Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Apparently some feel that the movie Dunkirk was to male. I'm speechless [&:]

"Dunkirk felt like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness — which apparently they don't get to do enough," Marie Claire's Mehera Bonner wrote in her review.

Reference: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... -cast.html

warspite1

I agree with her. I think it's a crying shame that the 1st Battalion, Women's Auxiliary Indo-Chinese Regiment wasn't given more exposure. This battalion held off an entire German army around Bray Dunes for a week.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Apparently some feel that the movie Dunkirk was to male. I'm speechless [&:]

"Dunkirk felt like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness — which apparently they don't get to do enough," Marie Claire's Mehera Bonner wrote in her review.

Reference: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... -cast.html

warspite1

I agree with her. I think it's a crying shame that the 1st Battalion, Women's Auxiliary Indo-Chinese Regiment wasn't given more exposure. This battalion held off an entire German army around Bray Dunes for a week.

And I thought I knew my military history. Learn something every day. [8D]

So this would be the first ever war movie with almost no female roles then?

OK, I posted seconds before the pic came up. Now, I'm speechless. (actually I missed the fact we were on the previous page - that's my story and I'm sticking to it)

(maybe not... got any more???)

BTW, are those little strings double-knotted?

OK one last observation. They would have only held me up for about ten seconds.

just saw it.

nice movie, but where were the hurricans ???

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

just saw it.

nice movie, but where were the hurricans ???

warspite1

The movie dealt with one patrol of three aircraft - the choice would have been Hurricanes OR Spitfiress - not a mixture.

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

just saw it.

nice movie, but where were the hurricans ???

Since Christopher Nolan wanted real planes, and not CGI, I think that he choose a patrol of Spitfires because they were available and in good working condition.

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

A great Dunkirk book is: Dunkirk: The Patriotic Myth.

warspite1

I've just read this book and I have to say that it is a pretty poor effort. I mean the author writes in a very clear, easy to read style, but as a history of the episode, the book is shall we say, fundamentally flawed. Simple, basic facts are wrong - Huntziger's 2nd Army don't appear to have been involved in the defence of the Meuse apparently?? and there is the rather shameful - if not downright dumb - inference that 400 SS troops were massacred by the Durham Light Infantry.

But then, working largely from secondary sources, the author has nothing new to add and so needs an angle to sell the book. That the British sought to withdraw and in so doing did not inform the French and Belgians, is not new, and as a result the author - no doubt in order to get the book published - needs to be as sensationalist as he can. He ends up simply repeating the same thing - each time in slightly different ways - over and over.

He provides little, if anything, by way of context for decisions that were made. There is a brief chapter in which he concedes the French were responsible for the loss of the Meuse, and he also comments on the brilliance of the evacuation operation, but otherwise there is no attempt to provide any sense of balance to the piece, and the portrayal of Lord Gort does the author no credit. All French and Belgians in and around Dunkirk and beyond were apparently desperate to attack the Germans but the British simply wanted to go home. Right.....*

Many (most?) French historians today are honest enough to admit that the French were defeated by the time the British began to think of evacuation (indeed in a documentary I watched recently Dunkirk: The new evidence one French historian actually expressed surprise that the BEF waited as long as they did). So if one wants to read properly researched books that tell the true story - betrayal and all - in a balanced, grown up fashion there are plenty of better books - and documentaries - on the subject.

* Edit:

Let me give just one example of what the author misses out in order to make his monotonously repeated point. The author makes great play of the fact that the British supposedly cut and run at Arras for no go reason other than saving their own skins. Gort's superior at that time was General Blanchard, commanding the French First Army Group. Blanchard's aide General Fauvelle had a meeting with Weygand and Reynaud in which Fauvelle confirmed to the French CinC and President that the French 1st Army was "so weak it would be unwise to expect it to ever mount a counter-attack" and that in his opinion he was expecting "a very early capitulation". The author does not mention this meeting - nor does he make any comment on the state of the French forces at the time. Balanced? I don't think so.

Throwing in my two shillings :

During the evacuation at Dunkirk, some points were chosen to evacuate British soldiers (the majority) and some points were designated to evacuate French ones.
British soldiers who attempted to get into ships designated for the French were refused access. Or at least this is the way I was taught at school. So i strongly object to the statement that "those double crossing knaves abandoned us to our fate".
The French can have some grievance against several British decisions between 1938 and May 1945. Other countries can also have some grievance against French decisions during that preriod. However, given the will to fight that Gort perceived in most of the French army, the decision to evacuate more British than French soldiers seems logical.

Best regards

Just got my August 2017 issue of, "WWII HISTORY" magazine in the mail last week. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but on the cover is "DUNKIRK! The Story Behind the Hit Movie". Under, Contents is a feature article titled, "A Bloody Miracle. The evacuation of the BEF from northeastern France by civilian and military vessels during the fall of France in 1940 ensured that the British Army would survive to fight another day. By Eric Niderost." The authors that contribute articles to this magazine seem to really know their stuff. But a word of caution, it definitely has a decidedly US slant even with articles about the Eastern Front.

Though I haven't read the article yet, my view as an American and one whose farther fought in the second world war has always been that Dunkirk saved the British Army and indeed saved Britain. I've always seen Dunkirk as one of the moments in WW2, like the Battle of Midway, D-Day landings or the Battle of Stalingrad, that changed the fortunes of the war and resulted in unconditional allied victory. Again, my views on the war have been primarily been shaped by US views and by history teachers of the same generation of the men that fought the war.

ORIGINAL: Admiral Delabroglio

Throwing in my two shillings :

During the evacuation at Dunkirk, some points were chosen to evacuate British soldiers (the majority) and some points were designated to evacuate French ones.
British soldiers who attempted to get into ships designated for the French were refused access. Or at least this is the way I was taught at school. So i strongly object to the statement that "those double crossing knaves abandoned us to our fate".
The French can have some grievance against several British decisions between 1938 and May 1945. Other countries can also have some grievance against French decisions during that preriod. However, given the will to fight that Gort perceived in most of the French army, the decision to evacuate more British than French soldiers seems logical.

Best regards

another point. the france solders could go underground, join the resistiance or simply go home.

really hard for a british soldier to go underground in France

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: Admiral Delabroglio

Throwing in my two shillings :

During the evacuation at Dunkirk, some points were chosen to evacuate British soldiers (the majority) and some points were designated to evacuate French ones.
British soldiers who attempted to get into ships designated for the French were refused access. Or at least this is the way I was taught at school. So i strongly object to the statement that "those double crossing knaves abandoned us to our fate".
The French can have some grievance against several British decisions between 1938 and May 1945. Other countries can also have some grievance against French decisions during that preriod. However, given the will to fight that Gort perceived in most of the French army, the decision to evacuate more British than French soldiers seems logical.

Best regards

another point. the france solders could go underground, join the resistiance or simply go home.

really hard for a british soldier to go underground in France

It would not be easy for most French soldiers to go underground in an area in which most people speak a French dialect with a lot of Flemish words in it. A lot of the inhabitants in that region used to speak Dutch (Flemish) in those days. Underground French soldiers would stand out against the local population...

Also: resistance groups were non-existant in those early days of the war...

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: Admiral Delabroglio

Throwing in my two shillings :

During the evacuation at Dunkirk, some points were chosen to evacuate British soldiers (the majority) and some points were designated to evacuate French ones.
British soldiers who attempted to get into ships designated for the French were refused access. Or at least this is the way I was taught at school. So i strongly object to the statement that "those double crossing knaves abandoned us to our fate".
The French can have some grievance against several British decisions between 1938 and May 1945. Other countries can also have some grievance against French decisions during that preriod. However, given the will to fight that Gort perceived in most of the French army, the decision to evacuate more British than French soldiers seems logical.

Best regards

another point. the france solders could go underground, join the resistiance or simply go home.

really hard for a british soldier to go underground in France

warspite1

I don't really get what you mean by 'going underground'. As has been said, there is no resistance movement - and the French are still in the war. We are talking about many, many thousands of men. Joining (effectively starting) a resistance group, with all that means is not something the majority of people would do - that takes extraordinary courage.

Also how are the troops simply going home? - unless home happened to be Dunkerque and environs. To get home they would need to walk through German occupied territory.

Are you talking about the French left in the pocket at Dunkerque or something else?

ORIGINAL: Admiral Delabroglio

The French can have some grievance against several British decisions between 1938 and May 1945. Other countries can also have some grievance against French decisions during that preriod.

warspite1

Ain't that the truth! And a proper history brings out the facts and allows a reader to decide. To simply ignore one side is disingenuous and frankly pretty stupid.

To add to British and French decisions, one must not forget those of the Belgians too. In 1936 the Belgians decided to rip up the France-Belgian accord of 1920 – after the Maginot Line had been stopped at Belgium! The Belgians decided to not even allow the British and French to discuss how militarily they would come to the former's aid if attacked. The French are rightly blamed for the disaster on the Meuse, but the 1st Army Group arrived in Belgium to find defences were incomplete, wrongly sited or not even started.

