PDA

View Full Version : New Film on Dunkirk



Nickdfresh
08-09-2016, 11:51 AM
7724

Christopher Nolan is known for his meticulous attention to detail. Even going as far as using real naval destroyers instead of CGI in his upcoming film, Dunkirk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6BEcoM0zik
However it looks like there was one small thing he overlooked in the beautiful first teaser for the World War II epic.

Did you spot it? It happens during the final shot of the teaser. There's one extra that is behaving a little too happy go lucky for a soldier in the midst of one of the most famous battles in World War II.

LINK (http://entertainment.ie/cinema/news/Watch-One-extra-ruined-the-teaser-trailer-for-Christopher-Nolans-Dunkirk-for-a-lot-of-people/383952.htm)

tankgeezer
08-10-2016, 07:37 AM
Must be a Relative of "Carl"

Rising Sun*
08-10-2016, 09:44 AM
7724


LINK (http://entertainment.ie/cinema/news/Watch-One-extra-ruined-the-teaser-trailer-for-Christopher-Nolans-Dunkirk-for-a-lot-of-people/383952.htm)

I've played it many times and can't see why his expression or conduct is out of place. Even if one sees him as happy go lucky, why wouldn't that be consistent with being shell shocked or some other consequence of the grinding lead up to or grinding experience at Dunkirk waiting for evacuation?

Anyway, the Dunkirk evacuation was just that: an evacuation, not a battle. On the Allied side, it ranks more with Greece and Crete (but, alas, not the Philippines or Singapore or various parts south) in extracting by sea the greatest number of troops, generally without much more than they carried on their backs, to fight another day after another glorious defeat by the Germans.

Dunkirk was the result of a reasonable chance of combined French and British arms defeating or at least holding the Germans in continental Europe. Greece, Crete, the Philippines and Singapore were just occasions where, for various reasons which boil down to poor judgment by the British Commonwealth and Americans supreme commanders and sometimes advice from their incompetent military commanders suffering terminal doses of hubris (notably MacArthur), there was little or no chance of resisting the enemy, even without the benefit of hindsight.

Nickdfresh
08-10-2016, 10:42 AM
I've played it many times and can't see why his expression or conduct is out of place. Even if one sees him as happy go lucky, why wouldn't that be consistent with being shell shocked or some other consequence of the grinding lead up to or grinding experience at Dunkirk waiting for evacuation?

....

I sort of agree. Insanity and the expressions of it would be rather congruent with war in general, and in this instance in particular. There of course is always fear and stress associated with battle but the shocking speed of the German advance and the corresponding sleep deprivation and complete befuddlement of the general mass of the Allied troops might have produced characters that were not "all there" or even perhaps welcoming of death by that point...

After all, perhaps much like Private Pyle, this man was "in a world of shďt!"
7725
Everyone had someone sort of like this in basic training, if not to Pyle's murderous and suicidal extent...

Rising Sun*
08-11-2016, 04:08 AM
Insanity and the expressions of it would be rather congruent with war in general, and in this instance in particular.

About 10% of casualties admitted to regimental aid posts at Dunkirk were combat stress. The percentage might have been higher as large numbers of servicemen were admitted to psychiatric hospitals on return to Britain, p.244, http://www.kcl.ac.uk/kcmhr/publications/assetfiles/historical/Jones2001-psychiatricbattlecasulaties.pdf

So there's a good chance that about 1 in every 10 of the men in the film clip were suffering some degree of combat stress, which could manifest itself as seemingly inappropriate behaviour. Although I'm buggered if I know what's appropriate after you've been defeated; cornered; bombed and, don't know if you'll be evacuated or become a POW, if you survive.



There of course is always fear and stress associated with battle ...

And different people react in different ways at the time, and years later.

There is a line in a song down here which is one of the anthems for the Vietnam diggers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urtiyp-G6jY][/url] about the sound of a television station's helicopter being disturbing years later:

[I]And can you tell me, doctor, why I still can't get to sleep?
And why the Channel Seven chopper chills me to my feet?

When that song was released in the early 1980s, a mate of mine who had served in Vietnam as a grunt told me he loved the sound of helicopters, because it meant at worst they were getting fire support; or, better, supplies; or, best; getting lifted out.

navyson
08-11-2016, 09:17 AM
Ha! I never would have noticed had someone not pointed it out.

32Bravo
12-16-2016, 07:58 AM
https://www.bing.com/search?q=dunkirk+film+trailer&form=EDGEAR&qs=PF&cvid=5d91d5e3572043d491cd9a994dc516e0&pq=dunkirk+film+trailer

Nickdfresh
12-16-2016, 09:12 AM
Well...

Where are the French? The stand like the "Spartan 300" that made it all possible?

Nickdfresh
12-16-2016, 09:15 AM
Merged into existing thread and retitled...

Churchill
12-16-2016, 01:59 PM
I'm sure that something similar to Fury will happen: the first half will be moderately realistic, then some turn of events will happen that will be unhistorical as hell.

32Bravo
12-17-2016, 08:52 AM
Thank you.

Nickdfresh
07-31-2017, 06:01 PM
Apparently the film is getting rave reviews overall and is in Oscar contention already. I haven't seen it yet so will refrain from commentary until seen...

tankgeezer
08-01-2017, 07:03 AM
I plan to see it, and just hoping that it isn't an extravagance of effects with just a dash of history.

Nickdfresh
08-02-2017, 05:36 AM
I plan to see it, and just hoping that it isn't an extravagance of effects with just a dash of history.

I saw it. There really seems to be rather little CGI and somewhat sticks to the story from a very British point of view. One thing Nolan did is seems is he deliberately avoided the battles around Dunkirk and Lille and there are only three or so brief scenes showing the French, and only one of them holding the outskirts of the town itself...

Half-Track
08-06-2017, 08:57 AM
Since I have never read that much about this, I will not comment on the film's historical accuracy. However, for purely entertainment value I would say it is worth your money. I saw it in a theater in Hagerstown, Md. a few days ago. The cinematography is spectacular. But as someone mentioned, done more like a documentary and at times jumps from scene to scene quite rapidly. Not your "Saving Private Ryan" (my favorite) type movie with a definite story line and plot, but I think that the acting in Dunkirk is very good. I especially liked the air combat scenes. I have heard pro and con from the experts on the battle.

Nickdfresh
08-06-2017, 09:59 AM
Agreed on the cinematography, the movie looks stunning. As far as accuracy, the film was panned by a French newspaper for glossing over their resistance around the town that was very determined. There was also a series of running battles around the Dunkirk pocket with heavy casualties on both sides. The infamous "Panzer Halt Order" in mentioned, but the tanks were halted for three days and were again attacking for what would have been the majority of the film. I like the action and the minimalist dialogue. But I think the scale of the thing seemed a bit sterile as there were about 338,000 that got out.

Rising Sun*
08-08-2017, 10:50 AM
Saw it a couple of days ago.


However, for purely entertainment value I would say it is worth your money.
Agree.


The cinematography is spectacular.
Agree also.


But as someone mentioned, done more like a documentary and at times jumps from scene to scene quite rapidly. Not your "Saving Private Ryan" (my favorite) type movie with a definite story line and plot ...

It's not a patch on 'Saving Private Ryan' because, as you correctly say, that film has a definite story line and plot which follows the characters through from the beach landing to the final scene. The problem with, and deficiency in, Dunkirk is that it attempts through various devices to cover the evacuation of more than 300,000 soldiers and the associated small boat efforts and air battles from the British viewpoint by a series of unconnected vignettes focusing on a few undeveloped and unrepresentative characters. It's a failure as a 'based on fact' fiction and as a documentary, and on any other basis apart from some impressive scenes of air and naval conflict.

I found it particularly offensive in starting the film and progressing it with a couple of soldiers, one of whom turns out to be French, who were effectively deserters trying to escape through the orderly troops lined up on the beach waiting for evacuation. Much the same with the possibly shell shocked or just cowardly 2nd Lt picked up by the small boat who repays his rescuers by killing one of them. Might have happened, but hardly representative of the vast majority of troops.

As a film which has anything to contribute to any understanding of Dunkirk, it's at best a great spectacle and at worst a great insult to the vast majority of troops who evacuated in good order under very bad conditions, but no worse than millions of other soldiers endured in countless smaller groups in many wars and in even larger groups during WWII under even worse conditions, such as Stalingrad and Battle of the Bulge.

Overall, it's just a nice piece of cinematic entertainment with lots of spectacles and a suitably noisy soundtrack without which it would have considerably less impact.

I don't understand why it's being hailed as the greatest film since 'Saving Private Ryan' or any other film, because it lacks plot, character development, character engagement, and just about everything else that a great film has.

Still, it's certainly worth watching for entertainment.

Just don't confuse it with anything that has much to do with the reality of the 300,000 plus troops who weren't the deserters upon whom the bulk of the film focuses for flimsy dramatic effect as they try to steal aboard a ship with a hijacked casualty or cower in a grounded boat, both of which experiences were on the basis of the film that of about a dozen or so of the 300,000 plus troops on the beach.

Rising Sun*
08-08-2017, 11:07 AM
As far as accuracy, the film was panned by a French newspaper for glossing over their resistance around the town that was very determined.

The point is made in the first scene that the French were defending a line through which the British were able to escape to the beach.

The absence of detail about the French fighting in what by then was the British rear is no more unreasonable than the absence of detail about the conduct of the British troops who weren't the majority of deserters and shell-shocked or cowardly troops upon whom the film focuses for characters.

If I had a relative who'd been evacuated at Dunkirk, I'd be incensed by a film which focuses upon deserters for the story line. As indeed I am dismayed by that approach when I have no family or any other connection with Dunkirk.



There was also a series of running battles around the Dunkirk pocket with heavy casualties on both sides. The infamous "Panzer Halt Order" in mentioned, but the tanks were halted for three days and were again attacking for what would have been the majority of the film.

Really? ;) :D

I thought the only attacks were from the Stukas. Then again, I'm just basing that on this historically accurate film. ;) :D

And just on the Stuka point, early on in the film there is a scene of the effect of a creeping bomb pattern hitting the troops on the ground. That creeping pattern is what you'd get from a medium to heavy bomber dropping multiple bombs, not Stukas.

Rising Sun*
08-08-2017, 11:51 AM
And now, ladies and gentlemen (cue drum roll) for the idiotic politically correct contingent's contribution to history.


"USA Today's Brian Truitt opined that "the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of colour may rub some the wrong way."

Truitt has, understandably, been held up to no small amount of ridicule. It is a little difficult to shoehorn women and ethnic minorities into a story which, put simply, featured few. Dunkirk is, after all, very much based on the battle – on air, land, and sea. There is no back story, no emotion-laden scenes of loved-ones left behind. There is no examination of the cultural mix of Britain at the time.

Truitt's utterance is little short of odd, akin to complaining there is a lack of Afro-Caribbeans in Alfred The Great, or commenting that it would have been better if a few women had made it out of Stalag Luft III in The Great Escape. If he wants women in the context of deep historical inaccuracy, he should perhaps tune into Raquel Welch in One Million Years BC."


It was inevitable that the following complaint would be made from predictable, and invariably ill-informed, quarters.


But Truitt is not alone in expressing dissent at Dunkirk's modus operandi. Marie Claire critic Mehera Bonner declared that the film just screams 'men-only', claiming the only reason male critics liked it was because it allowed them to feel manly.

"To me, Dunkirk felt like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness," she wrote, "which apparently they don't get to do enough. Fine, great, go forth, but if Nolan's entire purpose is breaking the established war movie mould and doing something different, why not make a movie about women in World War II?"

http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/big-issue-no-women-or-people-of-colour-are-dunkirk-s-critics-for-real/story-30464692-detail/story.html

Gee, no films about women in WWII? I must have imagined Mrs Miniver; Carve Her Name with Pride; Millions Like Us; Battalion; Night Witches in the Sky; not to mention the multi-episode TV show Tenko.

The likes of Ms Bonner can always be relied upon to demonstrate their ignorance when putting forward their automatic complaints about how badly they are oppressed / ignored / downtrodden. They'd be more persuasive if they had facts rather mere outrage on their side.

Eastwind
08-15-2018, 11:15 PM
I have not seen the movie and I am curious about the premise. How many countries celebrate a military defeat? There was at least one and maybe two battles in the Pacific in which the United States Navy was malled. We don’t celebrate that nor do we celebrate Pearl Harbor. We remember Pearl Harbor, however, we do not celebrate it. The British were outclassed in almost every aspect of warfare at Dunkirk.

Nickdfresh
08-16-2018, 05:46 AM
Perhaps you should see the film before actually drawing any conclusions? We don't "celebrate" Pearl harbor, but yet there are many films about it...

tankgeezer
08-16-2018, 07:46 AM
I have not seen the movie and I am curious about the premise. How many countries celebrate a military defeat? There was at least one and maybe two battles in the Pacific in which the United States Navy was malled. We don’t celebrate that nor do we celebrate Pearl Harbor. We remember Pearl Harbor, however, we do not celebrate it. The British were outclassed in almost every aspect of warfare at Dunkirk.

Much would be dependent upon your definition of the word "Celebrate" . As for Dunkirk, There is just cause to celebrate, the salvation of a few hundred thousand fighting men, who will live to fight another Day is a very good cause for celebration, and it is a fair stretch to call that a defeat. Perhaps you should see the film before making comments on it. Pearl Harbor was an undeclared act of Piratical mass murder. While there was no dancing in the Streets, we can celebrate the fact that the Pirates didn't deliver the the Blow they had wished to, and that so many were saved of the injured, and trapped. Once the Allies completed their work, then the World's populations could, and did celebrate a very well earned set of victories.

Eastwind
08-16-2018, 12:44 PM
I was not making a commitment on the movie, rather the event itself being held in such high esteem. The fact is it was a total defeat and it is true that the retreat helped save the majority of the British land force. And I suppose if one wants to say it was a magnificent retreat, certainly one could argue it was on if the best.

As to the premise that the allies celebrated subsequent victories, it has nothing to do with the British defeat at Dunkirk. In fact, outside of North Africa, in what major land battles did the British play a pivotal role? They were late on DDay held up by light resistance at the beach. More later.....

tankgeezer
08-17-2018, 07:40 AM
I was not making a commitment on the movie, rather the event itself being held in such high esteem. The fact is it was a total defeat and it is true that the retreat helped save the majority of the British land force. And I suppose if one wants to say it was a magnificent retreat, certainly one could argue it was on if the best.

As to the premise that the allies celebrated subsequent victories, it has nothing to do with the British defeat at Dunkirk. In fact, outside of North Africa, in what major land battles did the British play a pivotal role? They were late on DDay held up by light resistance at the beach. More later.....

The escape of French, and British Soldiers from Dunkirk was not a defeat. Such a label might be appropriate had those hundreds of thousands of Soldiers been stranded, and left to be either captured or killed. Your assertions of it being a defeat are more just your own opinion, which I do not share. I do see a recurring negativity in your posts, and such a trend might be taken as Trolling. Just some food for thought.

Nickdfresh
08-17-2018, 08:30 AM
I was not making a commitment on the movie, rather the event itself being held in such high esteem. The fact is it was a total defeat and it is true that the retreat helped save the majority of the British land force. And I suppose if one wants to say it was a magnificent retreat, certainly one could argue it was on if the best.

It wasn't a "total defeat". Otherwise the British would have been annihilated as the Germans were at the Stalingrad Kessel. If the Heer had broken out of the Stalingrad pocket, do you not think the Third Reich would have celebrated this as a miraculous escape?

You've pretty much just summarized everything that's been said about the 'evacuation', including none other than Churchill that said "wars are not won on evacuations". It guaranteed that Britain could rebuild its shattered forces much faster and showed the fundamental naval and air weaknesses of the Third Reich and buoyed the British as the only nation left standing against Hitler. It also may have influenced Hitler to commence his disastrous Barbarossa planning. So yes, it was a significant event that deserves some celebration as the British only thought they'd get out around a tenth of the final number...


As to the premise that the allies celebrated subsequent victories, it has nothing to do with the British defeat at Dunkirk. In fact, outside of North Africa, in what major land battles did the British play a pivotal role? They were late on DDay held up by light resistance at the beach. More later.....

Well for starters, the British faced the vast majority of German armor in Normandy while the Americans were penned in by fortified hedgerows. Monty's feint allowed Operation Cobra to break out and crush the German occupation of France...

Eastwind
08-17-2018, 10:43 AM
Dunkirk was neither a victory or a stalemate. It was a loss, a defeat. We’re there some positive aspects to the loss, yes, some and that does not change the fact that it was a defeat. Your quote from Churchill says it all.

The British met very light resistance upon landing at Normandy. It was their slow response and lack of organization and initiative that afforded the Germans time to organize a strong counter attack. This is a pattern the hapless British army repeated time and time again through out the course of the war. I knew a former GI who landed at Omaha and proceeded to walk through France, Holland and Germany. He said the British were always late and slow to respond in combat situations. One night, after he and his men had been in continuous contact with the Germans for two weeks, they had finally gotten some rest and were dug in their fox holes waiting on the British who were late as usual. It was two or three in the morning and they were dug in their fox holes sleeping when the British arrived playing bagpipes. The Germans heard the pipes too and opened up with their artillery. From that point forward he had no respect for the British.

Again, where did the British play a pivotal role in the land war in Europe? What major battles are attributed to the British? Their contribution on DDay was absent or minimal at best. So the British at Dunkirk did not live fight another day, at least not with any real effectiveness. It is a simple fact the the British army contributed far less than they are given credit and I would guess that would be in most if not all theaters in which they fought.

tankgeezer
08-17-2018, 10:48 AM
[QUOTE=Eastwind;198058]Dunkirk was neither a victory or a stalemate. It was a loss, a defeat. We’re there some positive aspects to the loss, yes, some and that does not change the fact that it was a defeat. Your quote from Churchill says it all.




Perhaps in your opinion it was a loss, and a defeat, but opinions do not make it so.

Eastwind
08-17-2018, 12:03 PM
Dunkirk was neither a victory or a stalemate. It was a loss, a defeat. We’re there some positive aspects to the loss, yes, some and that does not change the fact that it was a defeat. Your quote from Churchill says it all.

The British met very light resistance upon landing at Normandy. It was their slow response and lack of organization and initiative that afforded the Germans time to organize a strong counter attack. This is a pattern the hapless British army repeated time and time again through out the course of the war. I knew a former GI who landed at Omaha and proceeded to walk through France, Holland and Germany. He said the British were always late and slow to respond in combat situations. One night, after he and his men had been in continuous contact with the Germans for two weeks, they had finally gotten some rest and were dug in their fox holes waiting on the British who were late as usual. It was two or three in the morning and they were dug in their fox holes sleeping when the British arrived playing bagpipes. The Germans heard the pipes too and opened up with their artillery. From that point forward he had no respect for the British.

Again, where did the British play a pivotal role in the land war in Europe? What major battles are attributed to the British? Their contribution on DDay was absent or minimal at best. So the British at Dunkirk did not live fight another day, at least not with any real effectiveness. It is a simple fact the the British army contributed far less than they are given credit and I would guess that would be in most if not all theaters in which they fought.

Eastwind
08-17-2018, 12:07 PM
It looks like the “moderator” is political correct and will not publish my reply as it may not align with their point of view. To the moderator I say is your position so tenuous it will not withstand debate?

Eastwind
08-17-2018, 12:09 PM
Post this Mr Moderator:

Dunkirk was neither a victory or a stalemate. It was a loss, a defeat. We’re there some positive aspects to the loss, yes, some and that does not change the fact that it was a defeat. Your quote from Churchill says it all.

The British met very light resistance upon landing at Normandy. It was their slow response and lack of organization and initiative that afforded the Germans time to organize a strong counter attack. This is a pattern the hapless British army repeated time and time again through out the course of the war. I knew a former GI who landed at Omaha and proceeded to walk through France, Holland and Germany. He said the British were always late and slow to respond in combat situations. One night, after he and his men had been in continuous contact with the Germans for two weeks, they had finally gotten some rest and were dug in their fox holes waiting on the British who were late as usual. It was two or three in the morning and they were dug in their fox holes sleeping when the British arrived playing bagpipes. The Germans heard the pipes too and opened up with their artillery. From that point forward he had no respect for the British.

Again, where did the British play a pivotal role in the land war in Europe? What major battles are attributed to the British? Their contribution on DDay was absent or minimal at best. So the British at Dunkirk did not live fight another day, at least not with any real effectiveness. It is a simple fact the the British army contributed far less than they are given credit and I would guess that would be in most if not all theaters in which they fought.

Eastwind
08-17-2018, 04:37 PM
So anyone who would substantially disagree with you is a troll? Since when is one’s opinion based on the facts at hand, trolling? If you disagree then state your position in a rational manner.

I am pretty sure that I am being ghosted at this point. This is pc gone amock. I wonder are you academics?

Again Dunkirk was not a Victory or a Stalemate, it was a loss. Now if you wish to say it was not as big a loss as it might have been, I understand. After the Germans punched a hole in the American lines during the battle of the bulge, the American rallied, fought back and unfortunately let 200,000 German soldiers escape. Was this considering a victory for the Germans? I could go on but there is no way to view Dunkirk as any thing other than a defeat.

And please no more person attacks. I don’t call you a troll because your view may not be akin to my own. All you do is weaken your position when you resort to such tactics.

tankgeezer
08-17-2018, 04:59 PM
[QUOTE=Eastwind;198063]So anyone who would substantially disagree with you is a troll? Since when is one’s opinion based on the facts at hand, trolling? If you disagree then state your position in a rational manner.

If you are posting in reply to me Mr Eastwind, My reference to Trolling was not a reprimand, or a label. It was to inform you that your posting style could be taken that way. You demand that your assertions ,and opinions be taken at face value without citation, but reject another poster's comments out of hand. and now you cry foul as well. Your social interactions are perhaps less than polished, so some neighborly advice was given. Accept it as it was meant. This site is not a Debating Society, it is a place where people can discuss amicably, the various topics available. This is all here for the members enjoyment, that includes you. I've been here a long time, and enjoy the things I see here for the most part. So relax, and enjoy yourself too.

Eastwind
08-17-2018, 05:48 PM
Why are you making this personal? Your repeated use of the word “you” is a strong indication that this has become personal. Why? It is not personal. We are having a conversation. If you disagree, state your position. Why am I mistaken, show me, do not lecture me as to how I should post. Where are the facts of your rebuttal?

I have many friends with whom I disagree and we are friends because it is not personal. We discuss ideas. Present your case.

Eastwind
08-17-2018, 06:26 PM
Here let’s bring this home: Dunkirk was indicative of the British ground effort in Europe. It is not negative to recite the facts. For example, just one of many, the Brits were late getting off the beach June 6th and this afforded the enemy time to organize a potent counter attack. In the big picture, where did the Brits make significant contributions to the land war? What major battles did they win? I have acknowledged that is was good that they got their troops off the beach at Dunkirk. But to what end? I can not see Dunkirk as anything less that a defeat. One in which they failed to seize their objective. If I am mistaken, show me where I have missed the mark.

tankgeezer
08-17-2018, 06:50 PM
I am guessing that you are addressing me, Mr. Eastwind, and at this point I would suggest that you are taking this all far too seriously. I did say that this is not a Debating society, so repeatedly attempting to steer this towards being a debate will be fruitless. If all you seek is to force a viewpoint, or foster a contentious timber in this Thread, you do yourself no service. chill, and enjoy, that's all anyone has to do here.

tankgeezer
08-17-2018, 08:12 PM
It looks like the “moderator” is political correct and will not publish my reply as it may not align with their point of view. To the moderator I say is your position so tenuous it will not withstand debate?

Just for your own edification,Moderators have no part in what you as a member choose to post. There is no Moderator, or Admin approval required prior to a post being published to the membership, and guests.

Rising Sun*
08-18-2018, 12:26 PM
In fact, outside of North Africa, in what major land battles did the British play a pivotal role? They were late on DDay held up by light resistance at the beach. More later.....

Quite right!

The lousy, weak, and cowardly Brits did bugger all for all of WWII.

Mostly they just sat in their island home, sipping tea and munching on buttered crumpets dripping with honey, while waiting for the USA to save them from the Nazi hordes assaulting their land.

Oh, except for the first couple of years while the British were the only ones fighting the Nazis, on land, in the air, and on the seas.

Still, apart from that, which kept the Nazis at bay while Stalin and Hitler carved up Europe and the Americans kept out of the war while Ford and GM and sundry other American capitalists profited marvellously from supplying both sides in the European War until the Japanese stuffed it up by attacking America and depriving American capitalists of their profits from Manchuria etc, the Brits did bugger all after December 1941, apart from the odd bit of annoyance to the Axis powers by sinking their ships, bombing and eventually invading their homelands, and otherwise doing nothing of consequence to bring about the downfall of the Axis powers.

Upon reflection, I can't see why you or anyone else would bother with paying any attention to Britain's brief (1939-45) compared with America's long (effectively 1942-45) involvement in WWII, never mind the trivial contribution by the Soviets.

tankgeezer
08-18-2018, 06:46 PM
Indeed! everyone knows that one never mixes Butter with honey on a Crumpet. Bad Form I say!

Rising Sun*
08-19-2018, 08:30 AM
Indeed! everyone knows that one never mixes Butter with honey on a Crumpet. Bad Form I say!

May be bad form, but MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM - Forbidden honey butter crumpet!

https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/03/c1/34/4c/crumpet-with-butter-and.jpg

Which, of course, the Brits had tons of during their easy war with no civilian rationing etc as they kept all their armed forces at home while everyone else fought on their behalf. ;):rolleyes:

Rising Sun*
08-19-2018, 08:47 AM
Again, where did the British play a pivotal role in the land war in Europe?

Would you like to describe how the land war in Europe would have developed successfully in favour of America as the sole belligerent invading the Continent, starting with the invasion of Sicily, with no contribution from British land, sea and air forces?

Perhaps you could also expand on how the Allied air superiority necessary for the success of D Day and subsequent operations could have been achieved and maintained without any contribution from the RAF?

Similarly, for the RN on the water.


What major battles are attributed to the British?

The Battle of Britain, which was a turning point which preserved Britain from German invasion and allowed the USA and other Allies to launch the Allied invasion of Western Europe.



Their contribution on DDay was absent or minimal at best

You seem to be under the serious misapprehension that WWII started with D Day; that only America did anything on and after D Day; and that everything that mattered from then on was done by US land forces in Western Europe.

It's not necessary to go beyond the preceding statement to show how little you know.

Rising Sun*
08-19-2018, 09:00 AM
How many countries celebrate a military defeat?

Australia. Gallipoli.

Nickdfresh
08-19-2018, 12:53 PM
Their contribution on DDay was absent or minimal at best

How many beaches were the British responsible for? How many was the US responsible for?

Nickdfresh
08-19-2018, 12:54 PM
... One in which they failed to seize their objective. If I am mistaken, show me where I have missed the mark.

I think the mark goes sailing over your head with obtuse, over-generalizations like that. You tell us: what was the British "objective" at Dunkirk? What was the German one?