• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dunkirk Summer 2017, directed by Christopher Nolan

PeteEU said:
Not really.. dont see the point in trying to glorify one of the biggest cluster****s and defeats in military history.
Click to expand...

why not-Gallipoli was a brilliant movie
 
PoS said:
Even if the UK surrendered The Soviets would have still beaten the Germans regardless. There was no way the Nazis could win against an endless horde of Russians.
Click to expand...

Which would of meant Europe would of turned completely communist.
 
Looks like it will be a great movie
 
Higgins86 said:
Which would of meant Europe would of turned completely communist.
Click to expand...

Yeah, talk about an improvement!

I remember reading one time that D-Day didn't save France from Nazi Germany, it saved it from becoming a Soviet Satellite state.
 
So I just saw this film, and decided to resurrect this thread to give some thoughts:

First off, holy ****.

Secondly, a great film from Nolan. Dunkirk doesn't seem like anything you would expect from Hollywood; it's not an American battle, it's not even a real military victory. Dunkirk ended with the withdrawal of the BEF and was followed by the French surrender just a few weeks later. In the words of Churchill, it was a "Colossal military disaster". None of the characters pull of any over the top heroics. There are some scenes of bravery and comradery, but it's always against the backdrop of tragedy. They manage to save a handful of lives against the loss of hundreds. The British are not portrayed as heroes, at least not in the traditional sense, the British Army doesn't stand tall and halt the hordes at the beaches. The entire time it's very clear the British are in disarray and desperate to just get off the beaches. They're a broken army, but not a broken people.

The Germans are portrayed entirely with aircraft, music and ambience, and their presence is pervasive. They're the enemy at the gate, the hordes swarming at the edge of the horizon, ready to spill over and annihilate everything in their path. And yet you never hear or see them beyond the wails of their sirens and the thundering of their artillery and bombs. It's clear their attacks are whittling away at the British, and causing intense fear and panic amid their victims, and that backdrop of near annihilation really makes the film seem so intense.

Ironically, on top of all of this, the sentiment I got at the end of Dunkirk was hope. Everything was going wrong for the British; they had been pushed back to the shoreline, their ships were being sunk, their aircraft blown out of the sky, and yet they survive. They live to fight another day. They make it back to Britain and prepare for the coming battle, the invasion that as we know will never come, but for the British after Dunkirk seemed like an inevitability. They were prepared, as it was said, to go on to the end.
 
PoS said:
Even if the UK surrendered The Soviets would have still beaten the Germans regardless. There was no way the Nazis could win against an endless horde of Russians.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The Soviets would have collapsed if it had not been for war materials from the UK/US in the early days of the German invasion. No UK, no war materials.
 
PeteEU said:
Wrong. The Soviets would have collapsed if it had not been for war materials from the UK/US in the early days of the German invasion. No UK, no war materials.
Click to expand...

Youre wrong. The UK never aided the Russians, it was the US that did- and their military aid was very little. In the end the Eastern Front was won with mostly Soviet tanks, arms, and most importantly, men.
 
PoS said:
Youre wrong. The UK never aided the Russians, it was the US that did- and their military aid was very little. In the end the Eastern Front was won with mostly Soviet tanks, arms, and most importantly, men.
Click to expand...

Come on... stop rewriting history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II

From North America (Canada, a UK colony and the US), Iceland (under UK control) and the UK.. that is where the ships set off. Most of the ships were in fact British.

So with the UK surrendering, then these convoys would most likely not have happened and that would have killed off the Soviets.
 
Amazing movie.

Pulling off that evacuation was an amazing feat.

Turning the remnants of a military disaster into a first class WW movie - stunning.

I am curious....the private boats....were most piloted by the actual owners of the boat or military personnel?
 
PoS said:
Youre wrong. The UK never aided the Russians, it was the US that did- and their military aid was very little. In the end the Eastern Front was won with mostly Soviet tanks, arms, and most importantly, men.
Click to expand...

The US gave the Soviets 100,000's of trucks during WWII, that did allow the Soviets to concentrate on manufacturing tanks, planes, etc. The aid we gave them was quite significant.

I do agree though, with or without US help eventually the Russians would have defeated the Germans, it would have taken longer but Russia was just to vast and had too many men for the Germans to conquer. Russia eventually would have bled Germany dry.
 
PeteEU said:
Come on... stop rewriting history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II

From North America (Canada, a UK colony and the US), Iceland (under UK control) and the UK.. that is where the ships set off. Most of the ships were in fact British.

So with the UK surrendering, then these convoys would most likely not have happened and that would have killed off the Soviets.
Click to expand...

False again. The Pacific route was the largest in LL to the Russians, that was the US Navy. The bulk of the weapons and tanks arrived in the USSR around 1944-45, when the war had already turned against the Nazis- and even then it was no more than 7-10% of the total equipment used by the USSR. I know you Euro types love to pretend you did something, but the bulk of the German losses in the war was done by the Russians.
 
year2late said:
I am curious....the private boats....were most piloted by the actual owners of the boat or military personnel?
Click to expand...

