Dunkirk

Manach

With the upcoming film on this, the following is a youtube channel, Military History Visualised, which gives an informative take on the battle.

A German youtuber also has an interesting persepective of the Luftwaffe's performance.

pedroeibar1

John Kelleher the former Film Censor turned film critic gave the film a review that was - overall- very good and said he was going to see it again. He also mentioned in passing that his father was there, an MD.

Del.Monte

I'm sticking with the narrative that I grew up with i.e. Hitler held back in the belief that by not humiliating the British they would sue for peace. As for the small ships, I've read plenty of first hand stuff about those involved and there were plenty of volunteers, ferry operators etc. that helped in the evacuation. I'm looking forward to the movie now.

pedroeibar1

Del.Monte wrote: »

I'm sticking with the narrative that I grew up with i.e. Hitler held back in the belief that by not humiliating the British they would sue for peace. As for the small ships, I've read plenty of first hand stuff about those involved and there were plenty of volunteers, ferry operators etc. that helped in the evacuation. I'm looking forward to the movie now.

Aaah, a disciple of Mr. Pope, not wishing to be amomg the first to leave the old aside.....:)

Clearly the movie is one for the big screen

Full Marx

Interested to see this film myself - I'm wary of the reviews from British sources as those in the British media have long been easily susceptible to and awed by masturbatory manifestations of British nationalism but in this case it sounds like the film is the real deal.

I listened to George Galloway's radio show earlier today and he could not say enough good things about the film. George is someone who I usually have a great deal of time for but one merely need mention Churchill and he becomes misty eyed.

I'm looking forward to seeing the film for myself because the event in and of itself is a great story of human endeavour.

As for the German actions during this episode it is worth remembering that not that long prior large sections of the British establishment and indeed the media too were quite sympathetic towards Nazism and Hitler, which would have coloured Hitler's response and expectations regarding peace negotiations.

pedroeibar1

Full Marx wrote: »

As for the German actions during this episode it is worth remembering that not that long prior large sections of the British establishment and indeed the media too were quite sympathetic towards Nazism and Hitler, which would have coloured Hitler's response and expectations regarding peace negotiations.

'
Really? Why am I not surprised by this 'guff' when in the past you have recommended the writings of Tim Pat Coogan and dismissed Roy Foster? :rolleyes:

Comte de Mirabeau

takes the Brits to bluff and pretend an total and utter ass whipping wasn't.

Full Marx

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

'
Really? Why am I not surprised by this 'guff' when in the past you have recommended the writings of Tim Pat Coogan and dismissed Roy Foster? :rolleyes:

It is a historical fact (which I have rarely seen seriously disputed) that a large section of the British establishment were sympathetic to Fascism and Hitler prior to WW2.



It is to Mr Churchill's eternal credit that he was not among that cabal.

What Tim Pat Coogan or Roy Foster has to do with any of this I have no idea...

Comte de Mirabeau

Full Marx wrote: »

It is a historical fact (which I have rarely seen seriously disputed) that a large section of the British establishment were sympathetic to Fascism and Hitler prior to WW2.

including the Royals . . .

Full Marx

Comte de Mirabeau wrote: »

including the Royals . . .

Indeed... It would be of interest to see their archives.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/18/royal-family-archives-queen-nazi-salute

Comte de Mirabeau

the dodgy one's still into them . . .

Full Marx

Comte de Mirabeau wrote: »

the nasty one's still into them . . .

I think you can put that one down to stupidity rather than anything more sinister. The actions of his ancestors however... That's a different story.

Comte de Mirabeau

Full Marx wrote: »

I think you can put that one down to stupidity rather than anything more sinister. The actions of his ancestors however... That's a different story.

Stupidy as well more than sinister. They never were the sharpest tools in the box, then again neither were/are many of Ireland's 'leaders'

InTheTrees

Full Marx wrote: »

Interested to see this film myself - I'm wary of the reviews from British sources as those in the British media have long been easily susceptible to and awed by masturbatory manifestations of British nationalism but in this case it sounds like the film is the real deal.

New York Times and Rolling Stone are giving it glowing reviews.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/movies/dunkirk-review-christopher-nolan.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/peter-travers-dunkirk-may-be-greatest-war-film-ever-w492668

Full Marx

InTheTrees wrote: »

New York Times and Rolling Stone are giving it glowing reviews.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/movies/dunkirk-review-christopher-nolan.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/peter-travers-dunkirk-may-be-greatest-war-film-ever-w492668

It does sound quite excellent. They, unlike many films nowadays, don't seem to have gone mad with the CGI.

beauf

Del.Monte wrote: »

I'm sticking with the narrative that I grew up with i.e. Hitler held back in the belief that by not humiliating the British they would sue for peace. ...

