PDA

View Full Version : New Film on Dunkirk



Nickdfresh
08-09-2016, 12:51 PM
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, 08:37 AM
Must be a Relative of "Carl"

Rising Sun*
08-10-2016, 10:44 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, 11:42 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 shït!"
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, 05:08 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, 10:17 AM
Ha! I never would have noticed had someone not pointed it out.

32Bravo
12-16-2016, 08:58 AM
https://www.bing.com/search?q=dunkirk+film+trailer&form=EDGEAR&qs=PF&cvid=5d91d5e3572043d491cd9a994dc516e0&pq=dunkirk+film+trailer

Nickdfresh
12-16-2016, 10:12 AM
Well...

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

Nickdfresh
12-16-2016, 10:15 AM
Merged into existing thread and retitled...

Churchill
12-16-2016, 02:59 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, 09:52 AM
Thank you.

Nickdfresh
07-31-2017, 07:01 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, 08:03 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, 06:36 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, 09:57 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, 10:59 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, 11:50 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, 12:07 PM
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, 12:51 PM
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
08-16-2018, 12:15 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.

Nickdfresh
08-16-2018, 06:46 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, 08:46 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, 01:44 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, 08:40 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, 09:30 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, 11:43 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, 11:48 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, 01:03 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, 01:07 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, 01:09 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, 05:37 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, 05:59 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, 06:48 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, 07:26 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, 07:50 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, 09:12 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, 01:26 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, 07:46 PM
Indeed! everyone knows that one never mixes Butter with honey on a Crumpet. Bad Form I say!

Rising Sun*
08-19-2018, 09:30 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, 09:47 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, 10:00 AM
How many countries celebrate a military defeat?

Australia. Gallipoli.

Nickdfresh
08-19-2018, 01:53 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, 01:54 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?

32Bravo
10-02-2018, 04:37 AM
Bonjour à tous.
I just happened to look on here in order to impress someone by using RS’s smart quote by Montesquieu, and found myself reading some of the posts on this thread.
Regarding: the smiley-faced Tommy, I wouldn’t disagree with much of what has been stated. However, I would ad (if it hasn’t been said already) that not all of the British troops had had contact with the advancing German forces when Gort ordered the retreat to Dunkirk. Also, many had weathered the worst winter in Europe for many years and were, perhaps, relieved to be heading home. After all, the British were not in love with the idea of being under the command of the French.
Arguably, those queuing on the mole would have been quite relieved at the prospect of getting on the next ship. Add to this the banter which most soldiers in most armies turn to when things aren’t running according to plan, and you have occasion for smiling. Furthermore, one might argue that he was smiling at the prospect of getting his leg over (I’ll translate that for Nick: getting laid) when he gets back home.

Finally, I must thank the wind from the East (with a polite fart) for affording you all the opportunity to rally-round-the-flag, so to speak, and support your poor beleaguered British colleagues.
A+
32B
p.s. My sister hated the film. She said it made them look as if they were running away.

Rising Sun*
10-02-2018, 08:59 AM
p.s. My sister hated the film. She said it made them look as if they were running away.

I can't think of any argument to contradict your sister's assessment.

Dunkirk is probably unique in having such a large body of defeated troops massed for successful evacuation. Greece was a bit similar, but less well organised, and some of those troops went on to fight shortly after in Crete where they punished the invading Germans before being defeated again.

Alas, it didn't happen in Singapore or the Philippines where the British Commonwealth and US lost substantial forces which, had they been evacuated with anything remotely like the success at Dunkirk, possibly would have impeded Japan's subsequent south-eastern thrust and certainly aided the Allies' subsequent north-western offensive against Japan.

I say 'possibly' because the fact remains that the Malayan defence and more so the Philippines defence tied up Japanese troops and logistics and prevented them being used further east, which in turn ensured that any intention to invade Australia and the eventual Operation FS to move towards Guadalcanal etc had time for the growth of Allied forces in Australia and elsewhere to resist that thrust.

If Singapore and or the Philippines had been evacuated similarly to Dunkirk with huge numbers of Allied troops, with at best some small arms and occasional machine guns, the only useful destination was Australia where neither the Australians nor the early stages of the American build up in Australia had any prospect of having the logistical resources to make any offensive use of them until early to mid-1943, by which time the Japanese had been repulsed on Guadalcanal and eastern New Guinea. Those evacuated troops would more likely have been a logistical burden until they could be re-trained and re-equipped. Nonetheless, those extra troops would have been very useful from mid-1943 onwards, whether as offensive troops or garrison troops in Australia to release other forces for offensive action.

So, with due respect to your sister's accurate opinion, it still holds true that it's not a bad thing to run away and live to fight another day.

32Bravo
10-02-2018, 10:46 AM
The loss of men with the fall of Singapore and the Philippines was a tragic waste. Both allied armies got themselves bottled-up with no place to go and no hope of relief. It has, of course, led to much finger-pointing ever since. The Japanese were ready, the Allies weren't. As RS has pointed out elsewhere, the British were busy fighting for survival in Europe. The Mediterranean was, arguably, the best/only way of taking the war back to the Axis forces given the limited resources available to the British after Dunkirk. There was also the battle for the Atlantic to consider, which was incredibly important. Arguably more so than the Mediterranean. Plus there was the strategic air campaign over Germany. Much was being done by a small nation punching above its, then, weight.


I like to think of the retreat to Dunkirk as a withdrawal. Never easy when the enemy is in hot pursuit. The BEF hadn't been broken when Gort ordered the retreat (the main thrust of the German assault was elsewhere), so I wouldn't be tempted to describe it as running away or a rout. Of course, the operation was hampered by the numbers of refugees on the roads, exacerbated by the Luftwaffe. So much so, that many units were forced to abandon their heavy equipment in order to make any progress.

The large scale operations in which Allied forces retreated in other theatres mainly came about by direct enemy action. Greece, Crete, Philippines, Malaya... Of course, another massive retreat which led to a reasonably safe haven, and a base from which to strike back, was that from Burma to India (when discussing the fight back through Burma, and other theatres, and the subject of manpower, it would be remiss to ignore the enormous contribution of the Indian Army).


Interesting concept, retreating and then striking back. Wellington did it for several years in the Peninsular Campaign, again, mainly on account of limited resources. With Manstein, in the East, it virtually became a doctrine and was continued by NATO during the last Cold War.

Nickdfresh
10-03-2018, 03:40 PM
I generally liked the film. That being said, I do have major problems with its flaws. the lack of details and the simplistic distillation of everything down to a couple of small air battles and a comparatively small number of Brits waiting on the beach with the French sitting in sandbag castles at the town's edge. Dunkirk was a major battle with fierce, desperate fighting by both sides. Yet the combat is limited to desultory rifle fire and a group of Tommies being wiped out in the beginning. I don't really think that is in any way an accurate portrayal. But no doubt there was a desperate sense of getting out and going home that pervaded. But the Germans are reduced to scary, off-camera monsters you hardly see and the Brits always running and this doesn't show accurately that Dunkirk wasn't a town as much as it was a vast, slowly collapsing pocket of piss and fire....

Rising Sun*
10-06-2018, 11:41 AM
The loss of men with the fall of Singapore and the Philippines was a tragic waste. Both allied armies got themselves bottled-up with no place to go and no hope of relief.

I think your term "bottled up" defines the difference between Dunkirk and, on the other hand, Singapore and the Philippines. The British and US / Filipino forces had no way of escaping from the containments to which they were forced and retreated to by the Japanese advance, but the British at Dunkirk did, courtesy of the proximity of Britain across the relatively narrow English Channel and the ability of the RN to protect the evacuation.

There's a reason it's called the English Channel and not the French Channel, because the English / British and the RN have controlled it for centuries. Against that, one wonders whether the Germans couldn’t have done more damage to the Dunkirk evacuation from the air on the narrow Channel. Perhaps not, with countless small boats being countless targets for a limited number of German planes.

Unlike Dunkirk, the British at Singapore and the Americans / Filipinos in the Philippines lacked the transport to take them across vast distances to safety in, briefly, the NEI before they fell and then, or previously directly, to Australia.

It’s interesting to contrast the French belief in fortifications which failed to deal with an unexpectedly successful German advance around the fortifications with Singapore and the Philippines. In Singapore the high command refused to erect fortifications in good time as Japan advanced through Malaya because it didn’t want to damage morale, and thus ensured the early collapse of the ‘impregnable fortress’ by leaving its approaches open to successful Japanese but quite basic amphibious assaults. In the Philippines the ultimate defence was long based on ‘last redoubt’ fortifications in Bataan and especially Corregidor which were the ultimate “bottle up” of land forces, with no prospect of relief from sea or air and insufficient logistics to sustain the defenders, ably assisted by MacArthur’s idiotic positioning and loss of a major supply dump in the path of the Japanese advance as the Japanese were running out supplies.

Admittedly, the Philippines defence, like the Singapore theory, assumed that land forces would hold out until rescued by the vast resources of the relevant nation's navy in a few months, so it wasn't entirely the land forces' fault that they lost when their respective navies failed to turn up.


It has, of course, led to much finger-pointing ever since. The Japanese were ready, the Allies weren't.

I’d suggest that the primary problem was that the largely green Commonwealth ground forces were often led by inexperienced and at times complacent and arrogant officers from platoon level upwards to battalion and even brigade level, while the Japanese were often battle hardened troops from China.

There were many other issues which rendered the Malayan / Singapore defence doomed from the outset, most of which were beyond the control of the British commander at the time. He was pretty much handed a poisoned chalice with the only choice being how quickly or slowly he drank it.

In the Philippines, there was MacArthur. He was the arrogant, incompetent poisoned chalice gifted to the doomed Filipinos.


The Mediterranean was, arguably, the best/only way of taking the war back to the Axis forces given the limited resources available to the British after Dunkirk. There was also the battle for the Atlantic to consider, which was incredibly important. Arguably more so than the Mediterranean. Plus there was the strategic air campaign over Germany. Much was being done by a small nation punching above its, then, weight.

Agree entirely.

Until the US involvement began to have some effect around mid 1942, Germany had in preceding years overrun pretty much all of western Europe and was advancing rapidly into eastern Europe, as well as being drawn by the incompetent Italians into North Africa. When one considers the punishment the Germans delivered to the Soviets and the land and air forces employed by the Germans in that campaign from mid-1941 it is apparent that Germany should have been able to swat the British land and air forces anywhere without much trouble in mid-1941. The fact is that the Germans didn’t, while the British defeated the air assault in the Battle of Britain and pressed on in the Battle of the Atlantic while pressing on with various failures and successes in, what for Germany were a bit of a sideshow, in North Africa, Greece and Crete, along with naval successes in the Med and elsewhere.

Unlike the Soviets, Britain never faced the full might of massed German land and air forces from mid-1941, but it was still the only nation (with its Commonwealth) fighting the Germans and, until the invasion of the USSR, always risked the full might of those overwhelming forces being applied to Britain.

Although the British forces in the field were always vastly less than the total forces the Germans could have used against them in the field, the fact remains that the British (and Commonwealth) forces held the Germans to a draw or defeat after Dunkirk, on land, sea and in the air.

It can be argued that, for whatever reason, Germany didn’t apply all its force to Britain so Britain didn’t do all that well. The Battle of Britain, where Germany pitted its air might against Britain in anticipation of an invasion, contradicts that argument. And the consistent ultimate failure of Germany against British and Commonwealth forces reinforces that contradiction.


I like to think of the retreat to Dunkirk as a withdrawal. Never easy when the enemy is in hot pursuit. The BEF hadn't been broken when Gort ordered the retreat (the main thrust of the German assault was elsewhere), so I wouldn't be tempted to describe it as running away or a rout.

I was responding to your sister’s description of it as ‘running away’.

I agree that it is more accurately described as a withdrawal. And an orderly one at that.

It certainly wasn’t a rout.

I might be overlooking something, but I can’t think of a true and major rout involving British or Commonwealth troops in WWII. For that matter, I can’t think of a true and major rout involving US troops in WWII (the Kasserine Pass went close in segments, but overall it wasn't a rout of US troops) and , unlike the massive true rout of US troops in Korea a few years after WWII, again with perhaps often poorly trained occupation troops who were as green as the British Commonwealth troops in Malaya and the American / Filipino troops in the Philippines in WWII and, I would suggest, even much more badly led by many of the American Army commanders from battalion level upwards in the early rout in Korea, but not by the equivalent USMC commanders who, like the Marines at all levels, generally did a comparatively brilliant job as the battlefield collapsed around them.

Nickdfresh
10-07-2018, 02:03 PM
...


I was responding to your sister’s description of it as ‘running away’.

I agree that it is more accurately described as a withdrawal. And an orderly one at that.

It certainly wasn’t a rout.

I might be overlooking something, but I can’t think of a true and major rout involving British or Commonwealth troops in WWII. For that matter, I can’t think of a true and major rout involving US troops in WWII (the Kasserine Pass went close in segments, but overall it wasn't a rout of US troops) and , unlike the massive true rout of US troops in Korea a few years after WWII, again with perhaps often poorly trained occupation troops who were as green as the British Commonwealth troops in Malaya and the American / Filipino troops in the Philippines in WWII and, I would suggest, even much more badly led by many of the American Army commanders from battalion level upwards in the early rout in Korea, but not by the equivalent USMC commanders who, like the Marines at all levels, generally did a comparatively brilliant job as the battlefield collapsed around them.

As far as Dunkirk, it was certainly a brilliant ad hoc operation conducted in the clouds of the fog of war where both sides were shocked by the rapidity and success of the German advance. The Allies were shocked by their incompetence against a strategic coup de main encirclement. The Germans were befuddled by the lack of real time communications with the forward units causing understandable angst in OKW, and fears that a yet undiscovered mechanized Anglo-French reaction force may still exist. Those fears were stoked by the desperate Allied attempts to sever the Panzer Corridor, not least of which was -but also not limited to- The Battle of Arris.

The Fall of the Philippines was a shock and terrible for morale, but it was hardly a catastrophic loss in terms of numbers as about 15,000 Americans servicemen were lost to death and capture. I think that it bears mentioning the high numbers captured were mostly Filipinos often exaggerating the loss in terms of numbers. I haven't read about Warm Plan Orange in a while, but I wonder if RS* has an opinion on a hypothetical Japanese operation by-passing the Philippines by launching only limited attacks to reduced naval and air assets and leaving more troops and other assets to conducted operations elsewhere. Would this have been feasible? Even preferable to leaving a large occupation force there?

The Battle of Kasserine Pass was a (perhaps necessary) embarrassing bloody nose for American forces, and perhaps a minor tactical rout. But it was contained by the Leadership of General Harmon, who took over the command of the battle, reorganizing both US and British assets and employing a skillful use of artillery to limit the damage. Also, the Afrikakorp didn't have the strength nor supplies to conduct a decisive penetration in depth. So in the end, it relieved the US Army of one of its worst commanders in history since at least The War of 1812, that "coward sonofabitch!" Gen. Fridenhall, who was too busy hiding in his elaborate bunker over a hundred miles from the battle. And it led to reforms of command and control and better leadership obviously with Patton taking command after Harmon turned it down.

32Bravo
10-08-2018, 05:35 AM
On the whole, I think I preferred this one.

7951

Rising Sun*
10-08-2018, 09:45 AM
I haven't read about Warm Plan Orange in a while, but I wonder if RS* has an opinion on a hypothetical Japanese operation by-passing the Philippines by launching only limited attacks to reduced naval and air assets and leaving more troops and other assets to conducted operations elsewhere. Would this have been feasible? Even preferable to leaving a large occupation force there?

I think it was feasible for Japan to leave America out of its southern advance and take only British and Dutch assets, in the hope that American isolationism would not result in any American response against Japan.

Against that, the Pacific War was in part a contest for control of the Pacific that America and Japan had seen coming for years, but it was also a contest for control of China where Japan and the West, primarily America and Britain, both wanted to exploit Chinese resources as they had for decades to the detriment of the Chinese people. It was evident to Japan from US support for Chennault’s Flying Tigers in China that the US was prepared, albeit behind the veil of a ‘volunteer’ US force with many more fighters and bombers than any truly volunteer civilian force could muster, that the US was likely to take at least some sort of military and or naval action against Japan if Japan struck south and jeopardised American assets in the Philippines. Add to this that the US was the prime mover in the oil embargoes that provoked Japan to strike and it’s not hard to see that the US was seen as the major enemy and threat to Japan's southern ambitions, with Britain bogged down in North Africa and the Netherlands government in exile in Britain.

Regardless of those aspects motivating Japan to fear American retaliation if it moved south into Malaya and the NEI, the strategic problem for Japan was that the Philippines sat astride the sea routes between the NEI and Japan, so America could frustrate exploitation of the NEI oil which Japan desperately needed.

Once Japan had resolved to take Malaya and the NEI, it considered that it didn’t have any option but to take out the Philippines to ensure its ability to exploit its new resources in oil, rubber and tin, among other things.

There is also the issue of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. This is often regarded as a smokescreen for Japan inserting itself as a replacement colonial power for the Western powers it wanted to displace (which is pretty much what it did, as it had done in Korea decades earlier as part of its imperial ambitions), but if one looks at Japanese thought and debate in the decade or two leading up to the Pacific War there was a genuine desire in many quarters to overthrow the Western colonialists. Admittedly, so far as the Philippines was concerned this was a rather weak argument for Japan in 1941 as the US had resolved in the mid-1930s to grant the Philippines independence in 1945.

Having decided to go to war, Japan had to attack Pearl Harbor to disable the US Pacific Fleet, in part to prevent it relieving the Philippines.

Against that background, Nick, I think it was probably feasible for the Japanese to bypass the Philippines.

Apart from MacArthur’s, in long war terms, relatively small and increasingly isolated air force (most of which he lost on the first day of the invasion anyway with no discernible impact on the conduct of the actual long war) and some ageing USN ships stationed in the Philippines, there was at best the prospect of short term annoyance to Japanese shipping which came within range of those forces.

The Japanese land forces tied down in the Philippines during WWII were largely occupation forces or fighting locals on land, which had no bearing on any risk to Japan’s sea lanes from the NEI and Malaya.

As it was, the ageing USN ships left the Philippines pretty quickly after the Japanese invasion. The same might well have occurred without the Japanese invasion, to preserve those ships from a perceived threat as Japan took Malaya and the NEI. But this assumes that Japan still attacked Pearl to prevent its fleet relieving the Philippines, which was the event that outraged America and Americans and ensured Japan’s defeat.

If there was no attack on the US and the Pearl Fleet wasn’t attacked in Hawaii but was deployed to protect the Philippines, it didn’t necessarily follow that US forces would attack Japanese shipping between the NEI/Malaya and Japan. Although I think that would have been inevitable as the US and Britain, and the Netherlands, were all determined that Japan would not get NEI oil.

In the end, I suspect that even if Japan had chosen to bypass the Philippines and not attack Pearl, circumstances would have forced the US to resist Japan in South East Asia to some extent. Whether that would have escalated to the real war which occurred is debatable.

Be all that as it may, I think Japan’s decision to attack Pearl and invade the Philippines was strategically necessary to give it the best chance of securing its aims.