Dunkirk

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,677
well worth watching the movie just out, very immersive and much more focused on the beach than the older John Mills movie.

[video=youtube;_cmgiys2n1o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cmgiys2n1o[/video]


One question, are the Brannagh comments from 2:30 settled commentary? basically he says Britain would have fallen to the Nazis, europe would have changed forever and who knows what would have happened to the US...

Ill assert that Chrurchill wasnt going to throw in the towel, the RAF still won the battle of Britain, so the invasion couldnt have gone ahead which I dont think the Germans were seriously prepared for anyway. Psychologically it was an uplift for sure that the troops made it back along with their skill and knowledge. Either way though WW2 would have ended in the summer of 45 regardless of the outcome of Dunkirk? the only theatre I could see the loss of troops making a difference might have been North Africa possibly in 41 and 42? for context I believe the conscription rate was about 50,000 per month in 1940 with another 25,000 per month signing up voluntarily


[video=youtube;uivjORoSW0k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uivjORoSW0k[/video]
 


Drogheda445

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
6,449
It's possible that the destruction or capture of the army at Dunkirk might have prompted Churchill to resign, and a more pliable British PM might have caved in and chosen to negotiate terms with the Nazis, although it's purely speculative. The Nazis couldn't have invaded Britain, that much has been proven (they were planning to use canal barges to ferry troops and panzers across the Channel in Autumn!), and they probably weren't particularly bothered invading Britain anyway (Hitler certainly wasn't enthusiastic). The most the Nazis could probably have done in the end was to starve Britain through u-boat campaigns, although with the RN intact that's easier said than done.

Regardless of what happened to Britain, although Russians were very unprepared, at the same time they would have been very hard to defeat based on geography alone. WW2 might have went on for far longer but with covert American assistance they would probably have been able to push the Nazis back due to sheer manpower. The consequence of course would mean that unless the Americans intervened all of Mainland Europe would have gone communist.

Great film btw!
 

Hunter-Gatherer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
1,496
400,000 brits like sitting ducks on the beach. Had Hitler got his ass in gear and sent his troops in it would have been a wipeout. Shortly thereafter the Brits would have signed an armistice and then Hitler would have beaten the Russians. Probably.

the reasons for Hitler not capitalising on his advantage seem to be tied in with his chain of command, logistics and indecision. But somebody on here please correct me if i am wrong.

a german victory at Dunkirk,
therefore no Cold War. Totally different twentieth century. Fascist Europe doing a deal with the american corporates and the Americans all staying at home.

Cuba staying capitalist.
 
Last edited:

Cellachán Chaisil

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
9,841
Imagine Hitler was able to hold those 400,000 soldiers hostage, what concessions could he have exacted?

Saw the movie and as an "anti-war" leftist feminist I enjoyed it. I was worried it would be full of flagwaving and stirring patriotism, but it was really artfully done.

I do believe the French were slightly hard done by. It is acknowledged that they were holding off the Nazis (who aren't seen until the last moment of the film) but their sacrifice is glossed over.
 

Telstar 62

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
26,604
There's never a WW2 thread goes by, without the 'if only the
Germans could have won' speculation/wishful thinking.....;)
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,878
It's possible that the destruction or capture of the army at Dunkirk might have prompted Churchill to resign, and a more pliable British PM might have caved in and chosen to negotiate terms with the Nazis, although it's purely speculative. The Nazis couldn't have invaded Britain, that much has been proven (they were planning to use canal barges to ferry troops and panzers across the Channel in Autumn!), and they probably weren't particularly bothered invading Britain anyway (Hitler certainly wasn't enthusiastic). The most the Nazis could probably have done in the end was to starve Britain through u-boat campaigns, although with the RN intact that's easier said than done.

Regardless of what happened to Britain, although Russians were very unprepared, at the same time they would have been very hard to defeat based on geography alone. WW2 might have went on for far longer but with covert American assistance they would probably have been able to push the Nazis back due to sheer manpower. The consequence of course would mean that unless the Americans intervened all of Mainland Europe would have gone communist.

Great film btw!
Churchill only took power on the day of the German breakthrough in the Ardennes, so the debacle was not down to him.

Norway was largely down to him, but Chamberlain took the blame for Dunkirk, and probably rightly so.

A much better counter-factual is this one from Max Hastings.

Hitler screwed up by attacking the UK at all, though Goering assured him the Luftwaffe could bring it to its knees. In fact, the Nazis did exactly what Churchill wanted - attack Britain head-on in the only area where there are was parity, and in fact a British advantage, the air. An invasion by sea and land was out of the question. But Britain was vulnerable on land in other areas.

Suppose Hitler had shrewdly let Churchill "wither on the vine" in his UK fortress, and attacked in the Mediterranean instead - on Gibraltar, Malta and Egypt. Spain and Italy were only too willing to offer bases, and if the Germans had taken Gibraltar, Malta and the Suez Canal in 1940 or 1941, British morale would have probably collapsed. Churchill's Government would have been seen as a flop, and its successors forced into a negotiated peace.