Actually he ordered them destroyed. But the generals actually were expecting a counter attack and wanted to conserve their forces for a numbers reasons. Goring pushed for the Luftwaffe to the job. But they were over extended. The British had held back their fighters and released them to defend Dunkirk. Because otherwise they had no army to defend England. Luftwaffe wasn't expecting that.

Fliegerkorps II reported in its war diary that it lost more aircraft on the 27th attacking the evacuation than it had lost in the previous ten days of the campaign

Comte de Mirabeau wrote: »

takes the Brits to bluff and pretend an total and utter ass whipping wasn't.

....For every seven soldiers who escaped through Dunkirk, one man was left behind as a prisoner of war. ...

...by the end of the informal evacuations... total of 558,032 people, 368,491 being British troops were evacuated...

..The BEF lost 11,014 men killed or who died of their wounds, 14,074 soldiers wounded and 41,338 men missing or taken prisoner, a total of 66,426 men...

InTheTrees

Full Marx wrote: »

It does sound quite excellent. They, unlike many films nowadays, don't seem to have gone mad with the CGI.

Agreed. It certainly sounds worth going to see. My other half says she'll come too based on that review saying that its not too bloody.

pedroeibar1

Full Marx wrote: »

It is a historical fact (which I have rarely seen seriously disputed) that a large section of the British establishment were sympathetic to Fascism and Hitler prior to WW2.



It is to Mr Churchill's eternal credit that he was not among that cabal.

What Tim Pat Coogan or Roy Foster has to do with any of this I have no idea...

A newspaper article from January 1934 is meaningless as a source for the views in 1940 of an entire class of people. It represented the then views of its owner, Harmsworth, who had withdrawn his support from the Blackshirts by the following year. Furthermore, the Mail and the Mirror cannot be considered as 'Establishment' newspapers.
In the past you have recommended Coogan and dismissed Foster (as a 'revisionist') which shows where you come from on history sources.

Del.Monte

beauf wrote: »

Actually he ordered them destroyed. But the generals actually were expecting a counter attack and wanted to conserve their forces for a numbers reasons. Goring pushed for the Luftwaffe to the job. But they were over extended. The British had held back their fighters and released them to defend Dunkirk. Because otherwise they had no army to defend England. Luftwaffe wasn't expecting that.

Links please as there are plenty of historians and others who disagree and there's a serious lack of clarity regarding this for you to be so definitive.

tac foley

Comte de Mirabeau wrote: »

including the Royals . . .

I bleeve you'll find that love of the nazis was limited to the person who was later titled Duke of Windsor.

I'm not entirely certain that the-then king and queen were actually nazi sympathisers, either overtly or covertly.

tac

Full Marx

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

A newspaper article from January 1934 is meaningless as a source for the views in 1940 of an entire class of people. It represented the then views of its owner, Harmsworth, who had withdrawn his support from the Blackshirts by the following year. Furthermore, the Mail and the Mirror cannot be considered as 'Establishment' newspapers.
In the past you have recommended Coogan and dismissed Foster (as a 'revisionist') which shows where you come from on history sources.

So you don't accept that a large section - note I did not say the entirety - of the British establishment in the preceding war years were sympathetic to Fascism and nazism?

It's a shame you seem more interested in baiting me than in discussion...

Comte de Mirabeau

Full Marx wrote: »

It is a historical fact (which I have rarely seen seriously disputed) that a large section of the British establishment were sympathetic to Fascism and Hitler prior to WW2.

Indeed, as were a lot of the Irish 'new establishment' as well.

Full Marx

Comte de Mirabeau wrote: »

Indeed, as were a lot of the Irish 'new establishment' as well.

Sadly this is true...

In fact the main square in the Garda College in Templemore is still named after the fascist O'Duffy!

pedroeibar1

Full Marx wrote: »

So you don't accept that a large section - note I did not say the entirety - of the British establishment in the preceding war years were sympathetic to Fascism and nazism?

It's a shame you seem more interested in baiting me than in discussion...

The thread is about Dunkirk and 1940. For some weird reason you introduced 1934 and Facism, and have now by a commodius vicus arrived in Templemore. A small portion of the ‘Establishment’ was fascist in the 1930’s, but like Edward VIII and Unity Mitford they were shunned by the Establishment in the late '30's. It equally could be said thata larger portion was anti-Semitic and racist. What's that got to do with Dunkirk? If you want a debate on Facism in the early 1930’s, off you go and start a thread on that topic.