A mixture. Many were piloted by civilian personnel, including the actual owners of the boats, though some had RN sailors helping out.
 
PeteEU said:
Wrong. The Soviets would have collapsed if it had not been for war materials from the UK/US in the early days of the German invasion. No UK, no war materials.
Click to expand...

Not really. Major lend lease supplies didn't start arriving until winter of 1942, when the Germans were already on their way to operational failure in Case Blue. Without Lend Lease the vast sweeping offensives of the Red Army in 1943-1944 would've been pretty difficult to undertake; but not necessarily impossible.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Not really. Major lend lease supplies didn't start arriving until winter of 1942, when the Germans were already on their way to operational failure in Case Blue. Without Lend Lease the vast sweeping offensives of the Red Army in 1943-1944 would've been pretty difficult to undertake; but not necessarily impossible.
Click to expand...

There would be no freaking offence in 43 because the Red Army would have been defeated by then. It was the ammo and tanks from the Brits/American allies that slowed down the German advance so that the Russians could move their factories beyond the Ural mountains and start build up their forces again.

Also if Germany had taken the UK, then they would have certainly used the UK as an airbase to bomb the **** out of any American ships trying to get material to the Russians. They had Norway and did a damn good job with that, but just imagine if the US ships were under constant bombardment and sub attack from the UK islands all the way to Russia? No way they would survive.
 
year2late said:
Amazing movie.

Pulling off that evacuation was an amazing feat.

Turning the remnants of a military disaster into a first class WW movie - stunning.

I am curious....the private boats....were most piloted by the actual owners of the boat or military personnel?
Click to expand...

owners
 
PoS said:
False again. The Pacific route was the largest in LL to the Russians, that was the US Navy. The bulk of the weapons and tanks arrived in the USSR around 1944-45, when the war had already turned against the Nazis- and even then it was no more than 7-10% of the total equipment used by the USSR. I know you Euro types love to pretend you did something, but the bulk of the German losses in the war was done by the Russians.
Click to expand...

What drugs are you on? US boats sailing to Russian ports on the east coast in 1941-42? The US was hurting big time by then and never risked anything near Japan.

Russia would have been defeated in 41 or 42 if it had not been for the materials from the UK/US. The equipment that Russia got from the US/UK was a stop gap since they had lost almost all their tanks and air planes in the first few days and weeks of the attack. On top of that, you cant produce materials if you are busy moving the factory to the other side of the Ural mountains. So where would the Russians have had their resupply of ammo and basic materials?

It is very clear, that the UK/US supplies in 1941 and 42, kept the Russians in the game... it is a historical fact. After 42, the Russians did not need any help as they had managed to stop the Russians at Moscows front door with the help of US/UK materials, and started up the ammo and materials factories beyond German bomber range.
 
Took in $20 mil yesterday.....stunning.

I dont think my nerves can take this movie very well based upon reports, but I might need to go see it.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
This.

The destruction of the British Army at Dunkirk would've destroyed British morale irrevocably. With France (and it's supposedly most powerful army in the world) gone, and half of Europe under Axis rule, along with perceptions of German invincibility running high, a British request for peace terms would not be out of the question.

Dunkirk convinced the British people that they still had the means to resist the Nazis, and ensured Britain would stand against Nazism, even if it had to do so alone.

Even as a history nerd I'm excited for the Dunkirk movie. Because when Dunkirk happened, when the fate of the British Army hung in the balance on a small beach in France, an incredible story of survival, perseverance and hope took place, and after seeing Nolan's other films, I'm positive he can showcase such things exceptionally well.
Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to seeing it.
 
PeteEU said:
Not really.. dont see the point in trying to glorify one of the biggest cluster****s and defeats in military history.
Click to expand...

Odd way to see strategic retreat. Had that not worked so historians say, the Brits would have been forced to vie for peace. I don't think it was that bad, but it must have been pretty important.
 
PeteEU said:
What drugs are you on? US boats sailing to Russian ports on the east coast in 1941-42? The US was hurting big time by then and never risked anything near Japan.
Click to expand...
Your own link states that the Pacific route was responsible for 50% of the entire LL goods delivered to Russia. Try reading for once.

As for the UK they didnt start delivering to the USSR until 1941, and it was for a paltry 40 outdated Hurricane fighters on the first convoy- are you saying that these outdated planes won the war for the Soviets? Looks like Im not the one who needs drug counseling. :doh

PeteEU said:
Russia would have been defeated in 41 or 42 if it had not been for the materials from the UK/US.
Click to expand...
You know nothing about LL or WW2, because the amount of goods delivered by LL during 1942 was miniscule. The Russians had massive tank and armament industries in Moscow and relocated many of their factories behind the Urals when the Germans invaded.

