This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I saw this on Saturday. Anyone else seen it? I thought it was an excellent film, great special effects and fantastic music. It certainly dispels any notion that war is glorious. It depicts war for what it is - brutal, terrifying and confusing.
I commend this film to anyone with an interest in the second world war.
I commend this film to anyone with an interest in the second world war.
3
In reply to Trangia:
Which special effects were used, it has been widely reported that no cgi was involved in the making of the film.
Which special effects were used, it has been widely reported that no cgi was involved in the making of the film.
In reply to icnoble:
not seen it yet, looking forward to it, seem to recall reading that Nolan wrote off several irreplaceable museum pieces during filming for the sake of authenticity.
not seen it yet, looking forward to it, seem to recall reading that Nolan wrote off several irreplaceable museum pieces during filming for the sake of authenticity.
2
1
In reply to Tom Valentine:
You might want save your time and cash - didn't work on any level for me, the 3 time frames didn't sit well together, the sets and props looked wrong, too modern (not using cgi was a mistake in my opinion) and worst of all the cast were awful, I didn't care if they made it. Sound track - yes
Dunkirk - Go with http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051565/
You might want save your time and cash - didn't work on any level for me, the 3 time frames didn't sit well together, the sets and props looked wrong, too modern (not using cgi was a mistake in my opinion) and worst of all the cast were awful, I didn't care if they made it. Sound track - yes
Dunkirk - Go with http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051565/
2
3
In reply to John Kelly:
I thought that was brilliant.
Also avoiding making it into a quasi documentary and entertaining factual story line was a good technique.
> the 3 time frames didn't sit well together,
I thought that was brilliant.
Also avoiding making it into a quasi documentary and entertaining factual story line was a good technique.
In reply to Stichtplate:
Difficult to say without experiencing imax, I thought it pretty good on a normal screen.
Difficult to say without experiencing imax, I thought it pretty good on a normal screen.
1
In reply to Trangia:
I was looking forward to this movie, all the reviews were great but I just didn't get it, not a patch on Private Ryan which was brilliant, I wonder if WW2 has to B&W for me
I was looking forward to this movie, all the reviews were great but I just didn't get it, not a patch on Private Ryan which was brilliant, I wonder if WW2 has to B&W for me
1
1
In reply to John Kelly:
I saw the 1958 film when it first came out. Yes, very good, but very different type of presentation which is what I understand the current film wanted to avoid.
My mate, who was doing his National Service at the time, and his unit played the part of extras in the '58 film which was shot at Camber Sands. They were forbidden to shave for the week preceding the filming to add authenticity to the film!
I saw the 1958 film when it first came out. Yes, very good, but very different type of presentation which is what I understand the current film wanted to avoid.
My mate, who was doing his National Service at the time, and his unit played the part of extras in the '58 film which was shot at Camber Sands. They were forbidden to shave for the week preceding the filming to add authenticity to the film!
1
In reply to icnoble:
Special effects were used in film for 100 years before CGI was invented.
> Which special effects were used, it has been widely reported that no cgi was involved in the making of the film.
Special effects were used in film for 100 years before CGI was invented.
6
2
In reply to Trangia:
Yes, to me the 58 version is how Dunkirk really went, bloody great bulldog wandering about being terribly brave, obviously that was a fiction as well but having watch the film as a small child it starts to take on a reality of its own.
What did you think of the props and background, looked terribly modern to me
Yes, to me the 58 version is how Dunkirk really went, bloody great bulldog wandering about being terribly brave, obviously that was a fiction as well but having watch the film as a small child it starts to take on a reality of its own.
What did you think of the props and background, looked terribly modern to me
In reply to Trangia:
I found it gripping and was very glad to have seen it. Visually spectacular, and the sound track really ramps up the tension too. The Spitfire scenes in the final sequences made for great viewing, but I fear they weren't based on fact, which disappointed. Artistic license is acceptable to a point, but that goes beyond it for me.
I found it gripping and was very glad to have seen it. Visually spectacular, and the sound track really ramps up the tension too. The Spitfire scenes in the final sequences made for great viewing, but I fear they weren't based on fact, which disappointed. Artistic license is acceptable to a point, but that goes beyond it for me.
In reply to icnoble:
Highly unlikely, and a brief look at the credits on IMDB shows this to be false. The Visual Effects crew numbered over 100, including digital compositors and animators.
> ...it has been widely reported that no cgi was involved in the making of the film.
Highly unlikely, and a brief look at the credits on IMDB shows this to be false. The Visual Effects crew numbered over 100, including digital compositors and animators.
1
1
In reply to Trangia:
USA Today writer Brian Truitt hit out at the lack of diversity in the movie which revolves around the British Expeditionary Force - an army which did not have females among its ranks. He added: 'Nolan's ambitious story revolves around three tales unfolding at different times over land, sea, and air, only coming together at the end.'
But Truitt lamented the film's lack of diversity claiming 'the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of colour may rub some the wrong way'.
LOL!!
USA Today writer Brian Truitt hit out at the lack of diversity in the movie which revolves around the British Expeditionary Force - an army which did not have females among its ranks. He added: 'Nolan's ambitious story revolves around three tales unfolding at different times over land, sea, and air, only coming together at the end.'
But Truitt lamented the film's lack of diversity claiming 'the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of colour may rub some the wrong way'.
LOL!!
15
In reply to Big Ger:
Ha , someone should send him a copy of 'Reach For The Skies'. I have a feeling that the scene where Douglas shouts for his dog may really rub him up the wrong way.
Ha , someone should send him a copy of 'Reach For The Skies'. I have a feeling that the scene where Douglas shouts for his dog may really rub him up the wrong way.
Post edited at 02:35
8
In reply to John Kelly:
Yes the lack of much vehicle, gun and other detritus littering the streets of Dunkirk and the beach itself was unreal, a was the general lack of massed naval movement apart from the few destroyers and frigates which became casualties.
The French were included, although their sand bagged street fortifications in Dunkirk seemed fictional. No evidence of the massive damage done to the buildings of Dunkirk. Dunkirk was a BEF enclave. No mention of the men of the British and French troops fighting a bitter rear guard action in the fields and canal banks surrounding Dunkirk., thus enabling the evacuation to succeed. 45,000 British troops, many wounded, from the rearguard were captured to spend the next 5 years as POWs and were appallingly treated by the Germans.
It's time someone made a film about this horrific and largely forgotten aspect of the consequences of the fall of France. POWs, particularly the British ones had a terrible time, including many instances of outright murder of defenceless men who had surrendered. The triumphant Germans treated them much more harshly than the French POWs, most of whom were subsequently repatriated to Vichy France. Maybe a film depicting dreadful German treatment of British POWs would sour Anglo German relations too much? There was in reality, not much of the school boy prank naughtiness depicted in post war films like the Great Escape, Wooden Horse, and Colditz Story. The Germans also broke the Geneva Convention time and time again when it came to their treatment of Medical Staff who had stayed behind to care for the wounded and should have had non combatant status to qualify them for repatriation along with the severely wounded.
And of course, Dunkirk wasn't the end of the BEF or the last of the evacuations. Tens of thousands of more British and French troops continued fighting as they were rolled up by the German advances to the west, and were evacuated in harrowing conditions over the next few weeks from other French ports and fishing harbours in particular St Valery, where at the time of Dunkirk, the 51st Highland Division had not even begun it's historic rearguard action and where one of the greatest disasters of the war was to occur, when the converted liner Lancastria crammed with evacuated soldiers was to be sunk by Luftwaffe bombs with the loss of between 4000 and 6000 lives.
Most of the RAF actions at Dunkirk took place inland over France and along the coast to the north east as they inflicted heavy losses on the Luftwaffe at a terrible cost to the British squadrons, in mainly antiquated aircraft including Hurricanes, but as the film depicted, the majority of the RAF fighter squadrons were held back in readiness for the upcoming aerial battle for Britain which the War Cabinet and senior RAF commanders knew would inevitably follow the fall of France.
Anyway I digress, but as I said, this film wasn't intended to be a quasi documentary in the same way that the '58 film was. There was a lot of artistic licence in my opinion well used.
> What did you think of the props and background, looked terribly modern to me
Yes the lack of much vehicle, gun and other detritus littering the streets of Dunkirk and the beach itself was unreal, a was the general lack of massed naval movement apart from the few destroyers and frigates which became casualties.
The French were included, although their sand bagged street fortifications in Dunkirk seemed fictional. No evidence of the massive damage done to the buildings of Dunkirk. Dunkirk was a BEF enclave. No mention of the men of the British and French troops fighting a bitter rear guard action in the fields and canal banks surrounding Dunkirk., thus enabling the evacuation to succeed. 45,000 British troops, many wounded, from the rearguard were captured to spend the next 5 years as POWs and were appallingly treated by the Germans.
It's time someone made a film about this horrific and largely forgotten aspect of the consequences of the fall of France. POWs, particularly the British ones had a terrible time, including many instances of outright murder of defenceless men who had surrendered. The triumphant Germans treated them much more harshly than the French POWs, most of whom were subsequently repatriated to Vichy France. Maybe a film depicting dreadful German treatment of British POWs would sour Anglo German relations too much? There was in reality, not much of the school boy prank naughtiness depicted in post war films like the Great Escape, Wooden Horse, and Colditz Story. The Germans also broke the Geneva Convention time and time again when it came to their treatment of Medical Staff who had stayed behind to care for the wounded and should have had non combatant status to qualify them for repatriation along with the severely wounded.
And of course, Dunkirk wasn't the end of the BEF or the last of the evacuations. Tens of thousands of more British and French troops continued fighting as they were rolled up by the German advances to the west, and were evacuated in harrowing conditions over the next few weeks from other French ports and fishing harbours in particular St Valery, where at the time of Dunkirk, the 51st Highland Division had not even begun it's historic rearguard action and where one of the greatest disasters of the war was to occur, when the converted liner Lancastria crammed with evacuated soldiers was to be sunk by Luftwaffe bombs with the loss of between 4000 and 6000 lives.
Most of the RAF actions at Dunkirk took place inland over France and along the coast to the north east as they inflicted heavy losses on the Luftwaffe at a terrible cost to the British squadrons, in mainly antiquated aircraft including Hurricanes, but as the film depicted, the majority of the RAF fighter squadrons were held back in readiness for the upcoming aerial battle for Britain which the War Cabinet and senior RAF commanders knew would inevitably follow the fall of France.
Anyway I digress, but as I said, this film wasn't intended to be a quasi documentary in the same way that the '58 film was. There was a lot of artistic licence in my opinion well used.
8
1
In reply to Trangia:
My granddad was at Dunkirk... Which surprised him, as he'd only nipped out for a pint of milk.
My granddad was at Dunkirk... Which surprised him, as he'd only nipped out for a pint of milk.
10
In reply to thread:
Special UKC review for this:
I think even Gordon Stainforth would approve of this film, and that is high praise indeed.
Special UKC review for this:
I think even Gordon Stainforth would approve of this film, and that is high praise indeed.
4
1
In reply to John Kelly:
Saving Private Ryan was a colour film apart from the desaturated film process used in the 22 minute landing scene.
> I was looking forward to this movie, all the reviews were great but I just didn't get it, not a patch on Private Ryan which was brilliant, I wonder if WW2 has to B&W for me
Saving Private Ryan was a colour film apart from the desaturated film process used in the 22 minute landing scene.
1
In reply to Trangia:
I always unclear as to how the numbers stacked up.
I'd read somewhere the BEF was 300,000 strong and yet only 100,000 were recused from Dunkirk.
What happened to the other 200k or are the numbers wrong?
I always unclear as to how the numbers stacked up.
I'd read somewhere the BEF was 300,000 strong and yet only 100,000 were recused from Dunkirk.
What happened to the other 200k or are the numbers wrong?
1
In reply to JLS:
From memory I believe that about 360,000 British and French troops were rescued from Dunkirk of whom about 60,000 were French. About 45,000 British were taken POW or killed. Approximately another 60,000 British troops were rescued during subsequent evacuations over the next few weeks including from St Valery where the death toll was particularly high due to the sinking of the Lancastria*. As I say these are based on my memory of reading books about the evacuations and capture of the POWs. I don't have my reference books handy.
* The toll from the Lancastria was a terrible blow to the Government and on Churchill's orders the loss was kept secret until well after the war. Exact figures will never be known because no record was kept of the numbers boarding her in St Valery but it is estimated at somewhere between 4000 and 6000 men. She was certainly capable of carrying a large number and men were crammed onto her.
