"Dunkirk" movie: What was Right, What was Wrong

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
I think it's generally acknowledged now that one of the great bits of good fortune we Brits had in WWII was to have Adolf Hilter in charge of the German war machine!

Had he not given the order to stop the army's advance on Dunkirk, so that Goering could show off what his Luftwaffe could do (or not do as it transpired), then Dunkirk could have been a true disaster. Certainly my old man's view was that had they kept going, and crossed The Channel, we were so unprepared, we would have folded.


Stalin was also a pretty bad commander too. Later in the war he gave more control to his generals and Hitler took more control over the military. Just goes to show you the skills that make you a political leader doesn't mean you end up a good military commander. I think Lyndon Johnson gets the same criticism for the Vietnam war.

Also I believe it wasn't Hitler that gave the command to halt, it was the generals that requested a halt. Tanks back then weren't used to the breakneck speed and they were hard charging for a while, they needed a break. I think they normally lost about 10% of their tanks from mechanical failure every 200 miles. It would have been higher under war conditions. I believe they also said the terrain they were going into wasn't suitable for tanks. Hitler just approved the halt and Goring said his planes could take care of them. I guess Hitler shouldn't have believed him when he later said the same thing when trying to resupply the 6th Army at Stalingrad.
 
Hitler halted his troops as a gesture of goodwill to get a peace treaty. The tanks weren't broken down, the German army was not wore out and the Luftwaffe did not hit the British hard at all, all under Hitler's orders. Also Hitler did not bomb Britian population until the British decided to bomb German cities.
Up to that point all German bombers had military and strategic targets.
Read about Rudolph Hess and Churchill's treatment of him for a real travesty.
 
As others have suggested, Hitler was relatively easy on the UK when France was invaded. I think he thought the UK would be his ally vs the Soviet Union. IIRC, he said something similar in Mein Kampf.

I do suspect the German Army had outrun it's logistics tail. While much of the spearhead was armored and motorized, the tail that followed often included horse drawn carts.

It's hard for the beans, bullets and petrol to keep up when they are on a horse drawn wagon.
 
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
Hitler halted his troops as a gesture of goodwill to get a peace treaty. The tanks weren't broken down, the German army was not wore out and the Luftwaffe did not hit the British hard at all, all under Hitler's orders. Also Hitler did not bomb Britian population until the British decided to bomb German cities.
Up to that point all German bombers had military and strategic targets.
Read about Rudolph Hess and Churchill's treatment of him for a real travesty.


According to this wiki, the halt order wasn't to let the British off easy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dunkirk#Halt_order

Also a paragraph says:

"In one of the most widely debated decisions of the war, the Germans halted their advance on Dunkirk. Contrary to popular belief, what became known as the "Halt Order" did not originate with Adolf Hitler. Field Marshals Gerd von Rundstedt and Günther von Kluge suggested that the German forces around the Dunkirk pocket should cease their advance on the port and consolidate, to avoid an Allied breakout. Hitler sanctioned the order on 24 May with the support of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW). The army was to halt for three days, which gave the Allies sufficient time to organise the Dunkirk evacuation and build a defensive line. Despite the Allies' gloomy estimates of the situation, with Britain even discussing a conditional surrender to Germany, in the end more than 330,000 Allied troops were rescued"

As for the Luftwaffe, there was only 2.5 days of good flying weather during the 11 day operation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dunkirk#Retreat_to_Dunkirk
 
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
The world would have been much different is the British would have joined Germany and eliminated the Russians.


Different as in quite a lot more unpleasant. But anyway, those Russians were no pushover, and I doubt an extra wee shove from us would have made much difference.
 
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
The world would have been much different is the British would have joined Germany and eliminated the Russians.


Different as in quite a lot more unpleasant. But anyway, those Russians were no pushover, and I doubt an extra wee shove from us would have made much difference.


Well I believe Hitler said "You only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down."
 
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
The world would have been much different is the British would have joined Germany and eliminated the Russians.


Different as in quite a lot more unpleasant. But anyway, those Russians were no pushover, and I doubt an extra wee shove from us would have made much difference.

Don't sell yourself short. The Russians were being generously supplied by British with tanks and other goodies along with the Americans supplying the Russians which would not have happened if the British were allied with the Germans. The Russians main tactic was to run the Germans out of ammo by using thier soldiers as bullet sponges.
 
The Soviets had two big advantages.

1. Lots of real estate.
2. Hitler couldn't stay focused and wouldn't listen to his generals.

I believe, had Hitler focused on going to Moscow, things may have been different. But he got distracted by other conquests and split his forces.

Moscow was relatively close to ground he already controlled. But by attacking in a broad front (Three Army Groups if I recall) it took too long to get to Moscow. I think the German army just got inside 100 miles, maybe 150km at best from Moscow.

Since much of the Soviet response was centrally coordinated, taking Moscow would have been key to success.

But even that wouldn't negate the Russian winter and the sheer scale of the ground to control and clear.
 
I still feel that Hitler's biggest mistake was declaring war on the United States.

Not even in science fiction was there any reasonable means of executing a victory over the US. That's when it really became a "war on two fronts".

Regardless, Britain joining the war with Germany would have left the US without such a perfect launchpad for bombing the daylights out of Germany.
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
The Soviets had two big advantages.

1. Lots of real estate.
2. Hitler couldn't stay focused and wouldn't listen to his generals.

I believe, had Hitler focused on going to Moscow, things may have been different. But he got distracted by other conquests and split his forces.

Moscow was relatively close to ground he already controlled. But by attacking in a broad front (Three Army Groups if I recall) it took too long to get to Moscow. I think the German army just got inside 100 miles, maybe 150km at best from Moscow.

