Butthurt over dunkirk

a reply to: Bluntone22

They should re-edit te film and stick a bunch of guys in the back waving a white flag. That would be the French.

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: Bluntone22

They should re-edit te film and stick a bunch of guys in the back waving a white flag. That would be the French.

What, you mean the French First Army fighting and dying as they protected the rearguard at Lille?
France did not fall in an instant. The French took more than a third of a million casualties - and the Germans suffered 160,000 casualties themselves.

No one cares about the midgets either , poor small midgets.

Or black lesbian down syndrome midgets with ginger hair,

There the real heroes.


YAWN

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: dragonridr
Your writer there is clueless.

I suppose Rommel was an idiot too...

Even German General Rommel was surprised at how the French tanks withstood the German tank shells and had to resort to using the German 88 artillery as antitank guns against the French tanks to knock them out.

Germany used planes and tanks to advance. Artillery was always miles behind. The main tank killer was airpower before the tanks even got there. Germans coordinated their assault. And we'll the French were still trying to run phone lines and wonder why they lost.

Regardless, French armor was superior to the German armor as indicated and proven by direct tank to tank combat encounters.

As long as they were dug in and could keep the front armor facing them they were hard to kill. Took bombs and anti aircraft guns to get them out of their holes. Amy situation where they attempted to move towards the Germans they lost bad. So we have to look who's approach was more effective the Germans with shoot and move or the French with trench warfare. I think the answer is obvious don't you.

originally posted by: dragonridr
As long as they were dug in and could keep the front armor facing them they were hard to kill. Took bombs and anti aircraft guns to get them out of their holes.

Either way, they were superior to their German counterparts. Poor use of the units is not indicative of an engineering issue.

saw it yesterday
pretty good war film
points out repeated stupid command decisions overcome by bravery

that and magic spitfires that dogfight with no fuel

i doubt it wins oscars for performances
perhaps effects or editing tho

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: pikestaff


And why Dunkirk anyway? Its like making a flick about the war of 1812 but only about the Brits invasion and burning or the White House. Thats only good as shown in context in my HO.

Why make saving private Ryan and its focus on only the American landing sector?

Ok who said anything about national exclusive isolation of events?

a reply to: Bluntone22

the US population is majority white. BET has all these shows with almost no white people. If that's acceptable how is depicting actual events and being historically accurate a problem?

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Bluntone22





As for the French? They are just French screw them. Wasn't for them running round like headless chickens there wouldn't have been a Dunkirk.

O ... M ... G ... ! *watching the microphone drop*

Stunningly sad ... stunningly true.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nwtrucker
If? If my aunt had a 'pair'... Massed tanks would have resulted in an easy target for the Stukas, one would think.

And why do you think the German armor was able to penetrate so far? Because it was used en masse and not as mobile artillery as the French deployed their tanks, which, incidentally, were superior to the German armor.

As for the Stukas, with British air support they would have seen their field usefulness curtailed as British fighter aircraft were highly effective versus German aircraft.

The French lost because of poor tactics, defending the Maginot Line while the Germans raced through the Low Countries once again and pincering the French forces. German aircraft and armor were both inferior to their French and British counterparts.

I understand the inferior numbers and quality of the German armor. You cite poor communication and tactics. I cite perhaps only marginally better communication and tactics from the British as well. As far as your 'fighters' go, they didn't stop the need for Dunkirk did they? I see no reason to assume they'd fair any better than they did, or rather, 'didn't' leading up to Dunkirk.

Again, short shrift in your assessment for the German tactics, command and immediate adjustments to battle situations as needed. Highlighted by Guderian and Rommel, then division commanders.

Blitzkrieg has rarely been match, even to this day. Discussing what 'should' have been done at this late date was well beyond both French AND British command's mental capabilities.

It was a slobber-knock. Period.

My father was one of the last to get off Dunkirk beach and the little bits he told me about was the pure debacle of the rescue. Men actually wading into the sea completely naked.
As for the French forming a rear guard action? Well my father was in the guards and a few of them fought a rearguard action(my father drew a long straw so was lucky) they were captured and put in a barn and grenades were threw in to wipe them out, a couple survived to tell the tale but some of those killed were my fathers friends.
As for the Germans my father always said till his dying day that the majority of German ground forces were held back to let them escape.
He didn't talk about the war too much, only after being badgered by me and my brothers.

a reply to: Bluntone22


Interesting film to release right now.