The Lancastria disaster accounted for more British deaths than occurred in all the fighting during the Battle for France and the Dunkirk evacuation which is put at about 3,500
From memory I believe that about 360,000 British and French troops were rescued from Dunkirk of whom about 60,000 were French. About 45,000 British were taken POW or killed. Approximately another 60,000 British troops were rescued during subsequent evacuations over the next few weeks including from St Valery where the death toll was particularly high due to the sinking of the Lancastria*. As I say these are based on my memory of reading books about the evacuations and capture of the POWs. I don't have my reference books handy.
* The toll from the Lancastria was a terrible blow to the Government and on Churchill's orders the loss was kept secret until well after the war. Exact figures will never be known because no record was kept of the numbers boarding her in St Valery but it is estimated at somewhere between 4000 and 6000 men. She was certainly capable of carrying a large number and men were crammed onto her.
The Lancastria disaster accounted for more British deaths than occurred in all the fighting during the Battle for France and the Dunkirk evacuation which is put at about 3,500
Post edited at 13:02
3
In reply to Stichtplate:
Did Bader share his dog with Guy Gibson?
On the 'looked too modern' comment. I think we have a perception that everything in the WW2 era must have been painted in shades of grey and everything was made of brass and used by old men. Must be a legacy of B&W films and 'grandad was in the war', (presumably as an 80 year old), stories. Kids today probably see the Falklands through the same prism, fought by old men with antique weapons before HD was invented.
> Ha , someone should send him a copy of 'Reach For The Skies'. I have a feeling that the scene where Douglas shouts for his dog may really rub him up the wrong way.
Did Bader share his dog with Guy Gibson?
On the 'looked too modern' comment. I think we have a perception that everything in the WW2 era must have been painted in shades of grey and everything was made of brass and used by old men. Must be a legacy of B&W films and 'grandad was in the war', (presumably as an 80 year old), stories. Kids today probably see the Falklands through the same prism, fought by old men with antique weapons before HD was invented.
10
In reply to Ridge:
We've all grown up with the language of film and have certain expectations - which includes the many anachronisms which have become part of 'hollywood' history. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case with 'Dunkirk', but when those expectations aren't met or are subverted for whatever reason the effect can be jarring. TV Tropes is full of this stuff. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnrealistic
> On the 'looked too modern' comment. I think we have a perception that everything in the WW2 era must have been painted in shades of grey and everything was made of brass and used by old men. Must be a legacy of B&W films and 'grandad was in the war', (presumably as an 80 year old), stories.
We've all grown up with the language of film and have certain expectations - which includes the many anachronisms which have become part of 'hollywood' history. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case with 'Dunkirk', but when those expectations aren't met or are subverted for whatever reason the effect can be jarring. TV Tropes is full of this stuff. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnrealistic
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
It was a dumb criticism to make, but if Nolan had decided on a bit of historical licence in order to make the film appeal to a wider demographic he'd hardly have been the first. 'The Imitation Game' for example, was a great film but bore little resemblance to reality despite its story being a matter of public record. Arguably it committed a greater sin than retrospective political correctness by making villains of historical figures whose relatives are still around to take issue with it.
> But Truitt lamented the film's lack of diversity claiming 'the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of colour may rub some the wrong way'.
> LOL!!
It was a dumb criticism to make, but if Nolan had decided on a bit of historical licence in order to make the film appeal to a wider demographic he'd hardly have been the first. 'The Imitation Game' for example, was a great film but bore little resemblance to reality despite its story being a matter of public record. Arguably it committed a greater sin than retrospective political correctness by making villains of historical figures whose relatives are still around to take issue with it.
2
1
In reply to planetmarshall:
Ah yes... here's the specific one. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect
> We've all grown up with the language of film and have certain expectations - which includes the many anachronisms which have become part of 'hollywood' history.
Ah yes... here's the specific one. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect
1
In reply to Trangia:
225,000 British and 123,000 French (nearly all chose to go home after France surrendered two weeks later).
> From memory I believe that about 360,000 British and French troops were rescued from Dunkirk of whom about 60,000 were French.
225,000 British and 123,000 French (nearly all chose to go home after France surrendered two weeks later).
In reply to Ridge:
You're right it was Guy Gibson's black Labrador with the unfortunate name. Douglas Bader had a black lab called Grace.
Not very PC , but I'm afraid all black labs look the same to me.
> Did Bader share his dog with Guy Gibson?
You're right it was Guy Gibson's black Labrador with the unfortunate name. Douglas Bader had a black lab called Grace.
Not very PC , but I'm afraid all black labs look the same to me.
9
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
Quite acceptable in 1943. I remember watching the Dam Busters film as a child and being really upset when the dog was killed. I was incensed and tried to read the car's number.
Talking about new films wasn't a new Dam Busters film being made a year or so ago? What happened to it? IIRC the dog was going to be called Trigger in it to make it more PC for the 21st Century.
> You're right it was Guy Gibson's black Labrador with the unfortunate name.
Quite acceptable in 1943. I remember watching the Dam Busters film as a child and being really upset when the dog was killed. I was incensed and tried to read the car's number.
Talking about new films wasn't a new Dam Busters film being made a year or so ago? What happened to it? IIRC the dog was going to be called Trigger in it to make it more PC for the 21st Century.
1
In reply to Trangia:
Peter Jackson (he of New Zealand fame, and Tolkien adaptation fame) gained the rights then seemed to lose enthusiasm, but still has the rights, so nobody else can do it for now. Got busy with Hobbit films and may be about to do another Tin-Tin.
> Talking about new films wasn't a new Dam Busters film being made a year or so ago?
Peter Jackson (he of New Zealand fame, and Tolkien adaptation fame) gained the rights then seemed to lose enthusiasm, but still has the rights, so nobody else can do it for now. Got busy with Hobbit films and may be about to do another Tin-Tin.
In reply to Stichtplate:
Difficult to say without experiencing it on a normal screen. I thought it was pretty effective on IMAX.
And, out of facetious mode, yes I saw an IMAX screening but the actual screen wasn't that big. It's not just about scope. There is an intangible difference in how it is projected....but the MAIN thing that is overlooked so often is that the sound is enhanced somehow in IMAX (I don't know the technical ins and outs of this). And the sound in this film is pretty special, it's extremely well designed - not just the foley but a constant ambient backing and a very intelligent score.
I paid £4.70 more than usual, to see it in IMAX. Money well spent.
> Is it worth going all out and seeing it on imax?
Difficult to say without experiencing it on a normal screen. I thought it was pretty effective on IMAX.
And, out of facetious mode, yes I saw an IMAX screening but the actual screen wasn't that big. It's not just about scope. There is an intangible difference in how it is projected....but the MAIN thing that is overlooked so often is that the sound is enhanced somehow in IMAX (I don't know the technical ins and outs of this). And the sound in this film is pretty special, it's extremely well designed - not just the foley but a constant ambient backing and a very intelligent score.
I paid £4.70 more than usual, to see it in IMAX. Money well spent.
Post edited at 18:01
1
1
In reply to Trangia:
I don't wish to diminish these (or other similar) episodes, but I kind of think it's maybe coming time for Britain to move on from the Second World War, culturally speaking. It still seems to loom large in the national consciousness, especially - as far as I'm aware - when compared to other countries in Europe
> It's time someone made a film about this horrific and largely forgotten aspect of the consequences of the fall of France.
I don't wish to diminish these (or other similar) episodes, but I kind of think it's maybe coming time for Britain to move on from the Second World War, culturally speaking. It still seems to loom large in the national consciousness, especially - as far as I'm aware - when compared to other countries in Europe
7
3
In reply to Trangia:
I don't understand this modern obsession with historical revisionism. We used to poke fun at the Soviets for literally airbrushing Trotsky et al from photographs . In the past ,stuff now considered unpalatable happened. It should neither be brushed under carpets nor accorded undue significance.
> Quite acceptable in 1943. I remember watching the Dam Busters film as a child and being really upset when the dog was killed. I was incensed and tried to read the car's number.
I don't understand this modern obsession with historical revisionism. We used to poke fun at the Soviets for literally airbrushing Trotsky et al from photographs . In the past ,stuff now considered unpalatable happened. It should neither be brushed under carpets nor accorded undue significance.
6
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Good to know. I much prefer imax for 'big' films with really well put together soundtracks.
The opening scene in Saving Private Ryan was a revelation when Viewed in a cinema with top notch surround sound. I've considered a good venue important for such films ever since.
Good to know. I much prefer imax for 'big' films with really well put together soundtracks.
The opening scene in Saving Private Ryan was a revelation when Viewed in a cinema with top notch surround sound. I've considered a good venue important for such films ever since.
In reply to nufkin:
Not just the Second World War, but also the Great War. I suspect both will recede from national consciousness once not only all the veterans of both wars (all the first ones are now dead) have passed on, but not just them but also their children, and grand children.
I was born during the Second World War and whilst i have no direct memories of it, both wars featured large in my childhood because my grand parents, parents and uncle had experienced them as had all their friends, as well as my school teachers. During my childhood they were a very recent memories to those I knew and whose views influenced my early development. I think it will take the demise of my generation as well before these wars fade into history in the same way that the Napoleonic and Zulu, Boer, Sudan and North West Frontier Wars, and all previous wars have done. In fact I suspect it may even last until the demise of the generation after mine who remember grand parents who fought in WW2
> I don't wish to diminish these (or other similar) episodes, but I kind of think it's maybe coming time for Britain to move on from the Second World War, culturally speaking. It still seems to loom large in the national consciousness, especially - as far as I'm aware - when compared to other countries in Europe
Not just the Second World War, but also the Great War. I suspect both will recede from national consciousness once not only all the veterans of both wars (all the first ones are now dead) have passed on, but not just them but also their children, and grand children.
I was born during the Second World War and whilst i have no direct memories of it, both wars featured large in my childhood because my grand parents, parents and uncle had experienced them as had all their friends, as well as my school teachers. During my childhood they were a very recent memories to those I knew and whose views influenced my early development. I think it will take the demise of my generation as well before these wars fade into history in the same way that the Napoleonic and Zulu, Boer, Sudan and North West Frontier Wars, and all previous wars have done. In fact I suspect it may even last until the demise of the generation after mine who remember grand parents who fought in WW2
3
In reply to nufkin:
I think it looms at least as large in the Russian national consciousness. Maybe it's because every other country in Europe surrendered, collaborated or were allied to the Nazis. (And even the Russians really don't like to be reminded of the non aggression pact).
> I don't wish to diminish these (or other similar) episodes, but I kind of think it's maybe coming time for Britain to move on from the Second World War, culturally speaking. It still seems to loom large in the national consciousness, especially - as far as I'm aware - when compared to other countries in Europe
I think it looms at least as large in the Russian national consciousness. Maybe it's because every other country in Europe surrendered, collaborated or were allied to the Nazis. (And even the Russians really don't like to be reminded of the non aggression pact).
4
In reply to nufkin:
I could not agree less. Some of the greatest lessons to be learnt in the history of the world are from the two World Wars and if we forget that history we run a great risk of repeating the mistakes. My fear is that the World Wars *are* receding from public consciousness. I am not sure that we would be in quite such a mess with our relationship with the rest of Europe if the history of the last century was better appreciated.
I could not agree less. Some of the greatest lessons to be learnt in the history of the world are from the two World Wars and if we forget that history we run a great risk of repeating the mistakes. My fear is that the World Wars *are* receding from public consciousness. I am not sure that we would be in quite such a mess with our relationship with the rest of Europe if the history of the last century was better appreciated.
8
2
In reply to Stichtplate:
Black Labs Matter...
> Not very PC , but I'm afraid all black labs look the same to me.
Black Labs Matter...
9
In reply to Blue Straggler:
I have deliberately put off seeing it until you pronounced on it (( )) and am pleased to see that you think the Imax worth the extra. So glad that Bill Nighy wasn't in it (or Xavier Bardem)......
Only thing is, the Apes are on at Cineworld and it's my favourite "franchise".......(how I hate that word. Comes a close second to "send"..)
I have deliberately put off seeing it until you pronounced on it (( )) and am pleased to see that you think the Imax worth the extra. So glad that Bill Nighy wasn't in it (or Xavier Bardem)......
Only thing is, the Apes are on at Cineworld and it's my favourite "franchise".......(how I hate that word. Comes a close second to "send"..)
1
In reply to nufkin:
I'd disagree. I don't think this country has ever really come to terms with the effects of the Second World War. The generation that fought it returned psychologically damaged, there was widespread PTSD, but it was never discussed. In my family there was always a distance between those who returned and their children.