Full Marx

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The thread is about Dunkirk and 1940. For some weird reason you introduced 1934 and Facism, and have now by a commodius vicus arrived in Templemore. A small portion of the ‘Establishment’ was fascist in the 1930’s, but like Edward VIII and Unity Mitford they were shunned by the Establishment in the late '30's. It equally could be said thata larger portion was anti-Semitic and racist. What's that got to do with Dunkirk? If you want a debate on Facism in the early 1930’s, off you go and start a thread on that topic.

Bit rich of you to say the above when you tried to start round ten of the revisionist debate on this thread! And you accuse me of going off topic!

If you don't want to take part in this aspect of the discussion then please don't feel obliged to reply to my posts. Shouldn't moderation be left to the mods?

But in the context I brought the topic up it is very much relevant to Dunkirk and Germanys foreign policy attitudes to Britain in the early war years.

tac foley

Leaving the 'Brits who loved nazis' argument aside for a moment, I've noted, looking at the trailers, that there is an ENORMOUS and glaring error in this movie, one that sadly cannot be rectified.

Without exception, every single British soldier portrayed in this movie has way too much hair.

The military SBAS of the day was rigorously adhered to by both unit barbers and the part-timers in the unit who possessed the machinery to carry out this vital part of the maintenance of good order and military discipline.

My late and much-missed Uncle Micky, who fought for the opposition, had a SBAS EVERY week of his rather curtailed life, bless 'im, and often noted that British and Commonwealth soldiers looked just like German soldiers from the neck up.

tac

beauf

Its a hair raising movie....

tac foley

beauf wrote: »

Its a hair raising movie....

Dire, Sir, dire.

tac

beauf

Del.Monte wrote: »

Links please as there are plenty of historians and others who disagree and there's a serious lack of clarity regarding this for you to be so definitive.

In general if you want to allow an army to escape, or indeed negotiate, or even survive, you don't surround them and obliterate their only means to escape, ports, harbours, shipping, and then spend a week bombing, shelling and strafing them on a open beach.

If you factor in the heavy fighting around Dunkirk costly losses of German tanks and aircraft and then the massacres of captured BEF troops.

Del.Monte

beauf wrote: »

In general if you want to allow an army to escape, or indeed negotiate, or even survive, you don't surround them and obliterate their only means to escape, ports, harbours, shipping, and then spend a week bombing, shelling and strafing them on a open beach.

If you factor in the heavy fighting around Dunkirk costly losses of German tanks and aircraft and then the massacres of captured BEF troops.

What you seem to ignore is the stop-go machinations of the German forces that allowed the British to recover so much of their army - why did it happen? There is no definitive answer to that - at least as far as I know.

beauf

Del.Monte wrote: »

What you seem to ignore is the stop-go machinations of the German forces that allowed the British to recover so much of their army - why did it happen? There is no definitive answer to that - at least as far as I know.

I didn't ignore it. The order to halt didn't originate from Hitler. Though he sanctioned it later. We have to look at in context of what was happening across the whole battlefield. Not just look at the ground forces in isolation in one area.

Even if we don't want to do that. H can't claim afterwards he wasn't really trying if he had heavy losses. It's not credible.

Arsemageddon

tac foley wrote: »

Leaving the 'Brits who loved nazis' argument aside for a moment, I've noted, looking at the trailers, that there is an ENORMOUS and glaring error in this movie, one that sadly cannot be rectified.

Without exception, every single British soldier portrayed in this movie has way too much hair.

The military SBAS of the day was rigorously adhered to by both unit barbers and the part-timers in the unit who possessed the machinery to carry out this vital part of the maintenance of good order and military discipline.

My late and much-missed Uncle Micky, who fought for the opposition, had a SBAS EVERY week of his rather curtailed life, bless 'im, and often noted that British and Commonwealth soldiers looked just like German soldiers from the neck up.

tac

A possible explanation for the hairstyles.......

If most of the cast had the same uniform and the same hairstyle it would be a nuisance trying to figure out who's who. Directors of war movies often go for actors who look distinctly different from one another to make it easier for the audience to identify the characters.

beauf

That's a plausible reason alright.

Manach

I finally had to chance to view it and found it to be an excellent film. I was impressed by the directors use of sound, with that wail of the Stuka bomber being most unsettling. The numbers at the cinema were large, given the daytime showing, and comprised quite a large variety of ages so good to see.

Snickers Man

Full Marx wrote: »

Sadly this is true...

In fact the main square in the Garda College in Templemore is still named after the fascist O'Duffy!

O'Duffy wasn't a fascist.
He was a militaristic, anti-democratic, anti-communist, conservative, arch-Catholic, arch-nationalist buffoon. Very close in outlook to Franco. But that's not the same as being a fascist.

Franco wasn't one either.

Thomas__

Manach wrote: »

I finally had to chance to view it and found it to be an excellent film. I was impressed by the directors use of sound, with that wail of the Stuka bomber being most unsettling. The numbers at the cinema were large, given the daytime showing, and comprised quite a large variety of ages so good to see.

I went to the cinema yesterday evening to watch that film as well. Impressive as it was and it appeared that the producers kept a certain Level of accuracy in the light of the reality of that time. What I found a bit curious was the change of daylight to night between the scenes. That small ship set out to Dunkirk from a port in Co. Devon in the morning. I presume that it takes some hours for such a ship to make the route to Dunkirk. All the scenes on that ship are set in daylight, whereas on Dunkirk beach it changes from daylight to night and daylight again. One gets the impression that the whole film is about one single day out of a row of nearly 14 days, which was the time frame of the whole evacuation in May/June 1940. They probably pressed some developments during that period into the depiction of about 24 hours to give an example and sumarise of the sheer horror those men have been in at that time. So, one gets the gist of what they´ve been exposed to. All in all, a good film and more impressive is that it differs from the usual glorification of war time in such films.

I´m sure that duing that evacuation period, the Luftwaffe committed some war crimes cos the bombardment of Red Cross ships is a war crime. Odd enough to say that the bombardment of other vessels which were not facilitated with a Red Cross Flag and mark it as a ship for the wounded, was no war crime cos the BEF didn´t surrender at Dunkirk beaches. But cruel it was anyway.

It is stated, from German history sources, that Hitler ordered the advance to stop at Dunkirk to give the Brits the Chance to escape in order to "gain" some advantage for negotiating a cease fire with the Brits after France has fallen. The German Generals pressed Hitler to continue the advance and make the Brits surrender. For practical reasons, it would had been some bid deal to facilitate the capture of 350,000 men to be taken PoW. On the other Hand, Hitler was quite confident with Goering ordering the Luftwaffe to attack and bomb the inclosed BEF at Dunkirk beach.

Thomas__

Snickers Man wrote: »

Full Marx wrote: »

Sadly this is true...

In fact the main square in the Garda College in Templemore is still named after the fascist O'Duffy!

O'Duffy wasn't a fascist.
He was a militaristic, anti-democratic, anti-communist, conservative, arch-Catholic, arch-nationalist buffoon. Very close in outlook to Franco. But that's not the same as being a fascist.

Franco wasn't one either.

I wonder what else do you understand by the term "Fascist" if not those who incorporated the very meaning of it in founding and in "practice" of the very ideology. The first Fascist was Mussolini and the others were copying him. Hitler, Franco, Mosely, O´Duffy et al followed the pattern he set.

whisky_galore

I've seen articles on members of the Irish Navy unofficially helping out in the evacuation.

Urban legend or not?

whisky_galore

Full Marx wrote: »

It is a historical fact (which I have rarely seen seriously disputed) that a large section of the British establishment were sympathetic to Fascism and Hitler prior to WW2.

We could play the 'who loved Nazis/Fascism more' game all day, a significant proportion of the population here loved the idea of Britain getting a bloody nose and Germany somehow 'liberating' this country, although they wouldn't have had the faintest idea what Fascism meant, apart from dressing up and marching in formation a lot.

knucklehead6

Thomas__ wrote: »

I went to the cinema yesterday evening to watch that film as well. Impressive as it was and it appeared that the producers kept a certain Level of accuracy in the light of the reality of that time. What I found a bit curious was the change of daylight to night between the scenes. That small ship set out to Dunkirk from a port in Co. Devon in the morning. I presume that it takes some hours for such a ship to make the route to Dunkirk. All the scenes on that ship are set in daylight, whereas on Dunkirk beach it changes from daylight to night and daylight again. One gets the impression that the whole film is about one single day out of a row of nearly 14 days,

nope.

The film is set out telling three different stories, one from the perspective of the mole, one from the small boat and one from the air, and there are three different time frames referenced at the first scene involving each.

The first scene on the mole states one week, and the scenes there are spread out over on week.

