Dunkirk Summer 2017, directed by Christopher Nolan

Anyone else super exited for this? I love the trailers and have enjoyed all of Nolan's recent films. Needless to say I'm pumped.

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

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...

Yes, the situation that led to the British being surrounded at Dunkirk was a complete military disaster, thanks it large part due to their own errors. But the fact that the British were able to successfully evacuate over 300,000 remains impressive.

I saw the preview, it looks like it could be a good movie.

Jredbaron96 said:

Yes, the situation that led to the British being surrounded at Dunkirk was a complete military disaster, thanks it large part due to their own errors. But the fact that the British were able to successfully evacuate over 300,000 remains impressive.

Click to expand...

See that is the problem. No it was not impressive, that is the "victor writes the history" part. It was pure luck.

I am not trying to take away the heroism of the civilians who risked everything to get the men off the beaches or the French troops who held a rear guard as much as they could, but the fact remains that the only reason the British got those troops off the beaches was because the Germans let them.

PeteEU said:

See that is the problem. No it was not impressive, that is the "victor writes the history" part. It was pure luck.

Click to expand...

Organizing the evacuation of 338,226 men over the course of just nine days by 861 boats takes more than just luck.

I am not trying to take away the heroism of the civilians who risked everything to get the men off the beaches or the French troops who held a rear guard as much as they could, but the fact remains that the only reason the British got those troops off the beaches was because the Germans let them.

Click to expand...

That's not really accurate.

The Germans failed to stop the British from evacuating for three main reasons, the first being the sensible choice to shift their Panzers away from Dunkirk (The marshy terrain around Dunkirk would've made for poor tank maneuvers, and German Panzer losses were already as high as 50% in some units), and also a general desire to conserve their armor for Fall Rot. The second was the general overestimation of the Luftwaffe's capabilities (as the Germans regularly overestimated themselves), and the third was quite simply because the land and air minded Germans didn't see the sea as an escape route. German forces and leaders thought the allied forces in Dunkirk were doomed.

The Germans didn't simply stop attacking the perimeter at Dunkirk. German infantry continued to attack the the Allied forces and were held off by stiff resistance by both British and French forces. The idea that the Nazis simply "let" 300,000 men get away is ridiculous. That was not at all their intention, as Hitler clearly laid out in Directive No. 13

The British were able to evacuate because Herman Goring bragged to Hitler that the Luftwaffe alone could wipe them out so the Germans stopped the panzers from cutting off the British.

And a movie with Harry Styles? Ugh. That's like putting Justin Beiber in a WW2 movie.

Jredbaron96 said:

Organizing the evacuation of 338,226 men over the course of just nine days by 861 boats takes more than just luck.

Click to expand...

There was next to no organisation. Dont get me wrong, it was a great they got that many men out alive, but they were not under sustained attack for most of it... sure hit and runs by the Luftwaffe, but in no way did the Germans throw the full might of the Wehrmacht against the allies.

That's not really accurate.

Click to expand...

It is actually.

The Germans failed to stop the British from evacuating for three main reasons, the first being the sensible choice to shift their Panzers away from Dunkirk (The marshy terrain around Dunkirk would've made for poor tank maneuvers, and German Panzer losses were already as high as 50% in some units), and also a general desire to conserve their armor for Fall Rot.

Click to expand...

See this is just horse****. Yes the losses were high, but they had the chance of annihilating the enemy. The Generals wanted to do it, but Hitler stopped them.

The second was the general overestimation of the Luftwaffe's capabilities (as the Germans regularly overestimated themselves),

Click to expand...

Again bull****. The Luftwaffe was held back. The French and RAF were defeated over France, so the Luftwaffe ruled the air. They could have sent wave after wave of bombers in over the allies and killed them all. They did not. Hell the Luftwaffe could have easily sunk most ships trying to get people off.. yes they did sink some, but come on.. with no real air cover, the ships were sitting ducks.

the third was quite simply because the land and air minded Germans didn't see the sea as an escape route. German forces and leaders thought the allied forces in Dunkirk were doomed.