The economic effect was colossal, the country only finished paying off lend-lease repayments to the USA in 2006, and post war spending was diverted to nuclear weapons and maintaing a standing army on the Rhine that may or may not have prevented the USSR annexing West Germany.
All this has been hidden behind a myth of victory. WW2 wrecked this country. That's in no way derogatory to those who fought and lived through it, but we won a war and lost everything else in the process. Until we come to terms with that we can't really find our place in the world.
That's my view anyway.
> I don't wish to diminish these (or other similar) episodes, but I kind of think it's maybe coming time for Britain to move on from the Second World War, culturally speaking. It still seems to loom large in the national consciousness, especially - as far as I'm aware - when compared to other countries in Europe
I'd disagree. I don't think this country has ever really come to terms with the effects of the Second World War. The generation that fought it returned psychologically damaged, there was widespread PTSD, but it was never discussed. In my family there was always a distance between those who returned and their children.
The economic effect was colossal, the country only finished paying off lend-lease repayments to the USA in 2006, and post war spending was diverted to nuclear weapons and maintaing a standing army on the Rhine that may or may not have prevented the USSR annexing West Germany.
All this has been hidden behind a myth of victory. WW2 wrecked this country. That's in no way derogatory to those who fought and lived through it, but we won a war and lost everything else in the process. Until we come to terms with that we can't really find our place in the world.
That's my view anyway.
10
2
In reply to Stichtplate:
It would be remiss not to point out that it still looms large in the German consciousness. There the war, its causes and consequences are, in my experience, handled in a much more considered way than is often the case in the UK.
It would be remiss not to point out that it still looms large in the German consciousness. There the war, its causes and consequences are, in my experience, handled in a much more considered way than is often the case in the UK.
Post edited at 21:44
3
In reply to Ridge:
There are a couple of add-on episodes to the excellent 'world at war' series where various historians discuss the consequences of the second world war which you might find interesting. There's an American chap who makes the same points you make, and expands on this to what each of the involved parties 'won' and 'lost' in the war.
There are a couple of add-on episodes to the excellent 'world at war' series where various historians discuss the consequences of the second world war which you might find interesting. There's an American chap who makes the same points you make, and expands on this to what each of the involved parties 'won' and 'lost' in the war.
1
In reply to Trangia:
It was certainly gripping, each and every minute, but a bit too clinical for me. It made me think that wars shouldn't be fought. When I read in posts of worse atrocities such as the loss of between 4-6,000 men from one boat, it makes me thoughtful of what others have gone through. I think in hindsight, I would have preferred 'Sound of Music' on such a sunny evening in Kendal.
It was certainly gripping, each and every minute, but a bit too clinical for me. It made me think that wars shouldn't be fought. When I read in posts of worse atrocities such as the loss of between 4-6,000 men from one boat, it makes me thoughtful of what others have gone through. I think in hindsight, I would have preferred 'Sound of Music' on such a sunny evening in Kendal.
1
In reply to Green Porridge:
Thanks for the heads up. I think the 'World at War' series really desrves a repeat showing.
> There are a couple of add-on episodes to the excellent 'world at war' series where various historians discuss the consequences of the second world war which you might find interesting. There's an American chap who makes the same points you make, and expands on this to what each of the involved parties 'won' and 'lost' in the war.
Thanks for the heads up. I think the 'World at War' series really desrves a repeat showing.
2
In reply to Ridge:
Be patient: our various 'leaders' are doing their best.
> Thanks for the heads up. I think the 'World at War' series really desrves a repeat showing.
Be patient: our various 'leaders' are doing their best.
2
In reply to Trangia:
Historically films can never compare to a well researched book. For a start, truth is always skewed in favour of a good story. Much more detail in a good book. So is 'Dunkirk' a mocumentary? The closest to reality and fact was possibility 'The Longest Day'. Even 'Saving Private Ryan' is very American centered, yet there were more British and Dominion troops that landed, and more were casualties than the Americans suffered. I must admit, although not yet having seen the film, I had heard that there was little about the gallant rearguard action that made the evacuation possible. This included a sizable French rearguard. Also watching a recent program about Bletchly Park decoding, there is very good reason to believe that Gort was informed about German movements, dispositions and strength, and knew that evacuation was the only option other than a complete capitulation. A fair point about B&W as all the newsreels and photographic record were in that format.
So is the film really a total depiction of what war is like? Somewhat similar to 'Saving Private Ryan'. It certainly doesn't have a narrative in the traditional sense. Think of 'Ice Cold in Alex'. To an extent it takes time before we can truly evaluate such work.
To conclude I would highly recommend both 'To Lose a Battle-the Fall of France' by Alistair Horne, and 'Dunkirk-Fight to the Last Man' by Hugh Sebag-Montefiore as two of the definitive books on the subject. And then again you could always go and see the film...!
Historically films can never compare to a well researched book. For a start, truth is always skewed in favour of a good story. Much more detail in a good book. So is 'Dunkirk' a mocumentary? The closest to reality and fact was possibility 'The Longest Day'. Even 'Saving Private Ryan' is very American centered, yet there were more British and Dominion troops that landed, and more were casualties than the Americans suffered. I must admit, although not yet having seen the film, I had heard that there was little about the gallant rearguard action that made the evacuation possible. This included a sizable French rearguard. Also watching a recent program about Bletchly Park decoding, there is very good reason to believe that Gort was informed about German movements, dispositions and strength, and knew that evacuation was the only option other than a complete capitulation. A fair point about B&W as all the newsreels and photographic record were in that format.
So is the film really a total depiction of what war is like? Somewhat similar to 'Saving Private Ryan'. It certainly doesn't have a narrative in the traditional sense. Think of 'Ice Cold in Alex'. To an extent it takes time before we can truly evaluate such work.
To conclude I would highly recommend both 'To Lose a Battle-the Fall of France' by Alistair Horne, and 'Dunkirk-Fight to the Last Man' by Hugh Sebag-Montefiore as two of the definitive books on the subject. And then again you could always go and see the film...!
Post edited at 22:38
1
In reply to Green Porridge:
That's like saying that the provision of adequate child care is now handled in a much more considered way in the McCann household than in other households.
> It would be remiss not to point out that it still looms large in the German consciousness. There the war, its causes and consequences are, in my experience, handled in a much more considered way than is often the case in the UK.
That's like saying that the provision of adequate child care is now handled in a much more considered way in the McCann household than in other households.
Post edited at 22:48
6
8
In reply to Sean
I have must admit, although not yet having seen the film
Eh, why did you write a long post about a film you haven't seen?
I have must admit, although not yet having seen the film
Eh, why did you write a long post about a film you haven't seen?
2
In reply to Sean Kelly:
Ice Cold in Alex is absolutely a "narrative" film. What on Earth are you on about?
Off the top of my head, the closest comparison I could make to Dunkirk (2017) is Black Hawk Down. Both films cleverly offer very little commentary on the background of what is going on. They just immerse the viewer in the "this is what we film-makers think it might have been like to be right there".
Ice Cold in Alex is absolutely a "narrative" film. What on Earth are you on about?
Off the top of my head, the closest comparison I could make to Dunkirk (2017) is Black Hawk Down. Both films cleverly offer very little commentary on the background of what is going on. They just immerse the viewer in the "this is what we film-makers think it might have been like to be right there".
2
In reply to John Stainforth:
I agree with you entirely but I don't think this is what nufkin was alluding to, rather I suspect he/she was thinking of the prevalent "we won the war you know" mentality whereas the rest of Europe has since busied itself with moving on and building a set of rather better functioning countries than this fast receding island.
I agree with you entirely but I don't think this is what nufkin was alluding to, rather I suspect he/she was thinking of the prevalent "we won the war you know" mentality whereas the rest of Europe has since busied itself with moving on and building a set of rather better functioning countries than this fast receding island.
5
4
In reply to Blue Straggler:
They just immerse the viewer in the "this is what we film-makers think it might have been like to be right there".
Depth charge scene in Das Boot. Think I actually started sweating.
They just immerse the viewer in the "this is what we film-makers think it might have been like to be right there".
Depth charge scene in Das Boot. Think I actually started sweating.
2
In reply to Blue Straggler:
I hate being aggrandized in this way, and hope and trust that you are being ironic
I've never been particularly keen on the Imax format (though this sounds a bit different) and would rather see it projected in a panavision format (even though the film clearly hasn't been designed to be seen that way) ... tho the 70mm version is surely? virtually identical. I'm much less critical about film formats with my (now) greatly inferior eyesight and am most interested in how well they tell a story visually. Nolan wants to fill your whole vision: well, fine, 70mm/Cinemascope/Panavision and ratios around 2.35:1 do that just fine for me on a big screen in a good cinema. So I'm waiting to see it in my superb local Belper Ritz.
> Special UKC review for this:
> I think even Gordon Stainforth would approve of this film, and that is high praise indeed.
I hate being aggrandized in this way, and hope and trust that you are being ironic
I've never been particularly keen on the Imax format (though this sounds a bit different) and would rather see it projected in a panavision format (even though the film clearly hasn't been designed to be seen that way) ... tho the 70mm version is surely? virtually identical. I'm much less critical about film formats with my (now) greatly inferior eyesight and am most interested in how well they tell a story visually. Nolan wants to fill your whole vision: well, fine, 70mm/Cinemascope/Panavision and ratios around 2.35:1 do that just fine for me on a big screen in a good cinema. So I'm waiting to see it in my superb local Belper Ritz.
Post edited at 23:42
In reply to Stichtplate:
One of the greatest war films of all time. I was v fortunate to work for Wolfgang Petersen (on Neverending Story) in 1983 ... I also got to visit/enter the very scary space of the U-boat they'd made for the film, which was still on the backlot at the Bavarian Film Studios. It was 100% authentic, made out of steel i.e. not a typical film set in any way, and terrifyingly claustrophobic.
> Depth charge scene in Das Boot. Think I actually started sweating.
One of the greatest war films of all time. I was v fortunate to work for Wolfgang Petersen (on Neverending Story) in 1983 ... I also got to visit/enter the very scary space of the U-boat they'd made for the film, which was still on the backlot at the Bavarian Film Studios. It was 100% authentic, made out of steel i.e. not a typical film set in any way, and terrifyingly claustrophobic.
Post edited at 23:50
5
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Not ironic, merely cheeky - but grounded in a reading of your comments about technical precision in image making. Didn't mean to offend/upset!
I honestly don't know what Nolan's Dunkirk was shot with. Offering screenings in 70mm (which must be restricted to something like 4 cinemas in the UK, if that) AND IMAX, seems odd. The ratio is not 2.35:1, unless my eyes and brain have become spectacularly bad at gauging ratios.
I do think you will be impressed with this film.
Not ironic, merely cheeky - but grounded in a reading of your comments about technical precision in image making. Didn't mean to offend/upset!
I honestly don't know what Nolan's Dunkirk was shot with. Offering screenings in 70mm (which must be restricted to something like 4 cinemas in the UK, if that) AND IMAX, seems odd. The ratio is not 2.35:1, unless my eyes and brain have become spectacularly bad at gauging ratios.
I do think you will be impressed with this film.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Yes, looking forward to seeing it.
P.S. Not remotely upset I only get 'upset' about statements that are factually wrong or malign.
Yes, looking forward to seeing it.
P.S. Not remotely upset I only get 'upset' about statements that are factually wrong or malign.
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
Well, as for "being there", I will go with The Thin Red Line, (storming the hill, obviously, not tossing it off lying down pondering about clouds, life and so on......)
Well, as for "being there", I will go with The Thin Red Line, (storming the hill, obviously, not tossing it off lying down pondering about clouds, life and so on......)
In reply to Tom Valentine:
If we are doing this tangent then I'd like to mention the opening scenes of Enemy at the Gates. Often forgotten because the film overall was kind of a dud (partly due to the bold decision to let the actors speak in their own accents instead of "Bond villain Russkie accent"). The opening scenes there, with not enough working firearms for the Russians, are brutal. I have not seen it or Saving Private Ryan since their cinematic releases (nor, for that matter, The Thin Red Line, on which point I agree about the hill but that was only 20 minutes in a long meandering art/poetry film!)
And...not Second World War but another hill - Jeff Daniels out of his depth commanding infantry in the defence of a hill in Gettysburg, was a superb scene.
> Well, as for "being there", I will go with The Thin Red Line, (storming the hill, obviously, not tossing it off lying down pondering about clouds, life and so on......)