At the time the movie is set the US was notably isolationist in behaviour, and we were by definiton very keen to leave Europe. Today, we have an American administration keen on isolationist threats, if not actual behaviour, and the UK on the verge of leaving the EU. Again.

Take it for what it is - a morale boost effort to remind us of our history, which we seem to have struggled to forget in recent times. As Sir Ken said in a previous, historical, movie "Cry God for Harry, England, and St.George".
.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
You cite poor communication and tactics.

...

Again, short shrift in your assessment for the German tactics...

What was so brilliant about blasting through the Low Countries again and circumventing the fixed Maginot line while pincering the French?

The French were idiots for thinking the Germans would not use this method of attack again and for not massing their tanks a la the Germans.

Blitzkrieg has rarely been match, even to this day.

Except this was not a case of Blitzkrieg, it was more Bewegungskrieg as evidence by the fact that Rommel and Gunderian disobeyed orders and drove for the coast. That maneuver was not part of Fall Gelb.

is this film popular in europe?
england in particular?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nwtrucker
You cite poor communication and tactics.

...

Again, short shrift in your assessment for the German tactics...

What was so brilliant about blasting through the Low Countries again and circumventing the fixed Maginot line while pincering the French?

The French were idiots for thinking the Germans would not use this method of attack again and for not massing their tanks a la the Germans.

Blitzkrieg has rarely been match, even to this day.

Except this was not a case of Blitzkrieg, it was more Bewegungskrieg as evidence by the fact that Rommel and Gunderian disobeyed orders and drove for the coast. That maneuver was not part of Fall Gelb.

Disobeyed orders. AKA Adapt. Improvise. Both ended up Field Marshalls. Probably would have received 'courts' from the French and/or the British.

You marginalize your opposition and blame the French. Is there a Brit. yet born, that can admit they were defeated? I think not.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nwtrucker
You cite poor communication and tactics.

...

Again, short shrift in your assessment for the German tactics...

What was so brilliant about blasting through the Low Countries again and circumventing the fixed Maginot line while pincering the French?

The French were idiots for thinking the Germans would not use this method of attack again and for not massing their tanks a la the Germans.

Blitzkrieg has rarely been match, even to this day.

Except this was not a case of Blitzkrieg, it was more Bewegungskrieg as evidence by the fact that Rommel and Gunderian disobeyed orders and drove for the coast. That maneuver was not part of Fall Gelb.

Disobeyed orders. AKA Adapt. Improvise. Both ended up Field Marshalls. Probably would have received 'courts' from the French and/or the British.

You marginalize your opposition and blame the French. Is there a Brit. yet born, that can admit they were defeated? I think not.

In France? Yeah, sure.

In the war? Nope.

We were defeated because the French high command was completely retarded and the Germans got insanely lucky to be up against such a ridiculously unprepared opponent.

Especially considering they pulled the same "go through Belgium" trick only 20 years previously. You'd think someone would've figured something out in that time.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nwtrucker
You cite poor communication and tactics.

...

Again, short shrift in your assessment for the German tactics...

What was so brilliant about blasting through the Low Countries again and circumventing the fixed Maginot line while pincering the French?

The French were idiots for thinking the Germans would not use this method of attack again and for not massing their tanks a la the Germans.

Blitzkrieg has rarely been match, even to this day.

Except this was not a case of Blitzkrieg, it was more Bewegungskrieg as evidence by the fact that Rommel and Gunderian disobeyed orders and drove for the coast. That maneuver was not part of Fall Gelb.

Yes it was there is two types maneuver warfare and attrition warfare. World War one fought using the attrition method. Germans changed the rules if they met resistance they would simply go around it. Your trying to make a distinction that does not exist. The same principles were used just later refined.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Is there a Brit. yet born, that can admit they were defeated? I think not.

Being defeated in the first battle of a war, making a fighting retreat and coming back later, is part of the national mythology. It was also the story of Corunna.

SPOILER ALERT!


Just home from seeing it.
3 women. 1 German...1 French guy.
I'd normally give it a 7 out of 10...But because ONE of the three women were making and serving sammiches...I give it an '8'.

a reply to: crayzeed

My Grandfather was there. But he never really spoke about it. We know that he made it back to the UK on June 1st 1940, so he either embarked that day or the previous evening. Those two days - May 31st and June 1st - were some of the worst days of the entire evacuation, with heavy bombing and shelling. He died when I was just 7 years old, so I never had a chance to talk to him about it, but he told my mother that he'd never seen the sea so calm - and the men so sure that all they had to do was just get to the beaches as the Navy would be there, that the Navy would get them out.
They did.