Click to expand...

And they were right, but any idiot could see on May 28th that something was up. That should have signaled an all out assault on the pocket to stop and or kill as many as possible. They did neither. From a strategic stand point it was an utter failure of leadership by Hitler to force his generals to stop the attack.

The Germans didn't simply stop attacking the perimeter at Dunkirk. German infantry continued to attack the the Allied forces and were held off by stiff resistance by both British and French forces. The idea that the Nazis simply "let" 300,000 men get away is ridiculous. That was not at all their intention, as Hitler clearly laid out in Directive No. 13

Click to expand...

I never said that the Germans stopped attacking the allies.. they did not. I said they lessened their attacks. Does this mean they "let" them go? Pretty much. One can ask why, but many suspect that it was to send a message to the English at home.. hundreds of thousands of defeated and wounded pouring onto the islands with a threat of invasion coming, might have destroyed the British moral.

And lets be clear here. One can argue (as we have) about the Germans "letting" anyone go, but they knew very well that the battle for the British Isles was going to be around the control of the air. That was their biggest mistake. Letting 300k unarmed troops flee to the UK in the grand scale of things meant nothing if Hitler had managed to take out the RAF. The 300k troops were unarmed and their heavy weapons lay burning in and around Dunkrik.

Had the RAF fallen (and we are talking about under 24 hours margin here as we now know from historical documents), then the Germans would have easily overrun the southern part of the UK, as the defenses were mainly poorly armed leftover home guard and recently defeated troops with next to no heavy weapons.

So to sum up.. Hitler might or might not have believed that the British getting so many men off the beaches was important in the grand scale of things, but the fact remains that the Germans stopped their all out attacks for a time, which meant the British could get off so many men.

Hitler made a TON of mistakes. But 1 of his biggest was ALWAYS listening to Goring.

Goring told him the Luftwaffe would defeat the Brits at Dunkirk, he was wrong. He was also wrong about Sea Lion(defeating the Royal Air-force), Stalingrad, that the Allies would never bomb German cities. And on and on. The guy was wrong about almost everything. Sometimes Hitler took his loyalty' to friends too far. It cost him.

PeteEU said:

There was next to no organisation. Dont get me wrong, it was a great they got that many men out alive, but they were not under sustained attack for most of it... sure hit and runs by the Luftwaffe, but in no way did the Germans throw the full might of the Wehrmacht against the allies.


It is actually.

Click to expand...

You have no idea what the **** you're talking about.

See this is just horse****. Yes the losses were high, but they had the chance of annihilating the enemy. The Generals wanted to do it, but Hitler stopped them.

Click to expand...

It was Von Rundstedt, not Hitler, who ordered the Panzer halt. And it originated in the lower levels of Rundstedt's Command, not Hitler.

It actually made sense at the time. Panzer losses were high, and the Allied counterattack at Arras (although it fizzled out quickly) frightened the Germans as it caught their Panzer formations off guard.

Von Rundstedt of course, like all German generals in their memoirs, completely absolve themselves of any blame and put it all on Hitler. Hitler had his fair share of blame and mistake, but his Generals were not the stuff of the legend they claim to be.

Again bull****. The Luftwaffe was held back. The French and RAF were defeated over France, so the Luftwaffe ruled the air. They could have sent wave after wave of bombers in over the allies and killed them all. They did not. Hell the Luftwaffe could have easily sunk most ships trying to get people off.. yes they did sink some, but come on.. with no real air cover, the ships were sitting ducks.

Click to expand...

This so blatantly flies in the face of history I don't even know where to begin.

The Luftwaffe was not held back at all. Goering assured the rest of the German leadership that the Luftwaffe could stop the British. The Luftwaffe lost 156 aircraft in just nine days of operation.