If we are doing this tangent then I'd like to mention the opening scenes of Enemy at the Gates. Often forgotten because the film overall was kind of a dud (partly due to the bold decision to let the actors speak in their own accents instead of "Bond villain Russkie accent"). The opening scenes there, with not enough working firearms for the Russians, are brutal. I have not seen it or Saving Private Ryan since their cinematic releases (nor, for that matter, The Thin Red Line, on which point I agree about the hill but that was only 20 minutes in a long meandering art/poetry film!)
And...not Second World War but another hill - Jeff Daniels out of his depth commanding infantry in the defence of a hill in Gettysburg, was a superb scene.
In reply to Stichtplate:
That's bollocks because there were at least four neutral European states through WWII that I can think of off the top of my head, and the various European countries I know something about all have their own myths and legends attached to WWII - including the saving graces of governments in exile and resistance movements.
This year is Finland's centenary and there are huge numbers of events happening to celebrate, but the the most eagerly waited for film - which is being released in time for independence day, is a new version of the most famous Finnish novel, the Unknown Soldier. The book/film is about the Continuation War, the middle part of WWII for Finland, not about independence 25 years previously. WWII, particularly the 39-40 Winter War is central to Finnish self identity, in the same way as Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain is for the UK. I'm sure many other European countries have their similar identity mixed up in WWII - for those countries of eastern Europe who only got their independence in 89, the events of 39-45 are completely central to their identities.
More generally; I saw Dunkirk with my family on Saturday. I'm at the age now where looking at stunning war films like this one, I think less "what would I have done?" and more "what might my kids have to do?", this is particularly the case as unless their citizenship changes, both of my sons will have to complete their military service once they finish school in a few years. It made me sad that we as a country have recently decided to leave the most successful security community in perhaps all history. I think the spillover of that will keep us all safe for sometime to come even as we leave the EU, but peace in Europe is not guaranteed forever, particularly if other EU members take a similar path to the UK.
Less seriously: Tom Hardy standing in front of a burning spitfire at the end. Phoarrr, I see what all the ladies are going on about with regard to Tom!
> I think it looms at least as large in the Russian national consciousness. Maybe it's because every other country in Europe surrendered, collaborated or were allied to the Nazis.
That's bollocks because there were at least four neutral European states through WWII that I can think of off the top of my head, and the various European countries I know something about all have their own myths and legends attached to WWII - including the saving graces of governments in exile and resistance movements.
This year is Finland's centenary and there are huge numbers of events happening to celebrate, but the the most eagerly waited for film - which is being released in time for independence day, is a new version of the most famous Finnish novel, the Unknown Soldier. The book/film is about the Continuation War, the middle part of WWII for Finland, not about independence 25 years previously. WWII, particularly the 39-40 Winter War is central to Finnish self identity, in the same way as Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain is for the UK. I'm sure many other European countries have their similar identity mixed up in WWII - for those countries of eastern Europe who only got their independence in 89, the events of 39-45 are completely central to their identities.
More generally; I saw Dunkirk with my family on Saturday. I'm at the age now where looking at stunning war films like this one, I think less "what would I have done?" and more "what might my kids have to do?", this is particularly the case as unless their citizenship changes, both of my sons will have to complete their military service once they finish school in a few years. It made me sad that we as a country have recently decided to leave the most successful security community in perhaps all history. I think the spillover of that will keep us all safe for sometime to come even as we leave the EU, but peace in Europe is not guaranteed forever, particularly if other EU members take a similar path to the UK.
Less seriously: Tom Hardy standing in front of a burning spitfire at the end. Phoarrr, I see what all the ladies are going on about with regard to Tom!
Post edited at 01:09
2
3
2
In reply to TobyA:
Pedantic much?
Of the neutral European countries how many can reasonably claim not to have collaborated with the Nazis?
Finland was invaded. Britain reluctantly entered the war on a point of honour in defence of Poland.
This is mportant . Bit like the difference between being dragged into a fight when a bloke punches you , as opposed to entering a fight in the defence of an innocent bloke getting the crap kicked out of him by a bigger aggressor.
Pedantic much?
Of the neutral European countries how many can reasonably claim not to have collaborated with the Nazis?
Finland was invaded. Britain reluctantly entered the war on a point of honour in defence of Poland.
This is mportant . Bit like the difference between being dragged into a fight when a bloke punches you , as opposed to entering a fight in the defence of an innocent bloke getting the crap kicked out of him by a bigger aggressor.
Post edited at 02:28
3
1
In reply to TobyA:
The countries who remained neutral did so for a variety of reasons, some truly and honestly stated, some not. Their national consciousness now deals with what they did or didn't do. Some continue to reap the bounty of their inactivity even now.
We remember stuff in the UK which other counties choose to forget or pretend didn't happen. In our normal hand wringing and often self deprecating way we even beat ourselves up about this simple act which is odd. I guess as those involved die off the whole thing will slip into the past more fully.
Film sounds good, I look forward to seeing it.
The countries who remained neutral did so for a variety of reasons, some truly and honestly stated, some not. Their national consciousness now deals with what they did or didn't do. Some continue to reap the bounty of their inactivity even now.
We remember stuff in the UK which other counties choose to forget or pretend didn't happen. In our normal hand wringing and often self deprecating way we even beat ourselves up about this simple act which is odd. I guess as those involved die off the whole thing will slip into the past more fully.
Film sounds good, I look forward to seeing it.
2
In reply to Stichtplate:
In this time of Trump, is that what we call being historically accurate? In which case, sure. I'll wear that badge. You said "every other country in Europe surrendered, collaborated or were allied to the Nazis", that's not true - Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, Spain and Portugal were all neutral.
What you mean by collaboration is important here - is not breaking off diplomatic relations collaboration? Is maintaining commercial relationships collaboration? Is mobilising armed forces to dissuade invasion anti-collaboration? Is sheltering refugees anti-collaboration - even Francoist Spain sheltered significant numbers of Jews, even in its embassies in Eastern Europe. The Portuguese government was more sympathetic to the UK than to Germany, so perhaps they collaborated with us and the US. Switzerland mobilized, its domestic Nazi party was crushed and the Swiss airforce shot down a dozen Luftwaffe planes that violated their air space. The Swedish record is murky, they allowed the Nazi's transit through the country, but then again they were aware of the UK-French plan to invade and hold Swedish lapland and control the Kiruna mines. The Swedes traded with both sides, but also sheltered tens of thousands of refugees, including Jews.
Countries balanced the Axis and the Allied interests in order to ensure their neutrality. I wouldn't call that collaboration, particularly as they most had to do it with both sides.
Britain had a treaty commitment to Poland's defence - just like it does now with Art. V of the North Atlantic treaty. We wanted to balance German power. Whether doing what you had legally committed to do is honourable or not is another discussion.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this analogy.
> Pedantic much?
In this time of Trump, is that what we call being historically accurate? In which case, sure. I'll wear that badge. You said "every other country in Europe surrendered, collaborated or were allied to the Nazis", that's not true - Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, Spain and Portugal were all neutral.
> Of the neutral European countries how many can reasonably claim not to have collaborated with the Nazis?
What you mean by collaboration is important here - is not breaking off diplomatic relations collaboration? Is maintaining commercial relationships collaboration? Is mobilising armed forces to dissuade invasion anti-collaboration? Is sheltering refugees anti-collaboration - even Francoist Spain sheltered significant numbers of Jews, even in its embassies in Eastern Europe. The Portuguese government was more sympathetic to the UK than to Germany, so perhaps they collaborated with us and the US. Switzerland mobilized, its domestic Nazi party was crushed and the Swiss airforce shot down a dozen Luftwaffe planes that violated their air space. The Swedish record is murky, they allowed the Nazi's transit through the country, but then again they were aware of the UK-French plan to invade and hold Swedish lapland and control the Kiruna mines. The Swedes traded with both sides, but also sheltered tens of thousands of refugees, including Jews.
Countries balanced the Axis and the Allied interests in order to ensure their neutrality. I wouldn't call that collaboration, particularly as they most had to do it with both sides.
> Finland was invaded. Britain reluctantly entered the war on a point of honour in defence of Poland.
Britain had a treaty commitment to Poland's defence - just like it does now with Art. V of the North Atlantic treaty. We wanted to balance German power. Whether doing what you had legally committed to do is honourable or not is another discussion.
> This is mportant . Bit like the...
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this analogy.
5
2
In reply to Wainers44:
In terms of the centrality of WWII narratives to national myths/self identity, I wasn't specifically talking about the neutral states, I was responding to nufkin's claim that WWII is more central in British narratives than in those of other European countries. I don't think that is really true - a woman walking out of Dunkirk infront of me was saying to her friends "I'm really confused. How did the situation get that bad?" She clearly couldn't place the events of Dunkirk in a timeline of WWII, so didn't understand the fall of France, the defeat of the BEF etc. Additionally, a visit to the museums of occupation in either Tallinn or Riga (and probably similar in lots of other Eastern European countries I haven't visited) show how the narrative of national experience in WWII is still utterly dominant in those countries, including why EU and NATO membership was so important to those new states.
And 'we' forget things that are horribly uncomfortable for us, while others remember. The Bengal famine being perhaps the most obvious and horrific case, but arguably many of the fighter aces of the Battle of Britain being Czechs and Poles is similar if less traumatic for us to accept.
> The countries who remained neutral did so for a variety of reasons, some truly and honestly stated, some not. Their national consciousness now deals with what they did or didn't do.
In terms of the centrality of WWII narratives to national myths/self identity, I wasn't specifically talking about the neutral states, I was responding to nufkin's claim that WWII is more central in British narratives than in those of other European countries. I don't think that is really true - a woman walking out of Dunkirk infront of me was saying to her friends "I'm really confused. How did the situation get that bad?" She clearly couldn't place the events of Dunkirk in a timeline of WWII, so didn't understand the fall of France, the defeat of the BEF etc. Additionally, a visit to the museums of occupation in either Tallinn or Riga (and probably similar in lots of other Eastern European countries I haven't visited) show how the narrative of national experience in WWII is still utterly dominant in those countries, including why EU and NATO membership was so important to those new states.
> We remember stuff in the UK which other counties choose to forget or pretend didn't happen.
And 'we' forget things that are horribly uncomfortable for us, while others remember. The Bengal famine being perhaps the most obvious and horrific case, but arguably many of the fighter aces of the Battle of Britain being Czechs and Poles is similar if less traumatic for us to accept.
6
3
In reply to TobyA:
That kind of bears out the sort of hand wringing self fladulation I was referring to above. Gawd forbid we should remember something which we got mainly right, unless we also remember in the same thought all the things we got wrong at the same time.
Following your logic, does that mean the nazi wrongs are righted by the good stuff the German nation had no doubt done before that? I'm not clever enough to know.
> And 'we' forget things that are horribly uncomfortable for us, while others remember. The Bengal famine being perhaps the most obvious and horrific case, but arguably many of the fighter aces of the Battle of Britain being Czechs and Poles is similar if less traumatic for us to accept.
That kind of bears out the sort of hand wringing self fladulation I was referring to above. Gawd forbid we should remember something which we got mainly right, unless we also remember in the same thought all the things we got wrong at the same time.
Following your logic, does that mean the nazi wrongs are righted by the good stuff the German nation had no doubt done before that? I'm not clever enough to know.
3
In reply to TobyA:
Eire's neutrality was a little murky in that German small arms shipments were sent to support the IRA in the hope that they would encourage an uprising in Ulster , although this seems to have been low key, and poorly thought through.
I read an article recently about Luftwaffe crews who balled out over the border in Eire having been shot up in raids on Belfast being interned. Similarly there were a few RAF aircrew who finished up in Eire due to navigational errors, and also interned.
It seems that the internment was very relaxed and the airmen were permitted to go for walks and into local towns and villages to enjoy the pubs on giving their parole. As a result there were apparently incidents of RAF and Luftwaffe aircrew meeting up and socialising.
Eire's neutrality was a little murky in that German small arms shipments were sent to support the IRA in the hope that they would encourage an uprising in Ulster , although this seems to have been low key, and poorly thought through.
I read an article recently about Luftwaffe crews who balled out over the border in Eire having been shot up in raids on Belfast being interned. Similarly there were a few RAF aircrew who finished up in Eire due to navigational errors, and also interned.
It seems that the internment was very relaxed and the airmen were permitted to go for walks and into local towns and villages to enjoy the pubs on giving their parole. As a result there were apparently incidents of RAF and Luftwaffe aircrew meeting up and socialising.
