Dunkirk

amsterdemmetje

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
16,600
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.
Great to see the usual one trick pony Brit haters wading in on behalf of the Nazis and as usual snearing at the deaths of thousands of soldiers ,some of them no doubt Irishmen (traitors no doubt) embroiled in the battle against one of the greatest threats the world ever witnessed .
 


PO'Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Messages
12,189
Website
www.facebook.com
Great to see the usual one trick pony Brit haters wading in on behalf of the Nazis and as usual snearing at the deaths of thousands of soldiers ,some of them no doubt Irishmen (traitors no doubt) embroiled in the battle against one of the greatest threats the world ever witnessed .
At least the Nazi's didn't exterminate a race of people, the Birts did with the Tasman aborigines, Brits invented the concentration camp too.
 

Volatire

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
13,664
At least the Nazi's didn't exterminate a race of people, the Birts did with the Tasman aborigines, Brits invented the concentration camp too.
A Shinner Hitlerphile.

Quelle surprise.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,840
At least the Nazi's didn't exterminate a race of people, the Birts did with the Tasman aborigines, Brits invented the concentration camp too.
How is that you cannot open any thread dealing with a war involving the UK, but some moron will turn up whining about the Brits?

I even got one in a thread about the Japanese massacre in Nanking 1936.

Holocaust Denial seems to have become de rigeur among the extreme "patriots", even the variety who parrot "Of course the Jews got a raw deal, but we need more study .... blah blah blah ... "

The Tasmanians were indeed exterminated, but in the number stakes, even the patriots must be impressed by Hitler's and the Nazis' body count - fifteen million or more all told among Jews, Poles, gay community, anti-social elements, political prisoners, the mentally handicapped, Jehovah's Witnesses, Gypsies.... . I am sure they are envious. They would give their eye-teeth for the power to accomplish that.
 

razorblade

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2016
Messages
8,090
Why must these sort of threads always have to lead down the same tired predictable path.
 
Last edited:

Gwannow

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
1,059
I'm really looking forward to seeing the film. I saw the old one with John Mills and it dwelt mainly on the small boats and the human interest story attached to them. The reality of course is that it was a major defeat which was masterfully proclaimed as a plucky, brave nation standing up against a stronger opponent. The reality is that the German advance through France was so rapid that their forces at Dunkirk were running out of supplies which couldn't keep up with such a rate of speed. There was very little chance - well, none actually of the Germans invading England at the time, because the British Navy dominated the seas at the time and were much more powerful than the German navy. The idea of portraying it as everyone mucking in and helping the troops get home was a brilliant PR move and worked well to uplift the spirits of the British people. The vast majority of the troops were transported by large destroyers and other large vessels, of course, but the idea of a flotilla of fishing boats played better in the minds of the ordinary citizens. I like the actors in the new film, Tom Hardy - brilliant, Cillian Murphy, Kenneth Branagh a great cast.
 

gerhard dengler

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
46,739
I'm really looking forward to seeing the film. I saw the old one with John Mills and it dwelt mainly on the small boats and the human interest story attached to them. The reality of course is that it was a major defeat which was masterfully proclaimed as a plucky, brave nation standing up against a stronger opponent. The reality is that the German advance through France was so rapid that their forces at Dunkirk were running out of supplies which couldn't keep up with such a rate of speed. There was very little chance - well, none actually of the Germans invading England at the time, because the British Navy dominated the seas at the time and were much more powerful than the German navy. The idea of portraying it as everyone mucking in and helping the troops get home was a brilliant PR move and worked well to uplift the spirits of the British people. The vast majority of the troops were transported by large destroyers and other large vessels, of course, but the idea of a flotilla of fishing boats played better in the minds of the ordinary citizens. I like the actors in the new film, Tom Hardy - brilliant, Cillian Murphy, Kenneth Branagh a great cast.
The actors you mentioned were very good, but Mark Rylance was the pick of the cast in my opinion
 

Just Jack

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
3,739
Always good to see the Brits get a hiding.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,403
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
Yes, I remember owedtojoy's earlier piece, and very cogent it was, too. It nailed Halifax's ambivalence nicely.

To be fair, I started musing on this thread with Drogheda445's post #2 (above): it properly opens the speculations about "what ifs" rather neatly. While I'm not a fan of "alternative history", it's useful to consider why certain alternatives didn't happen.

My thoughts came down to the two-day adjournment debate over Narvik: 7th and 8th May 1940. Around 100,000 words: ought to edit down nicely to produce a cracking piece of period drama.

Re-reading it (actually, little more than 'skim-reading'), it seems to me to be almost choreographed. Herbie Morrison didn't declare Labour was making it a vote-of-confidence until the second day. We have umpteen accounts of the backstairs and smoky-rooms exchanges going on, off main stage. To me, fascinating stuff, coming down to a 281-200 Government majority. Whoa! 41 of the Tory side had defected.