Surviving Dunkirk and winning he Battle of Britain gave the UK an enormous morale boost, and kept it in the war until the US joined in. But survival alone would not have been enough.

This means that Hitler's showdown with Stalin would have been delayed until 1942 at least, but under better circumstances. The UK out of the fight, and possibly another invasion route to Russia directly through the Black Sea or Iran.

It is interesting to consider the ramifications for the United States in that scenario - still isolationist, but willing to be "Britain's arsenal". If the Germans looked like taking the Suez Canal, would the US have intervened?

Thank God, we will never know.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,878
Imagine Hitler was able to hold those 400,000 soldiers hostage, what concessions could he have exacted?

Saw the movie and as an "anti-war" leftist feminist I enjoyed it. I was worried it would be full of flagwaving and stirring patriotism, but it was really artfully done.

I do believe the French were slightly hard done by. It is acknowledged that they were holding off the Nazis (who aren't seen until the last moment of the film) but their sacrifice is glossed over.
Have not seen the film yet, but there is an abiding feeling in the French that the British did a scuttle and left them behind. Actually, that it nor true.

And historians have shown that Churchill was still sending troops to France, to Brittany and Normandy, expecting there to be a stirring defence on the Somme, Seine, Loire, or even from Algeria. This troops were later extracted only with some difficulty, and some never made it home.

I am glad to see also that much of the film is dedicated to the vital air war. "Stuffy" Dowding, the head of Fighter Command, later said that Dunkirk was far more difficult than the Battle of Britain as the RAF had to fly farther and therefore had less fuel over the battle area. That advantage was reversed in the Battle of Britain.

Looking forward to watching it.

Edit: I was reminded that at Dunkirk, Churchill ordered Dowding to limit RAF support, saying the squadrons were going to be needed later. He was right, but it was a terrible risk. As it was, the RAF were just about able to do enough.
 
Last edited:

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,878

amsterdemmetje

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
16,600
Have not seen the film yet, but there is an abiding feeling in the French that the British did a scuttle and left them behind. Actually, that it nor true.

And historians have shown that Churchill was still sending troops to France, to Brittany and Normandy, expecting there to be a stirring defence on the Somme, Seine, Loire, or even from Algeria. This troops were later extracted only with some difficulty, and some never made it home.

I am glad to see also that much of the film is dedicated to the vital air war. "Stuffy" Dowding, the head of Fighter Command, later said that Dunkirk was far more difficult than the Battle of Britain as the RAF had to fly farther and therefore had less fuel over the battle area. That advantage was reversed in the Battle of Britain.

Looking forward to watching it.

Edit: I was reminded that at Dunkirk, Churchill ordered Dowding to limit RAF support, saying the squadrons were going to be needed later. He was right, but it was a terrible risk. As it was, the RAF were just about able to do enough.
I watched it last Sunday and enjoyed it immensely ,there were some you college students in front of me who were perplexed about why it was darker around the men struggling in the water at one stage when a Destroyer had been sunk by a torpedo ..It didn't dawn on to them that the black smoke from its oil burning on the water and on the ship was having this affect.petunia
 

Roman Emperor

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
10,004
I watched it last Sunday and enjoyed it immensely ,there were some you college students in front of me who were perplexed about why it was darker around the men struggling in the water at one stage when a Destroyer had been sunk by a torpedo ..It didn't dawn on to them that the black smoke from its oil burning on the water and on the ship was having this affect.petunia
Went to see it last night....brilliant.

Do you have any idea where it was filmed ?
 

Roberto Jordan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
2,059
Have not seen the film yet, but there is an abiding feeling in the French that the British did a scuttle and left them behind. Actually, that it nor true.

And historians have shown that Churchill was still sending troops to France, to Brittany and Normandy, expecting there to be a stirring defence on the Somme, Seine, Loire, or even from Algeria. This troops were later extracted only with some difficulty, and some never made it home.

I am glad to see also that much of the film is dedicated to the vital air war. "Stuffy" Dowding, the head of Fighter Command, later said that Dunkirk was far more difficult than the Battle of Britain as the RAF had to fly farther and therefore had less fuel over the battle area. That advantage was reversed in the Battle of Britain.

Looking forward to watching it.

Edit: I was reminded that at Dunkirk, Churchill ordered Dowding to limit RAF support, saying the squadrons were going to be needed later. He was right, but it was a terrible risk. As it was, the RAF were just about able to do enough.
No churchillian fan here but the one thing he and his government most certainly did not do is abandon the French.....they even offered a formal union of the two nations with joint sovereignty in an attempt to bolster French resolve and head off a formal surrender by the republic....
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,677
The 'anti war' Left and Feminists are deeply resentful of this film.:rolleyes:
it was nice having a movie that the progressives coulndnt fck with :D


Marie Claire‏Verified account @marieclaire Jul 28
More
.@dunkirkmovie feels like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness—and don't they get to do that enough already?
 

PO'Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Messages
12,189
Website
www.facebook.com
One of the greatest ar$e kickings of all time :lol: But the Brits are now trying to turn it into the 'glorious failure' like Singapore, Norway, Gallipoli, Battle of Balaclava :) No one deserved it better.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top