1
In reply to Removed UserStuart en Écosse:
Sort of; I wasn't so much thinking we ought not remember the second world war or recognise its impact on those who lived through it, more that there are other aspects of the past that perhaps get overlooked in favour of the '39-'45 period, and that it seems to be a rather lazy go-to era for certain types of novels, films, documentaries etc ('Coming up next: did the Nazis land on the moon? We examine the evidence')
> I suspect he/she was thinking of the prevalent "we won the war you know" mentality whereas the rest of Europe has since busied itself with moving on and building a set of rather better functioning countries than this fast receding island
Sort of; I wasn't so much thinking we ought not remember the second world war or recognise its impact on those who lived through it, more that there are other aspects of the past that perhaps get overlooked in favour of the '39-'45 period, and that it seems to be a rather lazy go-to era for certain types of novels, films, documentaries etc ('Coming up next: did the Nazis land on the moon? We examine the evidence')
In reply to Wainers44:
What hand wringing? What percentage of people even know about the Bengal famine and Churchill's decisions? A couple of percent maybe?
All countries have their historical narratives, the things remembered and the things forgotten. The UK is no different.
What hand wringing? What percentage of people even know about the Bengal famine and Churchill's decisions? A couple of percent maybe?
All countries have their historical narratives, the things remembered and the things forgotten. The UK is no different.
3
2
In reply to TobyA:
We agree there. The UK is indeed no different, so all other things being equal cant every country reflect on WW2 and be proud/thankful/ashamed/disgusted by their actions as appropriate?
> All countries have their historical narratives, the things remembered and the things forgotten. The UK is no different.
We agree there. The UK is indeed no different, so all other things being equal cant every country reflect on WW2 and be proud/thankful/ashamed/disgusted by their actions as appropriate?
1
In reply to TobyA:
but it's not down to it being "horribly uncomfortable" for the British, its just another terrible wartime event amongst many, and I can’t think where there has been air-brushing from history of foreign airmen in the RAF?
> What hand wringing? What percentage of people even know about the Bengal famine and Churchill's decisions? A couple of percent maybe?
but it's not down to it being "horribly uncomfortable" for the British, its just another terrible wartime event amongst many, and I can’t think where there has been air-brushing from history of foreign airmen in the RAF?
2
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
I dunno about foreign airmen, but there was a concerted effort by politicians to try and airbrush Bomber Command from the RAF immediately after the war ended...
I dunno about foreign airmen, but there was a concerted effort by politicians to try and airbrush Bomber Command from the RAF immediately after the war ended...
1
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
There is a difference between "terrible events" that the UK government had no control over and "terrible events" that, as many historians argue, were the result of UK government decisions - not the original shortages themselves but the decision not to commit grain stocks (particularly from Australia) to relieving the famine. It's possible that 3 million died as a result, but with Indian independence and partition following so soon afterwards, I think the 43 famine never even entered wider British consciousness and narratives of WWII.
On foreign airmen in the RAF, I think wider knowledge of this is really thanks to historical revisionism of maybe the last 15 or 20 years, first the Commonwealth contribution then the Eastern Europeans - perhaps not coincidental to the rise in Polish, Czech etc. immigration to the UK after EU enlargement. When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s the Battle of Britain was still very much Britain's "finest hour"; Britain "stood alone" and all that.
> but it's not down to it being "horribly uncomfortable" for the British, its just another terrible wartime event amongst many, and I can’t think where there has been air-brushing from history of foreign airmen in the RAF?
There is a difference between "terrible events" that the UK government had no control over and "terrible events" that, as many historians argue, were the result of UK government decisions - not the original shortages themselves but the decision not to commit grain stocks (particularly from Australia) to relieving the famine. It's possible that 3 million died as a result, but with Indian independence and partition following so soon afterwards, I think the 43 famine never even entered wider British consciousness and narratives of WWII.
On foreign airmen in the RAF, I think wider knowledge of this is really thanks to historical revisionism of maybe the last 15 or 20 years, first the Commonwealth contribution then the Eastern Europeans - perhaps not coincidental to the rise in Polish, Czech etc. immigration to the UK after EU enlargement. When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s the Battle of Britain was still very much Britain's "finest hour"; Britain "stood alone" and all that.
2
2
In reply to Trangia:
Yeah, read a fascinating article today on how badly the Irish government treated the returning 5000 Irish soldiers who had left (deserted I guess you could say) the Irish army to join the British army and fight fascism. The article said an additional 10,000 Irish civilians also volunteered to fight for Britain. I knew plenty of Irish anti-fascists volunteered but had no idea it was on that scale.
Yeah, read a fascinating article today on how badly the Irish government treated the returning 5000 Irish soldiers who had left (deserted I guess you could say) the Irish army to join the British army and fight fascism. The article said an additional 10,000 Irish civilians also volunteered to fight for Britain. I knew plenty of Irish anti-fascists volunteered but had no idea it was on that scale.
2
2
In reply to TobyA:
You seem to be judging the wartime government as if dealing with some modern day humanitarian crisis - the Japanese army were on the Bengal border at the time. 20 million people died of starvation during the war. Anyone aware of the Dutch or Greek famines?
You don't remember the 1969 Battle of Britain film and the Polish airmen?
You seem to be judging the wartime government as if dealing with some modern day humanitarian crisis - the Japanese army were on the Bengal border at the time. 20 million people died of starvation during the war. Anyone aware of the Dutch or Greek famines?
You don't remember the 1969 Battle of Britain film and the Polish airmen?
5
In reply to TobyA:
I have to disagree with you, only on the foreign airmen point. I read a lot of books about the Battle of Britain and WWII in general when at school, from the late 60s onwards and was aware of Polish and Czech pilots and their ferocious reputations in combat- when I was 12 I took Airfix magazine for a while and I remember seeing articles about aircraft markings for Czech and Polish squadrons, not to mention that they featured in the major film Battle of Britain that came out around 1970.
They were certainly mentioned in Alexander McKee's book on the Battle of Britain that I read in 1968/9 which also mentioned killing of Luftwaffe crewmen on the ground by farm workers with pitchforks, including a lucky escape for a Pole who was mistaken for a German. But then I have a long memory
I have to disagree with you, only on the foreign airmen point. I read a lot of books about the Battle of Britain and WWII in general when at school, from the late 60s onwards and was aware of Polish and Czech pilots and their ferocious reputations in combat- when I was 12 I took Airfix magazine for a while and I remember seeing articles about aircraft markings for Czech and Polish squadrons, not to mention that they featured in the major film Battle of Britain that came out around 1970.
They were certainly mentioned in Alexander McKee's book on the Battle of Britain that I read in 1968/9 which also mentioned killing of Luftwaffe crewmen on the ground by farm workers with pitchforks, including a lucky escape for a Pole who was mistaken for a German. But then I have a long memory
Post edited at 17:58
5
In reply to wercat:
As a lad in the 1950s my dad was a serving RAF officer who had flown in Bomber Command during the War. I remember one of his friends, who often came to stay, a Polish officer who had flown as a pilot during the Battle of Britain. He was a lovely easy going guy, great with us kids, who spoke English with an appalling accent. He was full of fun and loved partying. He was very popular with everyone. However when the subject of Germans it quickly became obvious that he hated them with a really deep seated hatred even some 10 to 15 years after the Battle Of Britain. I remember him saying that "these bastards had attack his country and over run it" and were then intent on doing the same to Britain. He had a reputation of not showing any mercy to Luftwaffe aircrew who had bailed out, and would shoot them in their parachutes. He said war isn't a game of cricket. It's a merciless struggle for survival. When he attacked a German bomber he admitted it was with the intent of killing the aircrew whether they were in it or out of it, because they had come over uninvited intent on killing the people in our cities. He used to say that he had no sympathy for the more chivalrous attitude of the British pilots and believed that had they adopted similar tactics the German pilots would not have been so keen on pressing on deep over Britain.
It was quite chilling listening to him, and I think this was an attitude common to many of the Polish and Czech pilots.
On the other hand the fact that British and Canadian fighter pilots generally didn't attack downed German aircrew in their parachutes probably resulted in equal restraint on the part of the German fighter pilots when in the later years of the war British, Canadian and American bomber crews were being shot down over Germany and occupied France., although in the final months of the strategic bombing of Germany many shot down Allied aircrew were lynched by civilians.
> I have to disagree with you, only on the foreign airmen point. I read a lot of books about the Battle of Britain and WWII in general when at school, from the late 60s onwards and was aware of Polish and Czech pilots and their ferocious reputations in combat- when I was 12 I took Airfix magazine for a while and I remember seeing articles about aircraft markings for Czech and Polish squadrons, not to mention that they featured in the major film Battle of Britain that came out around 1970.
> They were certainly mentioned in Alexander McKee's book on the Battle of Britain that I read in 1968/9 which also mentioned killing of Luftwaffe crewmen on the ground by farm workers with pitchforks, including a lucky escape for a Pole who was mistaken for a German. But then I have a long memory
As a lad in the 1950s my dad was a serving RAF officer who had flown in Bomber Command during the War. I remember one of his friends, who often came to stay, a Polish officer who had flown as a pilot during the Battle of Britain. He was a lovely easy going guy, great with us kids, who spoke English with an appalling accent. He was full of fun and loved partying. He was very popular with everyone. However when the subject of Germans it quickly became obvious that he hated them with a really deep seated hatred even some 10 to 15 years after the Battle Of Britain. I remember him saying that "these bastards had attack his country and over run it" and were then intent on doing the same to Britain. He had a reputation of not showing any mercy to Luftwaffe aircrew who had bailed out, and would shoot them in their parachutes. He said war isn't a game of cricket. It's a merciless struggle for survival. When he attacked a German bomber he admitted it was with the intent of killing the aircrew whether they were in it or out of it, because they had come over uninvited intent on killing the people in our cities. He used to say that he had no sympathy for the more chivalrous attitude of the British pilots and believed that had they adopted similar tactics the German pilots would not have been so keen on pressing on deep over Britain.
It was quite chilling listening to him, and I think this was an attitude common to many of the Polish and Czech pilots.
On the other hand the fact that British and Canadian fighter pilots generally didn't attack downed German aircrew in their parachutes probably resulted in equal restraint on the part of the German fighter pilots when in the later years of the war British, Canadian and American bomber crews were being shot down over Germany and occupied France., although in the final months of the strategic bombing of Germany many shot down Allied aircrew were lynched by civilians.
5
In reply to TobyA:
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make either. All those countries you are making apologies for spent WWII trying not to upset the Nazis.... THE NAZIS ffs.
Going back to Nufkin's original point - to paraphrase 'why does Britain keep banging on about the war when every one else just wants to forget about it'.
Maybe it's because we stood alone in Europe against the greatest evil seen for a good many generations. Maybe it's good we keep banging on about it to remind ourselves and our neighbours that when a nation starts herding innocent men ,women and children into gas chambers, the appropriate response is not appeasement, neutrality or good trading relations.
The appropriate response is to fight ,whatever the cost.
> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this analogy.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make either. All those countries you are making apologies for spent WWII trying not to upset the Nazis.... THE NAZIS ffs.
Going back to Nufkin's original point - to paraphrase 'why does Britain keep banging on about the war when every one else just wants to forget about it'.
Maybe it's because we stood alone in Europe against the greatest evil seen for a good many generations. Maybe it's good we keep banging on about it to remind ourselves and our neighbours that when a nation starts herding innocent men ,women and children into gas chambers, the appropriate response is not appeasement, neutrality or good trading relations.
The appropriate response is to fight ,whatever the cost.
7
In reply to Stichtplate:
have you ever lived in France ?
> Going back to Nufkin's original point - to paraphrase 'why does Britain keep banging on about the war when every one else just wants to forget about it'.
have you ever lived in France ?
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
"Everyone else"?
Where did you get that from!?
> Going back to Nufkin's original point - to paraphrase 'why does Britain keep banging on about the war when every one else just wants to forget about it'.
"Everyone else"?
Where did you get that from!?
1
In reply to Trangia:
Nufkin 18:05 Monday. As I said , paraphrase. Apologies to Nufkin if I've misunderstood your intent.
> "Everyone else"?
> Where did you get that from!?
Nufkin 18:05 Monday. As I said , paraphrase. Apologies to Nufkin if I've misunderstood your intent.
1
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
My dad was billeted with a family in Eindhoven.
He saw a family subsisting on nothing but turnips.
When his canteen had finished serving whatever meat they had, he would scrape the dripping up in a piece of newspaper and take it back to his hosts. They treated him like the Messiah.
My dad was billeted with a family in Eindhoven.
He saw a family subsisting on nothing but turnips.
When his canteen had finished serving whatever meat they had, he would scrape the dripping up in a piece of newspaper and take it back to his hosts. They treated him like the Messiah.
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
Very much agree with your sentiment. To remember is very important, if others chose not to because their overarching action/choice of side is now an embarrassment to them then that's their choice.
The absolute evil to guard against is bitterness. I try my very best to remember and not to be bitter.
I visited Italy last week, the very first time I have actually stayed in that beautiful Country. I toured some lovely places, Lukka, Pisa etc and marvelled at their medieval buildings.
In a quiet moment I pondered the devastated post war remains of the places near where I live. Exeter, pretty much destroyed, Plymouth likewise.
I had to stop myself from going down the road of feeling bitter that our then enemies cities survived while ours (mine) didn't. Instead I decided just to feel a bit sad, for them and for me.
PS yes I am fully aware that the allies bombed Pisa and caused damage.
Very much agree with your sentiment. To remember is very important, if others chose not to because their overarching action/choice of side is now an embarrassment to them then that's their choice.
The absolute evil to guard against is bitterness. I try my very best to remember and not to be bitter.
I visited Italy last week, the very first time I have actually stayed in that beautiful Country. I toured some lovely places, Lukka, Pisa etc and marvelled at their medieval buildings.
In a quiet moment I pondered the devastated post war remains of the places near where I live. Exeter, pretty much destroyed, Plymouth likewise.
I had to stop myself from going down the road of feeling bitter that our then enemies cities survived while ours (mine) didn't. Instead I decided just to feel a bit sad, for them and for me.
PS yes I am fully aware that the allies bombed Pisa and caused damage.
2
In reply to Blue Straggler:
My post obviously does not read that well , but what I am saying that ICiA is a narrative film.
Agreed about Black Hawk Down and have probably seen it 3 times..
My post obviously does not read that well , but what I am saying that ICiA is a narrative film.
> Ice Cold in Alex is absolutely a "narrative" film. What on Earth are you on about?
Agreed about Black Hawk Down and have probably seen it 3 times..
1
In reply to aln:
> In reply to Sean
> Eh, why did you write a long post about a film you haven't seen?
Just to explain that having read widely on the subject, it is important to realise that a film only gives us part of the story, and that from the Director's viewpoint.
2
In reply to Tom Valentine:
My ex Grandfather-in-law (Papy), a truly wonderful man and possibly the hardest bastard I have ever met, was in the resistance (my ex in-laws are French). One xmas I took a haggis and some neeps (swedes) over to treat my French family to the traditional Scottish dinner. It went down very well, but Papy wouldn't touch the neeps and became a little emotional as he remembered living off them during the war.
> My dad was billeted with a family in Eindhoven.
> He saw a family subsisting on nothing but turnips.
> When his canteen had finished serving whatever meat they had, he would scrape the dripping up in a piece of newspaper and take it back to his hosts. They treated him like the Messiah.
My ex Grandfather-in-law (Papy), a truly wonderful man and possibly the hardest bastard I have ever met, was in the resistance (my ex in-laws are French). One xmas I took a haggis and some neeps (swedes) over to treat my French family to the traditional Scottish dinner. It went down very well, but Papy wouldn't touch the neeps and became a little emotional as he remembered living off them during the war.
In reply to Stichtplate:
If you ever go to the Vercors, visit the Musee de la Resistance in Vassieux, then re-evaluate what you just said.
> Maybe it's because we stood alone in Europe against the greatest evil seen for a good many generations.
If you ever go to the Vercors, visit the Musee de la Resistance in Vassieux, then re-evaluate what you just said.
2
2
In reply to Removed UserStuart en Écosse:
Britain stood alone as a nation. You have heard of Vichy haven't you? You are aware that De Gaulle was quite explicit, post war, about the vital necessity of creating a myth of widespread French resistance both to restore national pride and to promote national unity?
Edit: no disrespect to the many genuine members of the French resistance who gave their lives.
> If you ever go to the Vercors, visit the Musee de la Resistance in Vassieux, then re-evaluate what you just said.
Britain stood alone as a nation. You have heard of Vichy haven't you? You are aware that De Gaulle was quite explicit, post war, about the vital necessity of creating a myth of widespread French resistance both to restore national pride and to promote national unity?
Edit: no disrespect to the many genuine members of the French resistance who gave their lives.
Post edited at 22:16
5
2
In reply to Stichtplate:
You could have fooled me.
> Edit: no disrespect to the many genuine members of the French resistance who gave their lives.
You could have fooled me.
1
4
In reply to Stichtplate:
Well, except for the entire British Empire behind us - whether they wanted to or not. Have you been to the Battle of Britain memorial above Dover and seen the squadron names?
Interestingly Finland stood alone against totalitarianism in 39-40. Churchill made a wonderful speech about it in Parliament: "the Lion of the North", a beacon of democracy against a sea of barbarism etc. etc. The Finns really thought the British and the French would follow up the fine words , but we didn't. We left them to take on the Red Army on their own.
> Britain stood alone as a nation.
Well, except for the entire British Empire behind us - whether they wanted to or not. Have you been to the Battle of Britain memorial above Dover and seen the squadron names?
Interestingly Finland stood alone against totalitarianism in 39-40. Churchill made a wonderful speech about it in Parliament: "the Lion of the North", a beacon of democracy against a sea of barbarism etc. etc. The Finns really thought the British and the French would follow up the fine words , but we didn't. We left them to take on the Red Army on their own.
3
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
The neutral countries defended their neutrality. At times with arms and at times by coming to arrangements with both the Axis and the Allies. The idea that Britain went to war because of the Holocaust as you seem to be suggesting is just historically silly, but if you want to 'remember' things that didn't happen, that's your prerogative.
The neutral countries defended their neutrality. At times with arms and at times by coming to arrangements with both the Axis and the Allies. The idea that Britain went to war because of the Holocaust as you seem to be suggesting is just historically silly, but if you want to 'remember' things that didn't happen, that's your prerogative.
4
2
In reply to Trangia:
Saw it on Friday and thought it was brilliant - the 3 story lines worked really well for me and I was totally immersed. I always sit close to the screen on purpose and feel I'm living it there, on the beaches. When the 2 lads were running, carrying the stretcher my arms were aching in sympathy.
As an aside, saw Baby Driver tonight and it was quite hard to drive home sensibly from the cinema.....! Another great film.
> I saw this on Saturday. Anyone else seen it? I thought it was an excellent film, great special effects and fantastic music. It certainly dispels any notion that war is glorious. It depicts war for what it is - brutal, terrifying and confusing.
Saw it on Friday and thought it was brilliant - the 3 story lines worked really well for me and I was totally immersed. I always sit close to the screen on purpose and feel I'm living it there, on the beaches. When the 2 lads were running, carrying the stretcher my arms were aching in sympathy.
As an aside, saw Baby Driver tonight and it was quite hard to drive home sensibly from the cinema.....! Another great film.
Post edited at 01:09
2
In reply to TobyA:
Read my post... our country was alone in Europe. You can quibble all you want, you may find this historical fact unpalatable for whatever bizarre reason but until Russia was attacked and forced to defend herself, Britain was the only country resisting the Nazis in Europe. The bulk of the Commonwealth's forces were otherwise occupied with the Japanese and sizeable formations didn't land in Britain until later in the war.
Have you read any history? In the period 39-40 Britain's hands were rather full without also deciding to take on the entire Red Army.
> Well, except for the entire British Empire behind us - whether they wanted to or not. Have you been to the Battle of Britain memorial above Dover and seen the squadron names?
Read my post... our country was alone in Europe. You can quibble all you want, you may find this historical fact unpalatable for whatever bizarre reason but until Russia was attacked and forced to defend herself, Britain was the only country resisting the Nazis in Europe. The bulk of the Commonwealth's forces were otherwise occupied with the Japanese and sizeable formations didn't land in Britain until later in the war.
> Interestingly Finland stood alone against totalitarianism in 39-40. Churchill made a wonderful speech about it in Parliament: "the Lion of the North", a beacon of democracy against a sea of barbarism etc. etc. The Finns really thought the British and the French would follow up the fine words , but we didn't. We left them to take on the Red Army on their own.
Have you read any history? In the period 39-40 Britain's hands were rather full without also deciding to take on the entire Red Army.
Post edited at 06:49
2
In reply to TobyA:
That's not at all what I suggested in the post . The holocaust was used to illustrate why remaining neutral in the face of outright evil is not an option that any nation should be proud of, and we would all do well to remember that. As you're well aware we'd already discussed earlier how Britain entered the war due to treaty obligations to Poland.
Never ceases to puzzle me why some posters would rather twist and obfuscate on here, rather than have a reasonable discussion and perhaps, just occasionally, concede a point.
> The neutral countries defended their neutrality. At times with arms and at times by coming to arrangements with both the Axis and the Allies. The idea that Britain went to war because of the Holocaust as you seem to be suggesting is just historically silly, but if you want to 'remember' things that didn't happen, that's your prerogative.
That's not at all what I suggested in the post . The holocaust was used to illustrate why remaining neutral in the face of outright evil is not an option that any nation should be proud of, and we would all do well to remember that. As you're well aware we'd already discussed earlier how Britain entered the war due to treaty obligations to Poland.
Never ceases to puzzle me why some posters would rather twist and obfuscate on here, rather than have a reasonable discussion and perhaps, just occasionally, concede a point.
Post edited at 07:02
2
In reply to TobyA:
Sorry but can't see where this was suggested? Maybe the hand wringers want to be ashamed that didn't go to war because of the holocaust?
As someone put it very well above, our behaviour was Classic Brit abroad..." Here you, leave my mate alone or I'll thump you...right you asked for it....blimey you are big aren't you....!"
> The neutral countries defended their neutrality. At times with arms and at times by coming to arrangements with both the Axis and the Allies. The idea that Britain went to war because of the Holocaust as you seem to be suggesting is just historically silly, but if you want to 'remember' things that didn't happen, that's your prerogative.
Sorry but can't see where this was suggested? Maybe the hand wringers want to be ashamed that didn't go to war because of the holocaust?
As someone put it very well above, our behaviour was Classic Brit abroad..." Here you, leave my mate alone or I'll thump you...right you asked for it....blimey you are big aren't you....!"
3
In reply to Sean Kelly:
Thanks for clarification. Have you seen Dunkirk (2017) yet?
I forgot to say earlier (something which also gave rise to my "what on Earth are you on about?" question) - did you mean to write "mocumentary" or "documentary" or "docudrama" or something else?
A "mockumentary" is something like Spinal Tap or Borat - a comedy spoof film made in the style of a documentary. I am sure you can't have been asking whether Dunkirk (2017) was a comedy!
Thanks for clarification. Have you seen Dunkirk (2017) yet?
I forgot to say earlier (something which also gave rise to my "what on Earth are you on about?" question) - did you mean to write "mocumentary" or "documentary" or "docudrama" or something else?
A "mockumentary" is something like Spinal Tap or Borat - a comedy spoof film made in the style of a documentary. I am sure you can't have been asking whether Dunkirk (2017) was a comedy!
In reply to TobyA:
I once heard that there were actually more Southern Irish than Northern Irish in the British Army during WW2.
It would be interesting to know the truth of this
(Can't for the life of me understand why you got dislikes for your post!)
I once heard that there were actually more Southern Irish than Northern Irish in the British Army during WW2.
It would be interesting to know the truth of this
(Can't for the life of me understand why you got dislikes for your post!)
1
In reply to Trangia:
There was a ridiculous statement made on the Today programme during a discussion on the French dissatisfaction with this film; one of the participants said regarding the Dunkirk evacuation that it was the first real battle of WW2.
There was a ridiculous statement made on the Today programme during a discussion on the French dissatisfaction with this film; one of the participants said regarding the Dunkirk evacuation that it was the first real battle of WW2.
In reply to Stichtplate:
If you are going to reinforce your argument with facts, get them straight.
Germany attacked Russia in June 1941, the war with Japan started in December 1941 (as far as Britain & the USA were concerned).
British Empire forces had already been fighting German and Italian forces in the Mediterrainean and Middle East for some time.
> Read my post... our country was alone in Europe. You can quibble all you want, you may find this historical fact unpalatable for whatever bizarre reason but until Russia was attacked and forced to defend herself, Britain was the only country resisting the Nazis in Europe. The bulk of the Commonwealth's forces were otherwise occupied with the Japanese and sizeable formations didn't land in Britain until later in the war.