And they were right, but any idiot could see on May 28th that something was up. That should have signaled an all out assault on the pocket to stop and or kill as many as possible. They did neither. From a strategic stand point it was an utter failure of leadership by Hitler to force his generals to stop the attack.

Click to expand...

The Germans continued to assault the perimeter the entire time. It was done without Panzers due the aforementioned halt, and continued to shell the Dunkirk perimeter with their heavy artillery.

Had the RAF fallen (and we are talking about under 24 hours margin here as we now know from historical documents), then the Germans would have easily overrun the southern part of the UK, as the defenses were mainly poorly armed leftover home guard and recently defeated troops with next to no heavy weapons.

So to sum up.. Hitler might or might not have believed that the British getting so many men off the beaches was important in the grand scale of things, but the fact remains that the Germans stopped their all out attacks for a time, which meant the British could get off so many men.

Click to expand...

You seriously don't know what you're talking about.

The Germans had every intention of destroying the BEF. The OKW sent a message to the Labor Minister talking about the upcoming destruction of the British and French forces on the 28th of May. The German ground assault continued along with the Luftwaffe's bombing campaign. Both failed due to stringiest resistance by the British and French forces holding the perimeter. Rommel himself and seven German divisions were held by by the French at Lille.

And destroying the RAF would not have signaled the invasion of Britain. The Royal Navy needed to be beaten as well, most noticeably the Home fleet.

The reality is that Sea Lion was never really a serious threat. It relied on air superiority the Luftwaffe couldn't provide (As the OKL handled the Battle of Britain with extreme ineptitude, wasting away their numerical advantage and veteran corps of pilots in fruitless raids), a British economy devastated by bombings (Which the Luftwaffe couldn't do as it lacked strategic bombers and reliable intelligence), naval superiority the Kriegsmarine couldn't supply, and transportation services the German war economy was incapable of producing. The Germans had neither the bombers nor the spies nor the amphibious forces to conduct an invasion of Britain.

A movie about Dunkirk?

What's next?

PQ-17 - The Doomed Convoy?

Sydney and the Kormoran - Fatal Draw?

Titanic - The Comedy?

Jredbaron96 said:

Anyone else super exited for this? I love the trailers and have enjoyed all of Nolan's recent films. Needless to say I'm pumped.

Click to expand...

As someone who got out of France - from Bordeaux - about two weeks after the Dunkirk evacuation I would like to see the film.

The UK government of the time deserves some credit. If only for creating something of a propaganda victory out of a disastrous defeat. Btw about a third of the troops taken off at Dunkirk were French. There were also a relatively small number of Belgians

DA60 said:

PQ-17 - The Doomed Convoy?

Click to expand...

I would pay to see that. The Arctic convoys and the sailors who manned them deserve more recognition. The Dunkirk movie could be pretty good, depending on how it is done.

Redress said:

I would pay to see that. The Arctic convoys and the sailors who manned them deserve more recognition.

Click to expand...

I read some of their accounts in Max Hasting's Inferno. Unbelievable stuff.

Jredbaron96 said:

Anyone else super exited for this? I love the trailers and have enjoyed all of Nolan's recent films. Needless to say I'm pumped.

Click to expand...

Love Nolan's work. I'll most likely check it out.

Jredbaron96 said:

I read some of their accounts in Max Hasting's Inferno. Unbelievable stuff.

Click to expand...

Running the Gauntlet: The Murmansk Run & WWII’s Arctic Convoys

Museum Home

https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Sacrifice-Convoys-General-Military/dp/1472811100

Redress said:

Running the Gauntlet: The Murmansk Run & WWII’s Arctic Convoys

Museum Home

https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Sacrifice-Convoys-General-Military/dp/1472811100

Click to expand...

DA60 said:

A movie about Dunkirk?

What's next?

PQ-17 - The Doomed Convoy?

Sydney and the Kormoran - Fatal Draw?

Titanic - The Comedy?

Click to expand...

