Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
01-08-2017, 11:16   #46
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by beauf View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas__ View Post
...  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.
Thomas__ is offline  
Advertisement
01-08-2017, 11:19   #47
tac foley
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,420
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
tac foley is offline  
(3) thanks from:
01-08-2017, 11:32   #48
pedroeibar1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by whisky_galore View Post
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.
pedroeibar1 is offline  
Thanks from:
01-08-2017, 11:33   #49
whisky_galore
Registered User
 
whisky_galore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedroeibar1 View Post
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.
whisky_galore is offline  
01-08-2017, 11:39   #50
beauf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 15,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas__ View Post
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.
beauf is offline  
Advertisement
01-08-2017, 12:00   #51
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by tac foley View Post
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.
Thomas__ is offline  
Thanks from:
01-08-2017, 12:02   #52
pedroeibar1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by whisky_galore View Post
Eh, no they didn't. No need to be smart.
Well, as this is a history forum, perhaps you would care to give us a source for the 'articles' to which you refer?
pedroeibar1 is offline  
01-08-2017, 12:03   #53
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by beauf View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas__ View Post
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.
The French screwed it up in the first place and weren´t prepared good enough for the advance of the Germans. There are many things in WWII which happened and didn´t make sense.
Thomas__ is offline  
01-08-2017, 12:04   #54
pedroeibar1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by tac foley View Post
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
I have not yet seen the film - but my guess is that it will be as accurate historically as ‘Braveheart’ or the one where the US navy captured the Enigma machine from the UBoat.

Small boats in the ‘30s generally had displacement hulls – they had to push the water out of the way when going forward. This creates a bow-wave in front and a stern-wave (drag) at the back, creating a hollow in the middle into which the boat ‘sinks’. As a result the maximum theoretical speed a displacement hull can attain is roughly 1.2 x √LWL (length water line). Thus a 30ft motorboat with a LWL of 25ft could motor at 6 knots, so a distance of c250miles would take about 40 hours. That is the time of a bit more than six tides, (3 ebbing, 3 flowing) and as they flow in /out the Channel they more or less cancel out. At this time of the year the wind generally is south-westerly in the Channel, so it would be a help if coming from any port on the Western Approach, and a hindrance on the return voyage.
Pedro,
(who will never forget his first time crossing the shipping lanes in the Channel, no Luftwaffe but lots of fast big ships with no brakes)
pedroeibar1 is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
01-08-2017, 12:37   #55
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by whisky_galore View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Marx View Post
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.
In some Irish documentary, perhaps it was that series "Seven Ages", a former German spy was interviewed in that part that was about the 1940s. He talked about the support of German Invasion on Ireland by the IRA, curiously he admitted that he had no clue about the difference between the Irish Army and the IRA, both were one and the same to him. One would presume that those IRA people should have had an idea about what it would mean to be "liberated" by the German Nazi Forces, but from what I have noticed, they didn´t and actually, they didn´t care much about it as long as they´d help to get the Brits out of Ireland completely.

Not quite the same but I think that the attitude must be similar when the Irish Volunteers hoped and relied on the help of the German Empire helping them by promising to invade Ireland during WWI to support the Easter Rising in 1916, but the Volunteers waited in vain as this didn´t happen either. So it went in WWII, apart from some bombs over Dublin by accident for which the German govt apologised to the Irish govt officially.
Thomas__ is offline  
01-08-2017, 12:37   #56
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 618
Deleted, double post.
Thomas__ is offline  
01-08-2017, 13:07   #57
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by beauf View Post
I'm not sure I would be so hung up on the timescale in a movie. Dramatic licence and all that.
Of course, that´s some point. If you´re going to watch that film, be prepared that the noises of diving Stukas and exploiding bombs has some impact on concentrating to the flow of the film. Sometimes I couldn´t understand what they were talking that properly. Anyway, the film gives one the notion of how they must have felt back then, to either drown, getting shot or ripped into peaces by the bombs while being exposed on a long beach like sitting ducks and being the best target for the Stukas. Three Spitfires appeared in the whole film and two got down, one survived to the end landing on the beach after running out of fuel and before shooting a couple of Stukas down. As far as I remember, it is an historical fact that Churchill saved the many of the Spitfires and held them back in GB cos he reckoned with an air assault by the Lufwaffe on GB after they lost in France.
Thomas__ is offline  
02-08-2017, 03:15   #58
Peregrinus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 17,536
The film does suggest that the British were conserving assets for the defence of Britain, even at the cost of hampering the evacuation, and I think this is historically accurate. It makes that point mainly in relation to naval assets, but no doubt it would have been true of air assets also.

Overall, though, the film makes no attempt to explore why the British found themselves in the position they were in, why the Germans made the decisions that they did, etc, etc. The film doesn't look at the political or strategic issues at all. It simply explores some individual experiences of what it was like to be involved in this event, from the perspective of a (fictional) soldier detached from his unit and seeking to get home, a (fictional) small boat owner and a (fictional) RAF pilot. There's no exploration of the bigger picture, apart from a statement early on in the film that the British initially hoped to evacuate 30,000 men, and a statement at the end that they had in fact evacuated more than ten times that number.
Peregrinus is offline  
02-08-2017, 08:04   #59
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
The film does suggest that the British were conserving assets for the defence of Britain, even at the cost of hampering the evacuation, and I think this is historically accurate.  It makes that point mainly in relation to naval assets, but no doubt it would have been true of air assets also.

Overall, though, the film makes no attempt to explore why the British found themselves in the position they were in, why the Germans made the decisions that they did, etc, etc.  The film doesn't look at the political or strategic issues at all.  It simply explores some individual experiences of what it was like to be involved in this event, from the perspective of a (fictional) soldier detached from his unit and seeking to get home, a (fictional) small boat owner and a (fictional) RAF pilot.  There's no exploration of the bigger picture, apart from a statement early on in the film that the British initially hoped to evacuate 30,000 men, and a statement at the end that they had in fact evacuated more than ten times that number.
Wasn´t the concept for the film anyway and I´d replace "fictional" by "exemplary", cos every film made about that in the past decades was always like an excerpt of a few out of the many.

There´s a wiki article about the film which gives some good explanations regarding the script and the making of the film. It´s just a war film but judged by the effects and the story told, a good one cos it takes a bit of a different angle from which it is told. On the subject itself I have seen two different ones, the first was that with Jean-Paul Belmondo from the 1960s, and the other one was that BBC docu drama from 2004. Another older one from the 1950s I haven´t seen at all, but from what I´ve read it is based on a very similar approach to the story by selecting a few characters to tell the story from two different angles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_(2017_film)

It´s rather possible that the film producers were going out from the fact that the content of the whole story is well known, to many Brits anyway.
Thomas__ is offline  
02-08-2017, 08:16   #60
Peregrinus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 17,536
Sure. I'm not suggesting that the film should have looked at the strategic, political, etc aspects. These, as you point out, are already much-discussed and quite well-known. To the extent that the film did touch on those issues, it did so through Kenneth Branagh's character. FWIW, I though Branagh gave a good performance but his character was pretty one-dimensional and a bit stereotypical - the weakest in the film.

Not looking at these issues is fine. What the film set out to do is to explore what it was like to be involved in the events. In the beach/mole scenes, I thought the transition over the course of the week from the orderly lines of soldiers waiting for embarkation to the leaderless and disorganised stragglers watching people drown themselves from despair, and then waiting for the tide to float an unseaworthy trawler, was pretty powerful.
Peregrinus is offline  
Thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet