Dunkirk

Manach · 15-07-2017 8:28pm #1

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 · 21-07-2017 4:49pm

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 · 21-07-2017 9:37pm

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 · 22-07-2017 12:26am

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 · 22-07-2017 12:27am

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 · 22-07-2017 12:36am

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 · 22-07-2017 12:41am

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

Full Marx · 22-07-2017 12:47am

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.

blackshirts1.jpg?w=450

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 · 22-07-2017 12:49am

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 · 22-07-2017 12:54am

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 · 22-07-2017 12:59am

the dodgy one's still into them . . .

Nazi%2BPrince%2BHarry.jpg

Full Marx · 22-07-2017 1:04am

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 · 22-07-2017 1:07am

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 · 22-07-2017 1:13am

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 · 22-07-2017 1:16am

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 · 22-07-2017 3:07am

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 · 22-07-2017 4:26am

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 · 22-07-2017 7:38am

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 · 22-07-2017 8:47am

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 · 22-07-2017 10:09am

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 · 22-07-2017 10:40am

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 · 22-07-2017 10:49am

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 · 22-07-2017 11:08am

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 · 22-07-2017 1:42pm

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 · 22-07-2017 2:04pm

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 · 22-07-2017 3:18pm

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 · 22-07-2017 3:24pm

Its a hair raising movie....

tac foley · 22-07-2017 3:31pm

beauf wrote: »

Its a hair raising movie....

Dire, Sir, dire.

tac

beauf · 22-07-2017 3:40pm

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 · 22-07-2017 4:43pm

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 · 22-07-2017 5:19pm

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.

Dunkirk

Comments