One of the things that I have found interesting of late is the question of neutrality and World War II. Given the nature of the threat to civilisation posed by the Nazis, did any country morally have the right to be neutral? I don’t pretend to have the answer – and as always it is not a simple question (far from it). But a comment in Harman’s book brings that question up again. He says (talking about the Belgian position, Brussels being declared an open city and possible surrender): “The King could hardly be expected to order his men to fight for another country”.

But if Belgium had simply lost territory, had not surrendered and the army was intact, this would surely just be a continuation of the war from French (and some small part of Belgian) soil – as happened in World War I. Given that British and French troops/airmen were being asked to fight and die in and over Belgium, why would it have been wrong to expect the Belgian army to continue the fight? After all that is what some Belgians (and Dutch and Norwegians etc) did anyway when their Governments went into exile and they carried on the fight from the UK. So what is the difference? I guess the biggest difference is the strictly volunteer nature of the Government-in-exile troops – but set against that, we are talking about an entire army that would be fighting on (or next to) their own soil and so trying to win it back – and those troops would still be under the control and care of the Government-in-exile.

Now of course, in this particular case, because of the disaster on the Meuse and the fact that the bulk of the British and French 1st Army Group were quickly cut-off, the logistics of the Belgians fighting on, being supplied etc was clearly a major problem. But I am not convinced that fact is what was behind the author’s comment – and that all things being equal he would still have thought it reasonable for the Belgians to give up and exit the fight because the bulk of their country was overrun – while at the same time his book was slaughtering the British decision to evacuate from Dunkirk (even though that decision to evacuate was not so they could quit the war, but quite the reverse; so they were in a position to continue it)….. Double standards?

The big difference was the decision made by the Belgian King. Where the Norwegian and Dutch royals went into exile, the Belgian King made the decision to surrender his army and himself to the Germans. That made it pretty difficult to create a Belgian government in exile, because it lacked the necessary royal approval...

ORIGINAL: Centuur

The big difference was the decision made by the Belgian King. Where the Norwegian and Dutch royals went into exile, the Belgian King made the decision to surrender his army and himself to the Germans. That made it pretty difficult to create a Belgian government in exile, because it lacked the necessary royal approval...

another side of that, is that Belgium did not get massive casualties, like other allied minors.

So, I was a tad surprised that in the movie ‘Dunkirk’, Churchill’s most famous speech was not re-created. But then as it turned out, the movie was done in a quite non-traditional way and I found that to be quite successful, for my viewing.

Now I just read a brief review of “Darkest Hour” starring Gary Oldman as Churchill. I would have to think it will include THE speech, as it’s subject is the end of Chamberlain’s PMery and the selection of Churchill to succeed him.

I will definitely want to see this one - but I am not clear of how wide a release it will see in the crowded XMas cinemascape in the USA, particularly given the subject.

To which speech are you referring?

“We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

ORIGINAL: brian brian

So, I was a tad surprised that in the movie ‘Dunkirk’, Churchill’s most famous speech was not re-created. But then as it turned out, the movie was done in a quite non-traditional way and I found that to be quite successful, for my viewing.

Now I just read a brief review of “Darkest Hour” starring Gary Oldman as Churchill. I would have to think it will include THE speech, as it’s subject is the end of Chamberlain’s PMery and the selection of Churchill to succeed him.

I will definitely want to see this one - but I am not clear of how wide a release it will see in the crowded XMas cinemascape in the USA, particularly given the subject.

Under limited release at first, advertised nationwide USA full release December 22.

thanks Warren, that helped - especially since as it is turning out, I am off to a really large city to spend Christmas at my Sister's house, where this movie will definitely be on a screen or two

so now since I discovered this movie, I presumed that the matching volume of Churchill's take on WWII would be called "Darkest Hour" as well

but I misunderemebered that one. As I was packing just now I spied these volumes on my bookshelf. I thought, ahh, the perfect reading material for the trip, though I will wait till after I see the movie, and also for reading any reviews, which are out now, as opposed to 'preview' articles. Churchill's volume is called "Their Finest Hour" - from one of his other most famous speeches. So, still a nicely clever title for the film. That volume picks up the action on May 10, 1940, so to refresh myself on the machinations of slim shady Halifax, I had to pack the previous volume "The Gathering Storm" as well.

I've read these volumes several times in life already, but they always hold my interest on a re-read. And when I come to the end, well, every time it's the same - It's time to play World in Flames. I have always had a strong feeling that Harry Rowland might feel about the same.