That was the moment Halifax dropped the pass. My other reading suggests it was the Tory Chief whip, David Margesson (formerly WW1 adjutant in the 11th Hussars — Churchill had been in the 4th), who made the difference for Churchill.

Now to my point: I'd suggest the Narvik debate was when something significant occurred. And at that point, my background iTunes track randomly switches to Billy Joel's Goodnight Saigon, so in a minute or so's time I'll get:
And we would all go down together,
We said we'd all go down together.
11 p.m., 8th May 1940: no going back.

Many, if not most of the MPs in the House in 1940 had more-than-a-nodding acquaintance with WW1, and in the Narvik debate one speaker reminds them how the balance changed between the August of 1918 and the Armistice. Attlee, for one example, was famously last-but-one man off the beach at Gallipoli. Most of Churchill's inner circle had been WW1 officers serving at the Front.

And then there's David Low's superb "All behind you, Winston" (published 11th May 1940). Yes, I fully recognise it's propagandist, but I know from my parents' generation it echoes a grim realism of attitude, of acceptance. (By the way, I wonder how many today could name those caricatured in the front three rows.)

 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,840
Yes, I remember owedtojoy's earlier piece, and very cogent it was, too. It nailed Halifax's ambivalence nicely.

To be fair, I started musing on this thread with Drogheda445's post #2 (above): it properly opens the speculations about "what ifs" rather neatly. While I'm not a fan of "alternative history", it's useful to consider why certain alternatives didn't happen.

My thoughts came down to the two-day adjournment debate over Narvik: 7th and 8th May 1940. Around 100,000 words: ought to edit down nicely to produce a cracking piece of period drama.

Re-reading it (actually, little more than 'skim-reading'), it seems to me to be almost choreographed. Herbie Morrison didn't declare Labour was making it a vote-of-confidence until the second day. We have umpteen accounts of the backstairs and smoky-rooms exchanges going on, off main stage. To me, fascinating stuff, coming down to a 281-200 Government majority. Whoa! 41 of the Tory side had defected.

That was the moment Halifax dropped the pass. My other reading suggests it was the Tory Chief whip, David Margesson (formerly WW1 adjutant in the 11th Hussars — Churchill had been in the 4th), who made the difference for Churchill.

Now to my point: I'd suggest the Narvik debate was when something significant occurred. And at that point, my background iTunes track randomly switches to Billy Joel's Goodnight Saigon, so in a minute or so's time I'll get:

11 p.m., 8th May 1940: no going back.

Many, if not most of the MPs in the House in 1940 had more-than-a-nodding acquaintance with WW1, and in the Narvik debate one speaker reminds them how the balance changed between the August of 1918 and the Armistice. Attlee, for one example, was famously last-but-one man off the beach at Gallipoli. Most of Churchill's inner circle had been WW1 officers serving at the Front.

And then there's David Low's superb "All behind you, Winston" (published 11th May 1940). Yes, I fully recognise it's propagandist, but I know from my parents' generation it echoes a grim realism of attitude, of acceptance. (By the way, I wonder how many today could name those caricatured in the front three rows.)

My favourite Low cartoon from the era:



It captures the spirit. George Orwell/ Eric Blair believed there would have been a popular revolt if the Government had tried to surrender. He saw the Home Guard as a potential revolutionary army of the working class. Not very "Dad's Army"! From what I read, for once an egalitarian spirit swept Britain, and public displays of snobbery or class were openly derided. The Queen Mother was relieved when a bomb hit her Palace - "At least we can look the East End in the face" was her comment, widely reported.
 

Gwannow

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
1,059
Re. M. Redfellow
Churchill of course in the front row. Rab Butler or perhaps Aneurin Bevan beside him? Atlee behind Winston. Chamberlain of course. A.Douglas Home ? The man with the glasses on the tip of my tongue but not coming to me yet. Of course, apart from the obvious I'm probably wrong about the others.
 

Gwannow

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
1,059
I read sometime ago that the pilot who bombed Buckingham Palace was a relative, a cousin I believe, of the Royal family. Did anyone else ever hear or read that?
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
39,552
I'm seeing the film on Tuesday in Dunquerque itself. The reviews have been mixed but I'm interested.
 

amsterdemmetje

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
16,600
I'm seeing the film on Tuesday in Dunquerque itself. The reviews have been mixed but I'm interested.
Will you watch it in original or French?
The French really are not dealt with in it in any real detail except a few minutes at the beginning its really about the beech ,the sky and the mainland help from a Brit pov.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
39,552
Will you watch it in original or French?
The French really are not dealt with in it in any real detail except a few minutes at the beginning its really about the beech ,the sky and the mainland help from a Brit pov.
Oh, I'd assumed that the narrative was all about those being rescued. I'm assuming that it'll be in French and without subtitles.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top