If you are going to reinforce your argument with facts, get them straight.
Germany attacked Russia in June 1941, the war with Japan started in December 1941 (as far as Britain & the USA were concerned).
British Empire forces had already been fighting German and Italian forces in the Mediterrainean and Middle East for some time.
2
In reply to Hat Dude:
I also thought the woman who called Dunkirk a retreat was not being very sensible of the reality.
The retreat was to Dunkirk and the coast where inevitable encirclement followed by destruction or capture would be the likely result. Those who refer to Dunkirk as a defeat are incorrect as Dunkirk was a recovery operation that transformed the result of the preceding defeat and retreat.
A much loved relative of my father's family, a pre-war regular with a love of horses, was evacuated, sunk and taken from the water after some hours. He subsequently succumbed to what my grandmother called "Bright's disease", a kidney infection I believe. Antibiotics would not have been available at that time in any quantity.
I also thought the woman who called Dunkirk a retreat was not being very sensible of the reality.
The retreat was to Dunkirk and the coast where inevitable encirclement followed by destruction or capture would be the likely result. Those who refer to Dunkirk as a defeat are incorrect as Dunkirk was a recovery operation that transformed the result of the preceding defeat and retreat.
A much loved relative of my father's family, a pre-war regular with a love of horses, was evacuated, sunk and taken from the water after some hours. He subsequently succumbed to what my grandmother called "Bright's disease", a kidney infection I believe. Antibiotics would not have been available at that time in any quantity.
Post edited at 10:56
1
In reply to wercat:
I thought it was disrespectful to ignore what happened in Poland then later in Norway and then what hapened elsewhere during the lead up to and the invasion of France, in particular the defence of Lille by the French which was a huge factor in allowing Operation Dynamo to succeeed.
> I also thought the woman who called Dunkirk a retreat was not being very sensible of the reality.
I thought it was disrespectful to ignore what happened in Poland then later in Norway and then what hapened elsewhere during the lead up to and the invasion of France, in particular the defence of Lille by the French which was a huge factor in allowing Operation Dynamo to succeeed.
In reply to Stichtplate:
Yes, the bulk were, but that wasn't my point - there were important Empire contribution to the Battle of Britain (along with free forces who had escaped from occupied Europe). There were even Indian Army elements in the BEF that fought at Dunkirk.
Again, the specifics are rather important here and they don't fit your summing up. The Winter War had ended a couple of months before the Phoney War did; Finland had lost a third of its territory to the USSR before the BEF in France had begun to fight. Allied High Command (Feb 1940) actually planned for 100,000 British troops and 35,000 French troops to enter the war on Finland's side in Lapland. The British army went as far as trying to identify soldiers with skiing experience. The plan broke down because the Norwegian and Swedish governments refused transit because they were seeking to protect their neutrality, not because France and Britain didn't have the resources. As it became clear in February '40 that Finland needed to sue for peace, UK made further offers to send tens of thousands of troops if they continued fighting.
> The bulk of the Commonwealth's forces were otherwise occupied with the Japanese and sizeable formations didn't land in Britain until later in the war.
Yes, the bulk were, but that wasn't my point - there were important Empire contribution to the Battle of Britain (along with free forces who had escaped from occupied Europe). There were even Indian Army elements in the BEF that fought at Dunkirk.
> Have you read any history? In the period 39-40 Britain's hands were rather full without also deciding to take on the entire Red Army.
Again, the specifics are rather important here and they don't fit your summing up. The Winter War had ended a couple of months before the Phoney War did; Finland had lost a third of its territory to the USSR before the BEF in France had begun to fight. Allied High Command (Feb 1940) actually planned for 100,000 British troops and 35,000 French troops to enter the war on Finland's side in Lapland. The British army went as far as trying to identify soldiers with skiing experience. The plan broke down because the Norwegian and Swedish governments refused transit because they were seeking to protect their neutrality, not because France and Britain didn't have the resources. As it became clear in February '40 that Finland needed to sue for peace, UK made further offers to send tens of thousands of troops if they continued fighting.
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
39/40 our hands actually weren't that full. We were reaching the tail end of the Phoney War, and Churchill had yet to become Prime Minister.
However, Finland was a very difficult call for the British. we were desperate to cut off Germany's iron ore supply from Sweden (hence Churchill's obsession with Narvik opposed by Halifax and Chamberlain) and buffer Scandinavia. That's why we engaged in the almost farcical Norwegian campaign, with the French.
It was a wake up call that we could not over commit (here you have a point).
It also brought down Chamberlain and opened the way for Churchill, which brought about a more aggressive War Cabinet.
So, I don't think we abandoned the Finns, we just knew that we could not commit troops and resources to northern Scandanavia, in winter. Our army had little or no winter training or equipment.
We also wanted to know which way the Russians would jump, as it was far from clear cut as to whether they would compromise with Germany, leaving us to bear the full force.
39/40 our hands actually weren't that full. We were reaching the tail end of the Phoney War, and Churchill had yet to become Prime Minister.
However, Finland was a very difficult call for the British. we were desperate to cut off Germany's iron ore supply from Sweden (hence Churchill's obsession with Narvik opposed by Halifax and Chamberlain) and buffer Scandinavia. That's why we engaged in the almost farcical Norwegian campaign, with the French.
It was a wake up call that we could not over commit (here you have a point).
It also brought down Chamberlain and opened the way for Churchill, which brought about a more aggressive War Cabinet.
So, I don't think we abandoned the Finns, we just knew that we could not commit troops and resources to northern Scandanavia, in winter. Our army had little or no winter training or equipment.
We also wanted to know which way the Russians would jump, as it was far from clear cut as to whether they would compromise with Germany, leaving us to bear the full force.
Post edited at 11:37
3
In reply to TobyA:
I do wonder about just how committed Britain was to Finland.
We had already violated Norway's neutrality with the Altmark incident, and Germany was showing clear intent on invading. I think Norway was the primary objective.
To open up a front in Finland would require huge effort and materiel, the supply lines for which would have been a nightmare to provide and protect.
I do wonder about just how committed Britain was to Finland.
We had already violated Norway's neutrality with the Altmark incident, and Germany was showing clear intent on invading. I think Norway was the primary objective.
To open up a front in Finland would require huge effort and materiel, the supply lines for which would have been a nightmare to provide and protect.
2
In reply to Wainers44:
Wainers - this discussion actually started around the film and how WWII is remembered, yep? It has taken lots of very interesting diversions, but that was where we started from and its something I'm really interested in. My PhD thesis was about Finnish post-Cold War security policy, and what I found in my research was how much Finland's WWII experience conditioned Finland's response from '89 onwards, in many ways far more so than its Cold War experience. But 'lessons learnt' from history massively rely on what we say is history: what we remember and what we forget.
So for the UK, WWII was in many ways a "finest hour", Nazism was for the want of better a word "evil" and I reckon there is no doubt that the world is better for its defeat. That's a the good story that us as the Brits remember (although talk to people from countries that were occupied by the USSR in 45 and they often have very different views!).
Now Stichtplate said:
That fits the narrative as outlined above, it fits with the stories we tell about ourselves, but it's not actually true, in that the Holocaust had nothing to do with why war started. Of course the Einsatzgruppen didn't even start massacring Jews by shooting until Barbarossa - a year and a half after Britain declared war on Germany and I'm sure you know all the arguments about if the Allies could have done more to slow down the Final Solution once they became aware of it later in the war. Also, pre-war Britain and the US had done their own 'appeasing' of the Nazis because it suited what was seen as the national interest then, just like the neutral countries did that Stichtplate want to criticise for their moral failings in not choosing to fight Germany.
Anyways, I thought the film was superb and if it gets people looking up some history as a result, all the better. I went and found my copy of Sebag-Montefiore's Dunkirk: Fight to the Last Man after the film and re-read some bits, then gave it to my son. I'm not sure if he will read the whole thing, it is a mighty tome though very readable, but he wouldn't have even asked about it if it hadn't been for the film.
Wainers - this discussion actually started around the film and how WWII is remembered, yep? It has taken lots of very interesting diversions, but that was where we started from and its something I'm really interested in. My PhD thesis was about Finnish post-Cold War security policy, and what I found in my research was how much Finland's WWII experience conditioned Finland's response from '89 onwards, in many ways far more so than its Cold War experience. But 'lessons learnt' from history massively rely on what we say is history: what we remember and what we forget.
So for the UK, WWII was in many ways a "finest hour", Nazism was for the want of better a word "evil" and I reckon there is no doubt that the world is better for its defeat. That's a the good story that us as the Brits remember (although talk to people from countries that were occupied by the USSR in 45 and they often have very different views!).
Now Stichtplate said:
> Maybe it's good we keep banging on about it to remind ourselves and our neighbours that when a nation starts herding innocent men ,women and children into gas chambers, the appropriate response is not appeasement, neutrality or good trading relations. The appropriate response is to fight ,whatever the cost.
That fits the narrative as outlined above, it fits with the stories we tell about ourselves, but it's not actually true, in that the Holocaust had nothing to do with why war started. Of course the Einsatzgruppen didn't even start massacring Jews by shooting until Barbarossa - a year and a half after Britain declared war on Germany and I'm sure you know all the arguments about if the Allies could have done more to slow down the Final Solution once they became aware of it later in the war. Also, pre-war Britain and the US had done their own 'appeasing' of the Nazis because it suited what was seen as the national interest then, just like the neutral countries did that Stichtplate want to criticise for their moral failings in not choosing to fight Germany.
Anyways, I thought the film was superb and if it gets people looking up some history as a result, all the better. I went and found my copy of Sebag-Montefiore's Dunkirk: Fight to the Last Man after the film and re-read some bits, then gave it to my son. I'm not sure if he will read the whole thing, it is a mighty tome though very readable, but he wouldn't have even asked about it if it hadn't been for the film.
4
1
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
Yes, from what I remember there was an element of farce to the whole episode, but like you say, the Finns have always seen it as primarily aimed at cutting off German access to the iron ore from Kiruna rather than assisting them. Nevertheless the planning was done and the offers made through diplomatic channels.
The Germans subsequently showed that it was possible to maintain an army of 200,000 in Lapland!
Yes, from what I remember there was an element of farce to the whole episode, but like you say, the Finns have always seen it as primarily aimed at cutting off German access to the iron ore from Kiruna rather than assisting them. Nevertheless the planning was done and the offers made through diplomatic channels.
The Germans subsequently showed that it was possible to maintain an army of 200,000 in Lapland!
In reply to TobyA:
I agree with you view on the Holocaust. It did not open on an industrial scale until well after war had started - 42 into 43 (Wanasee was 42 I think), and prior to that it was indeed left to Einstazgruppen and various unpleasant Hungarian and Ukranian paramilitaries.
I often feel uncomfortable when "appeasement" is brought up. there was quite a split in the 1930's governments in how Germany should be treated and how and if we should be scaling up for war. What is often overlooked is that the electorate overwhelmingly wanted peace. we were still bringing the dead back from Flanders in the 30's and the Great War was still fresh in the country's psyche.
I agree with you view on the Holocaust. It did not open on an industrial scale until well after war had started - 42 into 43 (Wanasee was 42 I think), and prior to that it was indeed left to Einstazgruppen and various unpleasant Hungarian and Ukranian paramilitaries.
I often feel uncomfortable when "appeasement" is brought up. there was quite a split in the 1930's governments in how Germany should be treated and how and if we should be scaling up for war. What is often overlooked is that the electorate overwhelmingly wanted peace. we were still bringing the dead back from Flanders in the 30's and the Great War was still fresh in the country's psyche.
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
Yes, absolutely. "The national interest" is a hugely contested concept now within academic International Relations and Security Studies, because its always fair to ask who decides what is the national interest? So there were different sectional interests with the UK (and US) and about how to treat Germany, and whether to prepare for war. I'm sure the neutral countries (at least the democracies) went through exactly the same kind of political process and turmoil in planning how they would respond to the coming war.
Yes, absolutely. "The national interest" is a hugely contested concept now within academic International Relations and Security Studies, because its always fair to ask who decides what is the national interest? So there were different sectional interests with the UK (and US) and about how to treat Germany, and whether to prepare for war. I'm sure the neutral countries (at least the democracies) went through exactly the same kind of political process and turmoil in planning how they would respond to the coming war.