“In addition, the first lend-lease shipments during the winter of 1941-1942 reached the USSR very late, although during those critical months Russia was able to put up an impressive fight against the German aggressors all on her own, without any assistance to speak of from the democracies of the West. By the end of 1942 only 55% of the scheduled deliveries had made it to the USSR.”

For example, in 1941 the United States promised to send 600 tanks and 750 aircraft, but actually sent only 182 and 204, respectively.
Click to expand...

https://orientalreview.org/2015/05/12/wwii-lend-lease-was-the-us-aid-helpful-enough-i/

The Majority of LL goods being sent to Russia occurred only after 1944, when the Russians were already beating back the Germans. In addition, the few hundred tanks that were sent were obsolete light tanks that would be no match against the German Tigers and Panthers.

In 1941 when Germany invaded, the Russians produced around 3000 T-34 tanks, by 1942 that figure was over 12,000, so tell me again how the Russians won the war using small numbers of outdated American and British equipment when 90% of their weapons were produced locally during the entire war?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
 
PeteEU said:
There would be no freaking offence in 43 because the Red Army would have been defeated by then. It was the ammo and tanks from the Brits/American allies that slowed down the German advance so that the Russians could move their factories beyond the Ural mountains and start build up their forces again.
Click to expand...

No, that's not accurate at all. German defeat in the East came the moment they decided to push on towards Moscow after seizing Kiev, instead of making the smart decision and consolidating their gains and preparing for the inevitable Soviet winter counter offensive. They had reached the culmination point but pressed on, dooming them to defeat outside Moscow. The Germans lost the war in the latter half of 1941.

Also if Germany had taken the UK, then they would have certainly used the UK as an airbase to bomb the **** out of any American ships trying to get material to the Russians. They had Norway and did a damn good job with that, but just imagine if the US ships were under constant bombardment and sub attack from the UK islands all the way to Russia? No way they would survive.
Click to expand...

Operation Sea lion was never going to happen.
 
Saw it today, it's a masterpiece
 
year2late said:
Amazing movie.

Pulling off that evacuation was an amazing feat.

Turning the remnants of a military disaster into a first class WW movie - stunning.

I am curious....the private boats....were most piloted by the actual owners of the boat or military personnel?
Click to expand...


Mostly just private owners and fishermen
 
Higgins86 said:
Mostly just private owners and fishermen
Click to expand...

Jredbaron96 said:
So I just saw this film, and decided to resurrect this thread to give some thoughts:

First off, holy ****.

Secondly, a great film from Nolan. Dunkirk doesn't seem like anything you would expect from Hollywood; it's not an American battle, it's not even a real military victory. Dunkirk ended with the withdrawal of the BEF and was followed by the French surrender just a few weeks later. In the words of Churchill, it was a "Colossal military disaster". None of the characters pull of any over the top heroics. There are some scenes of bravery and comradery, but it's always against the backdrop of tragedy. They manage to save a handful of lives against the loss of hundreds. The British are not portrayed as heroes, at least not in the traditional sense, the British Army doesn't stand tall and halt the hordes at the beaches. The entire time it's very clear the British are in disarray and desperate to just get off the beaches. They're a broken army, but not a broken people.

The Germans are portrayed entirely with aircraft, music and ambience, and their presence is pervasive. They're the enemy at the gate, the hordes swarming at the edge of the horizon, ready to spill over and annihilate everything in their path. And yet you never hear or see them beyond the wails of their sirens and the thundering of their artillery and bombs. It's clear their attacks are whittling away at the British, and causing intense fear and panic amid their victims, and that backdrop of near annihilation really makes the film seem so intense.

Ironically, on top of all of this, the sentiment I got at the end of Dunkirk was hope. Everything was going wrong for the British; they had been pushed back to the shoreline, their ships were being sunk, their aircraft blown out of the sky, and yet they survive. They live to fight another day. They make it back to Britain and prepare for the coming battle, the invasion that as we know will never come, but for the British after Dunkirk seemed like an inevitability. They were prepared, as it was said, to go on to the end.
Click to expand...

What I loved about it is focused more on the soldiers rather than the bigger picture which so many war movies fail to do. It wasn't overly patriotic either, it was just about getting home
 
Higgins86 said:
What I loved about it is focused more on the soldiers rather than the bigger picture which so many war movies fail to do. It wasn't overly patriotic either, it was just about getting home
Click to expand...

The subversion of classics war movie tropes is what really makes me love Dunkirk.

There's no cliche "sit around the campfire" and talk about who they have waiting for them back one. The epic battle scenes are usually just intense air-to-air dogfights, while the others are one sided bombing runs. There's no epic dashes to save a fallen comrade, the most heroic moments are against a backdrop of death and loss. The most cliche scene when the little boats arrive isn't even the traditional rescue; it's not the cavalry coming to charge and turn the tide of the battle; it's hey now we can get the **** off this god forsaken beach.

Dunkirk may focus on half a dozen main characters, but the story is about 300,000 men on the brink of annihilation, and Nolan does a great job showing that. I adore this movie; it's one of the best war movies ever made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom