In 20th Century UK history, between a) Dunkirk and b) the botched partition of the Indian sub-Continent, which would you choose and why?

Dunkirk, not because the shambles of the end of the Raj isn't significant, and wasn't a British balls-up - which it was, and a monumental one, as well as being indefensible in light of the horrendous Irish balls-up in 1922, from which you'd think that even public school berks - the brightest and best of them, anyway - might have learned; but because without Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain which followed, and should be considered part of the same campaign, it would have been impossible to prevent Nazi victory in Western Europe, would have facilitated their invasion of the Soviet Union, and would in all probability have made their defeat in 1945 - or perhaps even in 1955 - impossible.

We are where and whom we are today, without too much fear, and with our familes safe, and able - largely - to publish what we actually think, because of the unlikely respite of Dunkirk, and the victory in the air and in the North Atlantic which followed.

Dunkirk. One, because the botched partition of the Indian subcontinent isn't really British history. Two, because the story of Dunkirk is much more concise -- a short time frame consisting of objective historical facts.

The mess of Indian partition is not really 'British History'. The Indian politicians decided to opt for independence without settling their own internal differences first, and got what they wanted. There are plenty of people in the Indian Parliament now, who would be happy to repeat the killings.