made in the west and so on and so forth.. Here's an idea.. MAKE YOUR OWN MOVIES AND PUT ALL THE POO'S IN IT YOU WANT AND TAKE IT TO THE GLOBAL CINEMAS! Western cinema caters to white people.. not to poo's. And unless it deliberately calls itself a documentary then SHUT THE FUCK UP about historical inaccuracy!
Look, I'd be the first to acknowledge what you are saying is true and also more should be done from a memorialisation point of view at the very least. I don't think its ok and there is a pattern to this. I'm not an ahistorical edgelord like some posters.
Can't expect much from Americans on this topic (I doubt they could find Burma on a map to save their lives), but what you and I know is that this is more complicated. If Nolan had shown Indian soliders, there would still be outrage because half of you would think he was showing the wrong Indian army of WW2.
To tell you the truth I think the Indian contribution is under-represented but this is because of views in India more than it is about views in Britain.
>Fought in Italy
You are a fucking moron. The only shitskins who fought here were American and French niggers + French sandniggers.
The Brits sent almost no soldiers, especially not poos
this is now an India hate thread
> Not about Dunkirk
> In the thread of why Movie Dunkirk is racist.
Calm down Achmed, read the title first. You shoild never miss your elementry school studies.
Notice how any time a film is made to credit the heroics of Western, white nations, every possible ethnic group comes out of the woodwork and spergs out.
It's almost like ((((they)))) don't want whites to be proud of their history and accomplishments, because they are so much more influential than all other ethnic groups combined.
Carry on up the khyber, it has war and Indians, what more could you possibly want?
They've only just started getting "praise"
You can't deny that primarily your country has historically downplayed or even completely ignored India's role in ww2. This attention towards Indians now in ww2 is recent, and it should be promoted more as most people still don't know.
I mean ffs your schools don't even teach you the inhumane shit that the empire did and kids grow up conflicted about it when they found out by themselves.
You didn't reply to op faggot but to Who specifically said not representing Indians in **any** ww2 movie.
Again. Reading comprehension 101
T.never done shit for the white race.
Well Loo's are basically just niggers with slightly higher IQs and a culture they can call their own
So I'm not surprised
>The Brits sent almost no soldiers, especially not poos
American education is one hell of a drug.
Oh look, another retard.
Italy literally paid homage to the thousands of Indians that fought and died fighting the fascists in Italy.
used to be a time when times of india didn't give a crap about these type of stupid things
now wannabe feminists with curly hair and nose pierce who watch too much sex and city are turning this place into a liberal shithole like America
Careful, leaf. Have you not heard of the prophecies, of the impending Day of the Rake? Prepare yourself and your brethren, for the Rake will clean the yard with the force of a thousand winds, and cast you forever into the Void of A Fucking Pile of Leaves.
But srsly, your sperging is now just hilarious. Go write another Kama Sutra so I can steal the ideas and fuck better with my massive Austrian cock.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
>You can't deny that primarily your country has historically downplayed or even completely ignored India's role in ww2. This attention towards Indians now in ww2 is recent, and it should be promoted more as most people still don't know.
Not it hasn't, our country is not Hollywood, we have monuments, statues etc all devoted to Indians that served in WW2. Just like other divisions. This crying is about Hollywood movies that our government and people don't really have a say over.
>I mean ffs your schools don't even teach you the inhumane shit that the empire did and kids grow up conflicted about it when they found out by themselves.
Actually that's all they do, they teach us no positives of the empire, we have to learn those for ourselves and when you compare and contrast the two the Empire did far more good than bad, especially when you compare it to the Belgian, French, Spanish, Portu or Spanish yet those countries get a free pass on here and in the world in general yet the British are always the ones called evil and ridiculed. Nah, not happening m8. So shut it.
>Actually that's all they do, they teach us no positives of the empire, we have to learn those for ourselves and when you compare and contrast the two the Empire did far more good than bad
I'm in my 30s and when I was in school ( both primary and secondary) we were told about the good and bad but overall it was a force for good and something to be proud of.
Lol jesus, you should learn how to read. Even though he stated that "its not about Dunkirk", he referenced OP who started the thread why Dunkirk is racist.
So trying to justify how Indians are not properly represented in films (in this case Movie:Dunkirk) shows level of stupidity.
You do know the movie is called "Dunkirk" right? Which is based in Dunkirk?
Surely this is a troll? Its almost impossible to be this retarded unless you are also Rajpoo.
From what I've heard. Average Indians don't care they aren't represented. Dunkirk broke many records in India's box office.
Getting some sort of sick pride in what better members of the white race have done in order to make yourself feel better about your self is literally nigger tier. You're a literal WE WUZ KANGZ
The fact that british schools don't teach true british colonial history isn't something I'm making it up. It's a particular thorn on indian british ties (which are important especially after Brexit).
Fair about amount finally appreciating colonial countries efforts in ww2 but like I said, this is a recent movement. Backed up by the fact that most people don't even know about many men india gave for the war that they had no right participating in.
This thread is full of pls notice me senpai
>this mental gymnastics
Just figure out you fucked up already Kek. He has said twice now what he was trying to say but you're too ignorant to see that.
You do realize Nolan said the movie isn't meant to be historically accurate, right?
But can you poo in loo?
Times have changed grandad, it's all BAD BAD BAD with the marxist bullshit in schools.
>The fact that british schools don't teach true british colonial history isn't something I'm making it up. It's a particular thorn on indian british ties (which are important especially after Brexit).