Since much of the Soviet response was centrally coordinated, taking Moscow would have been key to success.

But even that wouldn't negate the Russian winter and the sheer scale of the ground to control and clear.




Russia had a larger population and could form armies as quickly as Germany could destroy them.

Lacking focus was Hitler's downfall, either he could have destroyed Russia's army in the field or taken Moscow, he tried to do both. Had he focused on one or the other he would have gotten it. Advance scouts were within about 18 miles from Moscow at one point. They also outran their supplies and by waiting, Russia was able to shore up its defenses. The Russian winter wouldn't have been that big of a concern had the war started 2 months earlier as originally planned, but the invasion of Greece delayed the attack.

Hitler's declaration of war on the US was somewhat of a gamble. He had hoped that would make the Japanese attack Russia and give him some relief on the Russian front because Russia would be up against a two front war. But the Japanese didn't do it. He gave a long 88 minute speech and laid out his reasoning for it.
 
Originally Posted By: Toy4x4
My grandfather on Mom's side was rescued from Dunkirk. I was sifting through a box of Mom's old tools and found his knife. It has 1943, W&SB, Sheffield stamped on it.


I had a fewof those aswell... even in new condition but lacking the strap.
 
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies

Hey, movies lie all the time, so couldn't Nolan have inserted a little into the movie, you know, with 'artistic license' and 'marketability' as the excuses?
wink.gif



Like U-571 ?
 
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
The world would have been much different is the British would have joined Germany and eliminated the Russians.


Different as in quite a lot more unpleasant. But anyway, those Russians were no pushover, and I doubt an extra wee shove from us would have made much difference.

Don't sell yourself short. The Russians were being generously supplied by British with tanks and other goodies along with the Americans supplying the Russians which would not have happened if the British were allied with the Germans. The Russians main tactic was to run the Germans out of ammo by using thier soldiers as bullet sponges.


Our tanks were mostly pretty useless. US-supplied Shermans were at least usable, but I think the most significant contribution was lots and lots of US trucks.
 
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies


It would have been nice to see some Americans in combat against German positions in the movie. Hey, movies lie all the time, so couldn't Nolan have inserted a little into the movie, you know, with 'artistic license' and 'marketability' as the excuses?
wink.gif



There was a (late 70"s?) series on UK TV in which an outfit similar to the SAS / LRDG operating jeeps in the Western Desert against Rommel was portrayed as American.

Got taken off air by trade union action after a very short run.

Our finest hour.
 
There you go

p183960_b_v8_ae.jpg


Must have been late 60's cos I saw it on arriving home from school. IIRC it was even worse than it looks.
 
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: javacontour
The Soviets had two big advantages.

1. Lots of real estate.
2. Hitler couldn't stay focused and wouldn't listen to his generals.

I believe, had Hitler focused on going to Moscow, things may have been different. But he got distracted by other conquests and split his forces.

Moscow was relatively close to ground he already controlled. But by attacking in a broad front (Three Army Groups if I recall) it took too long to get to Moscow. I think the German army just got inside 100 miles, maybe 150km at best from Moscow.

Since much of the Soviet response was centrally coordinated, taking Moscow would have been key to success.

But even that wouldn't negate the Russian winter and the sheer scale of the ground to control and clear.




Russia had a larger population and could form armies as quickly as Germany could destroy them.

Lacking focus was Hitler's downfall, either he could have destroyed Russia's army in the field or taken Moscow, he tried to do both. Had he focused on one or the other he would have gotten it. Advance scouts were within about 18 miles from Moscow at one point. They also outran their supplies and by waiting, Russia was able to shore up its defenses. The Russian winter wouldn't have been that big of a concern had the war started 2 months earlier as originally planned, but the invasion of Greece delayed the attack.

Hitler's declaration of war on the US was somewhat of a gamble. He had hoped that would make the Japanese attack Russia and give him some relief on the Russian front because Russia would be up against a two front war. But the Japanese didn't do it. He gave a long 88 minute speech and laid out his reasoning for it.


Like many of Hitler's actions, a bad gamble.

It seems like Japan really had no interest in occupying Russia. Making going to war with them a really unappealing idea.
 
Originally Posted By: Silk
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies

Hey, movies lie all the time, so couldn't Nolan have inserted a little into the movie, you know, with 'artistic license' and 'marketability' as the excuses?
wink.gif

Like U-571 ?

Excellent example of a movie -U-571- that wasn't accurate. I was even a little upset "Argo" got some facts off on purpose, and that's by far not the worst one to fail the Truth!

"Dunkirk" did a fairy accurate job. I would have maybe CGI-ed some more people waiting on the beach to get the numbers right.
 
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
Would you sign a truce with Shickelgruber?


You look at that way, I look at that Churchill got alot of Americans killed because he thought Germany was in the way of rebuilding a new powerful British empire and when all the smoke cleared they were little more than the United States sidekick where Germany was offering them a equal power agreement. [/quote] I think I'd call THAT "revisionist history". The Russians signed a treaty with Schicklegruber...look what it got them.
 
Originally Posted By: Ducked
There you go

p183960_b_v8_ae.jpg


Must have been late 60's cos I saw it on arriving home from school. IIRC it was even worse than it looks.
Non-standard tires. Nice welding job on the Browning mount.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
I think I'd call THAT "revisionist history". The Russians signed a treaty with Schicklegruber...look what it got them.


Hitler hated communists from Mein Kampf. It didn't matter what the Russians did, he was going to go after them eventually. Even the Russians knew it, but thought that it'd be at least another year before he got around to it. Stalin was in denial when Hitler attacked and part of their initial success was due to Stalin not believing the reports and not mobilizing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top