In reply to TobyA:
Which I didn't say and which has already been gone over at least twice in the above posts. Your PhD must have been a real treat if you were half as selective in your treatment of source material.
> Now Stichtplate said:
> That fits the narrative as outlined above, it fits with the stories we tell about ourselves, but it's not actually true, in that the Holocaust had nothing to do with why war started.
Which I didn't say and which has already been gone over at least twice in the above posts. Your PhD must have been a real treat if you were half as selective in your treatment of source material.
2
In reply to TobyA:
National interest is tricky at the time to assess (Brexit anyone?????). Looking backwards, with judgement totally tainted by known outcomes and with a wider view than was available at the time, that National Interest definition gets even more subjective.
Not true for you I am sure, but for some the greater the knowledge the better the degree in hindsight becomes.
National interest is tricky at the time to assess (Brexit anyone?????). Looking backwards, with judgement totally tainted by known outcomes and with a wider view than was available at the time, that National Interest definition gets even more subjective.
Not true for you I am sure, but for some the greater the knowledge the better the degree in hindsight becomes.
4
In reply to Stichtplate:
What does
mean then? That when the evidence of the death camps became widely known then Portugal or Sweden should have entered the war? That neutrality is always inherently wrong? I'm genuinely confused as to what your point is.
What does
> Maybe it's good we keep banging on about it to remind ourselves and our neighbours that when a nation starts herding innocent men ,women and children into gas chambers, the appropriate response is not appeasement, neutrality or good trading relations. The appropriate response is to fight ,whatever the cost.
mean then? That when the evidence of the death camps became widely known then Portugal or Sweden should have entered the war? That neutrality is always inherently wrong? I'm genuinely confused as to what your point is.
Post edited at 13:38
4
1
In reply to Wainers44:
Absolutely! I think that perfectly sums up how we get commonly accepted national historical narratives too that unsurprisingly reflect positively on whoever 'we' are also.
> Looking backwards, with judgement totally tainted by known outcomes and with a wider view than was available at the time, that National Interest definition gets even more subjective.
Absolutely! I think that perfectly sums up how we get commonly accepted national historical narratives too that unsurprisingly reflect positively on whoever 'we' are also.
In reply to Trangia:
Really looking forward to seeing this, and would be even if Tom Hardy wasn't in it!
Really looking forward to seeing this, and would be even if Tom Hardy wasn't in it!
2
In reply to TobyA:
And with that sad testament to your moral character, I abandon the debate.
> What does
> mean then? That when the evidence of the death camps became widely known then Portugal or Sweden should have entered the war? That neutrality is always inherently wrong? I'm genuinely confused as to what your point is.
And with that sad testament to your moral character, I abandon the debate.
10
In reply to Stichtplate:
Forgive me father for my moral failings, but before you leave could you not just please explain what you meant in the bit I quoted about the gas chambers in your post yesterday evening?
> And with that sad testament to your moral character, I abandon the debate.
Forgive me father for my moral failings, but before you leave could you not just please explain what you meant in the bit I quoted about the gas chambers in your post yesterday evening?
Post edited at 14:39
3
1
In reply to TobyA:
Quite clear in the original post , gone over again in my reply to you at 6:54 this morning, really can't be arsed going through it a third time.
> Forgive me father for my moral failings, but before you leave could you not just please explain what you meant in the bit I quoted about the gas chambers in your post yesterday evening?
Quite clear in the original post , gone over again in my reply to you at 6:54 this morning, really can't be arsed going through it a third time.
Post edited at 15:03
7
In reply to Stichtplate:
So the morally correct thing for Switzerland or Sweden to have done in your view was to have entered the war on the side of the allies? Well fair enough, I think they would have just said at the time they were trying their best to protect their national existence as best they could.
My original point to Nufkin was that no other country in Europe forgets what happened in WWII - they just remember selectively, exactly as the UK does.
So the morally correct thing for Switzerland or Sweden to have done in your view was to have entered the war on the side of the allies? Well fair enough, I think they would have just said at the time they were trying their best to protect their national existence as best they could.
My original point to Nufkin was that no other country in Europe forgets what happened in WWII - they just remember selectively, exactly as the UK does.
Post edited at 15:21
6
1
In reply to TobyA:
Apologies if I caused arguements - seems I was a bit casual (ie wrong) in my assertion that other countries don't seem to harken back to the second world war as much as Britain. I've never actually lived elsewhere so don't have any in-depth experience, however the majority of non-British people I know don't seem to have the same tendency to refer to the war as much as British people do. They tend to be relatively young, though, which presumably has a bearing on things.
Indeed, I suppose for anyone born after the mid/late nineties. 'the war' might not have the same connotation as it does for older people.
I think my point generally, and perhaps a bit naively, was that the second world war will relatively soon be beyond living memory, and maybe should be less of a factor in how we treat each other
> My original point to Nufkin was that no other country in Europe forgets what happened in WWII - they just remember selectively, exactly as the UK does.
Apologies if I caused arguements - seems I was a bit casual (ie wrong) in my assertion that other countries don't seem to harken back to the second world war as much as Britain. I've never actually lived elsewhere so don't have any in-depth experience, however the majority of non-British people I know don't seem to have the same tendency to refer to the war as much as British people do. They tend to be relatively young, though, which presumably has a bearing on things.
Indeed, I suppose for anyone born after the mid/late nineties. 'the war' might not have the same connotation as it does for older people.
I think my point generally, and perhaps a bit naively, was that the second world war will relatively soon be beyond living memory, and maybe should be less of a factor in how we treat each other
3
In reply to nufkin:
I think a lot of people come on here specifically for a good argument on occasion (sheepishly holds up hand). Only get slightly riled if people are being deliberately obtuse (apologies Toby , if you genuinely are obtuse ).
> Apologies if I caused arguements -
I think a lot of people come on here specifically for a good argument on occasion (sheepishly holds up hand). Only get slightly riled if people are being deliberately obtuse (apologies Toby , if you genuinely are obtuse ).
Post edited at 18:15
1
2
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Yes. This obviously was a rhetorical question.
To answer the question ...have I seen the film yet? Actually no, and with good reason. The sound levels at my local cinema are mind numbingly loud.
> I forgot to say earlier (something which also gave rise to my "what on Earth are you on about?" question) - did you mean to write "mocumentary" or "documentary" or "docudrama" or something else?
Yes. This obviously was a rhetorical question.
To answer the question ...have I seen the film yet? Actually no, and with good reason. The sound levels at my local cinema are mind numbingly loud.
Post edited at 22:26
In reply to nufkin:
'God of our fathers, known of old,
Lord of our far-flung battle line,
Beneath whose awful hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!'
> I think my point generally, and perhaps a bit naively, was that the second world war will relatively soon be beyond living memory, and maybe should be less of a factor in how we treat each other
'God of our fathers, known of old,
Lord of our far-flung battle line,
Beneath whose awful hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!'
1
In reply to Trangia:
That was not collaboration with Germany, that was Germany attempting to collaborate with the IRA in order to soften Britain. The Irish government were extremely aggressive towards the IRA during the war, known IRA members were rounded up and interned in the Curragh. Irish buildings were bombed by the IRA and IRA men were executed for killing Irish police.
Even though the only open threat of Invasion during the war was made by Churchill the Irish intelligence services routinely shared information with Britain on U boat and aircraft movements. It was also policy that when British airmen landed on Irish soil they were aided across the border while Germans were also interred. Ireland accepted evacuees from the Blitz and kept Irish waters open to British shipping when closing it to German.
> Eire's neutrality was a little murky in that German small arms shipments were sent to support the IRA in the hope that they would encourage an uprising in Ulster , although this seems to have been low key, and poorly thought through.
That was not collaboration with Germany, that was Germany attempting to collaborate with the IRA in order to soften Britain. The Irish government were extremely aggressive towards the IRA during the war, known IRA members were rounded up and interned in the Curragh. Irish buildings were bombed by the IRA and IRA men were executed for killing Irish police.
Even though the only open threat of Invasion during the war was made by Churchill the Irish intelligence services routinely shared information with Britain on U boat and aircraft movements. It was also policy that when British airmen landed on Irish soil they were aided across the border while Germans were also interred. Ireland accepted evacuees from the Blitz and kept Irish waters open to British shipping when closing it to German.
Post edited at 13:40
5
In reply to sensibleken:
I remember reading about the Nazi attempts to use the IRA, probably in the Tim Pat Coogan book that I read donkeys years ago - from memory they weren't particularly successful were they?
Was the Irish government crackdown on the IRA just a legacy of the civil war or was it for different reasons?
> That was not collaboration with Germany, that was Germany attempting to collaborate with the IRA in order to soften Britain. The Irish government were extremely aggressive towards the IRA during the war, known IRA members were rounded up and interned in the Curragh. Irish buildings were bombed by the IRA and IRA men were executed for killing Irish police.
I remember reading about the Nazi attempts to use the IRA, probably in the Tim Pat Coogan book that I read donkeys years ago - from memory they weren't particularly successful were they?
Was the Irish government crackdown on the IRA just a legacy of the civil war or was it for different reasons?
In reply to TobyA:
No it wouldn't be too much a legacy of the civil war. It was more a legacy of the Blueshirts threat and very real threat of the IRA dragging Ireland into the war.
It is well documented that Churchill bitterly resented Ireland's neutrality and refusal to allow Britain to use the treaty ports. It was believed that Churchill may have been looking for an excuse to re-invade Ireland, something which he spoke about in his VE speech quite openly. The Irish armed forces grew exponentially in manpower at this time although actual hardware was very scarce.
At the outbreak of the war the IRA stole one million rounds of ammunition and a huge number of arms from the magazine fort in the Phoenix part, effectively crippling the Irish forces and arming the IRA to the teeth. Although most of it was recovered in the coming days it illustrated just how much of a threat the IRA were to the Irish state. It was then that they rushed through the emergency powers act to inter known IRA men.
No it wouldn't be too much a legacy of the civil war. It was more a legacy of the Blueshirts threat and very real threat of the IRA dragging Ireland into the war.
It is well documented that Churchill bitterly resented Ireland's neutrality and refusal to allow Britain to use the treaty ports. It was believed that Churchill may have been looking for an excuse to re-invade Ireland, something which he spoke about in his VE speech quite openly. The Irish armed forces grew exponentially in manpower at this time although actual hardware was very scarce.
At the outbreak of the war the IRA stole one million rounds of ammunition and a huge number of arms from the magazine fort in the Phoenix part, effectively crippling the Irish forces and arming the IRA to the teeth. Although most of it was recovered in the coming days it illustrated just how much of a threat the IRA were to the Irish state. It was then that they rushed through the emergency powers act to inter known IRA men.
1
In reply to sensibleken:
Thanks for the heads up. I suppose Churchill had a real fear of the Germans invading the UK by first invading Ireland and using it as a springboard?
Thanks for the heads up. I suppose Churchill had a real fear of the Germans invading the UK by first invading Ireland and using it as a springboard?
1
1
In reply to Trangia:
Yes it would be an obvious route. But Churchill's involvement was much more personal than that. A large reason for Ireland's neutrality was Churchill's history in Ireland. He was the man behind the Black and Tan's during the war on Independence and their policy of attacking civilians. He was also involved in the Anglo-Irish treaty negotiations and was quite bitter at Ireland's independence.
Yes it would be an obvious route. But Churchill's involvement was much more personal than that. A large reason for Ireland's neutrality was Churchill's history in Ireland. He was the man behind the Black and Tan's during the war on Independence and their policy of attacking civilians. He was also involved in the Anglo-Irish treaty negotiations and was quite bitter at Ireland's independence.
2
In reply to Trangia:
There are remnants of defences in North Wales of stuff that was built to counter that. Old machine gun placements by oggie t shack, there were also plans to blow up the coast road tunnel.
> Thanks for the heads up. I suppose Churchill had a real fear of the Germans invading the UK by first invading Ireland and using it as a springboard?
There are remnants of defences in North Wales of stuff that was built to counter that. Old machine gun placements by oggie t shack, there were also plans to blow up the coast road tunnel.
In reply to summo:
Yes, there are two pill boxes close to the Llanberis road junction at Pen y Gwryd.
Yes, there are two pill boxes close to the Llanberis road junction at Pen y Gwryd.
In reply to summo:
We used to holiday on the north wales beaches when they still had some of the wooden beach defences in place.
Brilliant adventures for a young boy with a good imagination.
We used to holiday on the north wales beaches when they still had some of the wooden beach defences in place.
Brilliant adventures for a young boy with a good imagination.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...