This first scene of the small boat states one day, and it's scenes are spread out over the course on one day

The first scene of the air states one hour and the story is told from the flight time of one hour

Then all three strands come together at the end.

tac foley

'Co. Devon'?

That's a new one.

tac

beauf

Thomas__ wrote: »

... The German Generals pressed Hitler to continue the advance and make the Brits surrender....

I think some generals (and not all agreed) asked ask for the stop, then realising it was a mistake asked to continue. Hitler had to approve all orders.

Probably incidents like this that led to Hitler micro managing and removing and any independence of them later in the war.

I think the idea of Hitler doing it as some sort of altruistic act is a bit of revision by Hitler after the fact. Common trait of domineering people. They can't admit they made a mistake.

whisky_galore

tac foley wrote: »

'Co. Devon'?

That's a new one.

tac

I think that's in West Brit(ain)

beauf

I'm not sure I would be so hung up on the timescale in a movie. Dramatic licence and all that.

Thomas__

tac foley wrote: »

'Co. Devon'?

That's a new one.

tac

All right, it´s called Devonshire. Damn it.

Thomas__

beauf wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

...  The German Generals pressed Hitler to continue the advance and make the Brits surrender....

I think some generals (and not all agreed)  asked ask for the stop, then realising it was a mistake asked to continue. Hitler had to approve all orders.

Probably incidents like this that led to Hitler micro managing and removing and any independence of them later in the war.

I think the idea of Hitler doing it as some sort of altruistic act is a bit of revision by Hitler after the fact.  Common trait of domineering  people. They can't admit they made a mistake.

Either way, I take it that there was some purpose behind that, given the talk he always did by "England isn´t our natural enemy". That was his stance all along and I wouldn´t exclude that this has led him to stop the advance and giving the BEF the time to evacuate. Well, he was more confident that he´ll break the Brits by the Blitz that followed a couple of months later. Didn´t pay off for thim though.

tac foley

With the best will in the world, a fair wind and following sea and all going well in the engine room, a Dunkirk-style 'small ship' might just be making 10kn. However, the prevailing wind in the English Channel does not favour smaller boats heading Easterly, nor do the many currents that abound in such a nautical bottleneck help in straight-line navigation of any kind.

With a sailing distance of between 230 and 260 miles, depending on many other factors, this may have taken up to 36 hours of non-stop sailing to achieve.

This is from my next-door neighbour, who is a yottie with an auxiliary yacht based in Kingsbridge, Devonshire.

tac

pedroeibar1

whisky_galore wrote: »

I've seen articles on members of the Irish Navy unofficially helping out in the evacuation.

Urban legend or not?

Well the 'Irish Navy' consisted of about a dozen craft c1940, the biggest of them MTBs. But I guess the articles you've seen would also state that they were helping to refuel/reprovision the U-Boats off the W Coast.;)

whisky_galore

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Well the 'Irish Navy' consisted of about a dozen craft c1940, the biggest of them MTBs. But I guess the articles you've seen would also state that they were helping to refuel/reprovision the U-Boats off the W Coast.;)

Eh, no they didn't. No need to be smart.

beauf

Thomas__ wrote: »

Either way, I take it that there was some purpose behind that, given the talk he always did by "England isn´t our natural enemy". That was his stance all along and I wouldn´t exclude that this has led him to stop the advance and giving the BEF the time to evacuate. Well, he was more confident that he´ll break the Brits by the Blitz that followed a couple of months later. Didn´t pay off for thim though.

Doesn't really fit with the air campaign. Destroying the docks and shipping. Why else were small ships needed. Or indeed anything else he did. Also Would have made more sense to capture the BEF then negotiate.

I think people like the story, more than considering it makes no sense.

Thomas__

tac foley wrote: »

With the best will in the world, a fair wind and following sea and all going well in the engine room, a Dunkirk-style 'small ship' might just be making 10kn.  However, the prevailing wind in the English Channel does not favour smaller boats heading Easterly, nor do the many currents that abound in such a nautical bottleneck help in straight-line navigation of any kind.
 
With a sailing distance of between 230 and 260 miles, depending on many other factors, this may have taken up to 36 hours of non-stop sailing to achieve.

This is from my next-door neighbour, who is a yottie with an auxiliary yacht based in Kingsbridge, Devonshire.

tac

Thanks for that. In the beginning of the film, I didn´t noticed any sign giving a hint to the location of that small boat when they prepared to go to Dunkirk. It was meant that the ship be an example for the many who set out along the Southern English coast to come to the evacuation of the BEF at Dunkirk. That they started from Devonshire came later in the film when they got back home.