The maiden voyage of the Vasa would be a nice movie. :mrgreen:

PoS said:

The maiden voyage of the Vasa would be a nice movie. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Amazing, I had never heard of her before.

Redress said:

I would pay to see that. The Arctic convoys and the sailors who manned them deserve more recognition. The Dunkirk movie could be pretty good, depending on how it is done.

Click to expand...

Indeed...but my point was that - like Dunkirk - PQ-17 was a disaster.

DA60 said:

A movie about Dunkirk?

What's next?

PQ-17 - The Doomed Convoy?

Sydney and the Kormoran - Fatal Draw?

Titanic - The Comedy?

Click to expand...

Why not Dunkirk? They have made films about black hawk down, pearl harbour and countless Vietnam movies.

Higgins86 said:

Why not Dunkirk? They have made films about black hawk down, pearl harbour and countless Vietnam movies.

Click to expand...

And I thought those were mostly stupid movies as well.

I am not paying good money to see my side get creamed in a war movie.

You want to...go ahead.

BTW, most of the Vietnam movies denoted Americsn victories and/or were about emotions and the human condition - not historical battles; like Platoon.

And movies like Black Hawk Down told a story that needed to be told to educate Americans about not getting involved in tribal wars.

Dunkirk? Nothing whatsoever to be learned from Dunkirk that everyone does not already know and knew decades ago.

The only people that see it are the same people that saw the last Pearl Harbor movie...idiots/teenagers who go for the action...not historians.

Dunkirk will be an action flick wrapped up as a historical piece...and they will get TONS of historical events wrong to make it more appealing.

You like it...fine. I will pass.

We are done.

DA60 said:

And I thought those were mostly stupid movies as well.

I am not paying good money to see my side get creamed in a war movie.

You want to...go ahead.

BTW, most of the Vietnam movies denoted Americsn victories and/or were about emotions and the human condition - not historical battles; like Platoon.

And movies like Black Hawk Down told a story that needed to be told to educate Americans about not getting involved in tribal wars.

Dunkirk? Nothing whatsoever to be learned from Dunkirk that everyone does not already know and knew decades ago.

The only people that see it are the same people that saw the last Pearl Harbor movie...idiots/teenagers who go for the action...not historians.

Dunkirk will be an action flick wrapped up as a historical piece...and they will get TONS of historical events wrong to make it more appealing.

You like it...fine. I will pass.

We are done.

Click to expand...

You underestimate the importance of Dunkirk not just in a military sense but also politically. Churchill was under immense pressure and 300k allied troops being captured would of probably been the nail in the coffin. Men like Lord Halifax would of pushed him out and then brokered a deal with Hitler as they had been pushing for .
With that deal you would of seen the collapse of the Empire which would of meant no North African campaign, Australiaalone vs Japan and of course no D-Day. Germany would of been allowed to focus on Russia without multiple fronts and then who knows what would of happened.

Higgins86 said:

You underestimate the importance of Dunkirk not just in a military sense but also politically. Churchill was under immense pressure and 300k allied troops being captured would of probably been the nail in the coffin. Men like Lord Halifax would of pushed him out and then brokered a deal with Hitler as they had been pushing for .
With that deal you would of seen the collapse of the Empire which would of meant no North African campaign, Australiaalone vs Japan and of course no D-Day. Germany would of been allowed to focus on Russia without multiple fronts and then who knows what would of happened.

Click to expand...

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.

Higgins86 said:

You underestimate the importance of Dunkirk not just in a military sense but also politically. Churchill was under immense pressure and 300k allied troops being captured would of probably been the nail in the coffin. Men like Lord Halifax would of pushed him out and then brokered a deal with Hitler as they had been pushing for .
With that deal you would of seen the collapse of the Empire which would of meant no North African campaign, Australiaalone vs Japan and of course no D-Day. Germany would of been allowed to focus on Russia without multiple fronts and then who knows what would of happened.

Click to expand...

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.