Yeah they should teach more about it, but they don't. But having done my own research it was more good than bad and no one can argue differently, except for plastic paddies and butthurt niggers mad that when we left they turned to shit.
>give a crap
It was a war about DUNKIRK. So why would Indians be represented there? None fought there.
I honestly think I got lucky growing up when I did, the last generation before the leftist multi culti shit took hold and fucked everything up.
We had 3 foreigners the whole time I was in school and even then they were only there for a year or two.
German panzer corps slowed down by Indian turd mines, truly, the moment that saved BEF
I don't understand your argument?
He said its not about Dunkirk twice in the thread about the film "Dunkirk" being racist?
> Not meant to be historical accurate
Lol you are the best! Are you now trying to mock the Raj why film is not racist on different angle?
As it seems your school and your parents has abandoned you with the education, I am more than happy to teach you step by step.
Oh shit, guys, a leaf is calling me a nigger.
I think I might need to rethink my life choices.
But in all honesty, can you find condoms that fit? I mean, magnums fit me just fine.
>I am not talking about Dunkirk
Everyone else is.
en.wikipedia.org
Britain had operational command in Italy. The UK provided a plurality of forces while the Commonwealth provided a clear majority. Lots of Indians fought in Italy.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
I cant find any evidence of an Indian division in Dunkirk. The Highlanders were there so I wonder if Scottish accents are property represented.
>“significant contribution” of Indian soldiers at Dunkirk.
What contribution? Helping the British lose at Dunkirk?
I, for one, fully support sending more coloured people to fight wars so that the casts of war movies can be more diverse in the future. Who knows, maybe we will some day make war movies and documentaries that are so empowering that there aren't any white people in them.
No, but they manned the lavatories.
Badly.
Indians are taught the good and bad that the British did but they still don't harbour any ill will towards you guys. Indians would have a much different outlook on the empire, however.
One nations fortunes skyrocketed (from the plundering) while the others misfortunes still plague it today.
He said movies in general don't show the efforts of Indian troops on ww2, it's been whitewashed. To which you replied
>Kek movie is Dunkirk Kek
>not talking about Dunkirk Kek
And you got to that understanding because you misinterpreted what he said.
Speaking of misinterpreting, you did it again. Reread what I said in my previous comment.
>took him this long to come up with that
>muh dick
Pic highly related.
Seeing how much of a shit storm (kek) he singlehandedly set off, I'd say the rest of the thread is mainly in response to him.
I'm provided new justifications for disliking non-whites everyday. I really tried to not be racist, but I just can't do it any more.
>It's not about Dunkirk
The movie is, though.
>One nations fortunes skyrocketed (from the plundering)
That's not how economics works.
>while the others misfortunes still plague it today.
India's greatest misfortune is that it's full of Indians. There is no cure for that.
As an uninformed Fat American I'm sure that you understand or don't that other people besides Americans died in World War II from what I understand up to two million Indians died in World War II but every year we have to hear about the Jews
Lol 'sparks debate' French soldiers had barely any screentime in the movie despite a much more massive historical contribution and you don't hear us complaining. The poo is just being insecure.
Whew why do we fall into this trap again. It is not hard to understand that percentage of Indians or any other and the impact is lower compared to europoors.
That's how economics work. Britain destroyed Indians mercantile class and focused them towards agriculture that went into feeding your people back home. You made them sell their gold in the most Jewish way possible.
Indians economy literally shrunk for 2 hundred years from 20% of the words gdp to just 2% under the helpful hand of Britain.
Also, concerning your picture. Lovecraft hated Christians, hated Italians and Germans (and other europeans) and loved the Jewish religion while married to a jew. Kek.
Your country literally forced actual soldiers who fought to free France during the war to stand behind white soldiers who sought refuge in Britain (thus didn't even fight) during the march through Paris to make it seem like only the whites won.
And by actual I mean non white french soldiers
>shit flinging dot heads complain about Dunkirk
>ITS NOT ABOUT DUNKIRK!
Except that's what he literally said you mongrel. He never once said he ire was against Dunkirk specifically.
You're too stupid to see that.
You're not white, are you?
Not an argument.
That was an actual question, so yes, it's not an argument.
>He said movies in general don't show the efforts of Indian troops on ww2, it's been whitewashed. To which you replied
Where he tried to justify the OP referenced india news article of where "significant contribution of indian soldiers at Dunkirk"
You need to read. Can you read?
>And you got to that understanding because you misinterpreted what he said.
>Speaking of misinterpreting, you did it again. Reread what I said in my previous comment.
Lol, maybe this is all too difficult for you. You should request for assistance in reading. You and your boy friend needs to understand why its silly to get triggered from why there was no indians potrayed in "Dunkirk" film.
Rajpoo, ask your father to stop raping the goat and ask him to read OP or the article with while holding your willy.
Where did specifically mention Dunkirk? He literally said it's not about Dunkirk but moreso about the lack of representation of Indianw in ww2, to which you went on your tangent.
He never even endorsed or agreed with what the article said but only replied to it because OP himself said the movie doesn't represent the amount of Indian troops there were in ww2.
In summary, never said once he agreed with the article rather he sought to remind people how of an impact the troops had, despite the white washing of history by films.
In regards to your seconds reply (which was to me) again, he never once said he was talking about Dunkirk. You made that connection by yourself. Go ahead and read his comments.