maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:28 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Trolls will feel the wrath of Kam



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: DUNKIRK
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:51 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 8840
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 10226
abradley wrote:
Anthropoid wrote:
How the hell could the German advance through the low countries in 1940 ever be considered "A surprise attack!?" which the BBC states at about 2:48 in that video.

Let me make sure I have the facts of history correct:
1931-1933 Nazi party seizes control
1933 -1934: Hitler gains dictatorial power

I would say that . . . if anyone of any political consequence in either France or GB were paying attention to events in Germany at the time, there should have been very LITTLE if any capacity for "surprise" at this point. An obviously violent, extremist political party had by end of 1934 gained complete control of Germany. A party which spoke of Lebensraum and of vindicating the wrongs committed by the Treaty of Versailles. In my opinion, the fact that the Western powers were caught with their pants down and their dicks waving in the wind some 5 years later AFTER the Germans had: reoccupied the Rhineland, annexed the Sudetenland, annexed Austria, AND invaded and conquered Poland is THE REASON for the disaster on the Western front in spring 1940.

The fact the BBC uses either fallacious or sloppy language like "surprise attack" to refer to the German advance into France in 1940 is all I need to hear to turn it off and disregard anything more they might have to say. Did they interview some old vets? Yes I can see that. Did they martial their cinematic and editorial and narrative skills? Obviously. But a cogent and insightful "How it really was" does not include bullshit like "surprise attack" to characterize the 1940 western "blitzkrieg."
Did the Allies know he was going to attack on 10 May 1940, did the allies know he was going to attack and capture Fort Eben-Emael opening the way for German troops into Belgium.


That scenario (among 20 or 30 permutations) was among the possibilities for which the French and Brits (and the Low Countries and Scandinavia too) SHOULD have been preparing as of 1934, instead of waiting till late 1939/early 1940 and desperately trying to survive. In fact, I would take a step further: IF the goddamned French and Brits had stepped in at the very FIRST obvious breach of the Versailles Treaty and accepted getting their hands dirty in 1935 or 1936 instead of sitting on their hands and hoping for the best, Dunkirk (and much of the other ~65 million dead) might never have happened.

Everything that happened at Dunkirk was the fault of the leadership of France and Great Britain, not the result of a "surprise attack."

That in my opinion is the single most important lesson to take away and to come away without that lesson is a tragedy because history repeats itself.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: DUNKIRK
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:26 am 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:43 am
Posts: 2737
Reputation points: 2562
That is a damn large box you are opening.

From interservcie rivalry and air forces fighting for independence which led to Douhetist armaments programs. To populations desillusioned about war by the Great War and unwilling to fight.

For me it is a tale of the state failing at its quintessential task. British military policy which left the country with a colonial constabulary instead of an army, too little fighters and destroyers. But, hey, useless battleships look good in the newspaper, why bother with armored, sorry armoured, warfare. The French having a huge army and air force that could have kicked Hitler's butt. However, they wanted to re-fight the Great War because apparently France had no retirement arrangements for generals or something. The Germans were little better, apparently Hitler's, his ministers' and the oh so elite general staff's reading comprehension concerning basic statistics was nonexistant. Germany and its allies where demographically and economically in no shape whatsoever to fight a global war. Or why did most German divisions by the end of the war still have a horse drawn train, Hungarian artillery to turn German gunners into infantry and "Osttruppen" on the Atlantic wall? All they did was getting in lucky punches at the beginning because they stumbled over the right army doctrine.

_________________
"The seevens maehn... he wasn't wearing a vac suit!"

I know, but big girls need love too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DUNKIRK
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:26 am 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:43 am
Posts: 2737
Reputation points: 2562
EUBanana wrote:
reinald wrote:
Anyone know a good book on the evacuation? The more big picture, scientific, the better.


This one seems pretty hard core, not read it myself though...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Operat ... ion+dynamo



It is just the admiralty AAR from shortly after the war with a short modern preface. And they want 40 Euros for it. Sent it back.

_________________
"The seevens maehn... he wasn't wearing a vac suit!"

I know, but big girls need love too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DUNKIRK
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 2:39 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 8840
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 10226
reinald wrote:
That is a damn large box you are opening.

From interservcie rivalry and air forces fighting for independence which led to Douhetist armaments programs. To populations desillusioned about war by the Great War and unwilling to fight.

For me it is a tale of the state failing at its quintessential task. British military policy which left the country with a colonial constabulary instead of an army, too little fighters and destroyers. But, hey, useless battleships look good in the newspaper, why bother with armored, sorry armoured, warfare. The French having a huge army and air force that could have kicked Hitler's butt. However, they wanted to re-fight the Great War because apparently France had no retirement arrangements for generals or something. The Germans were little better, apparently Hitler's, his ministers' and the oh so elite general staff's reading comprehension concerning basic statistics was nonexistant. Germany and its allies where demographically and economically in no shape whatsoever to fight a global war. Or why did most German divisions by the end of the war still have a horse drawn train, Hungarian artillery to turn German gunners into infantry and "Osttruppen" on the Atlantic wall? All they did was getting in lucky punches at the beginning because they stumbled over the right army doctrine.


Well said, +repped. I agree in full.

All I'm saying is: Dunkirk, can be characterized as an (a) "heroic" moment, or it can characterized as a (b) tragic, nearly catastrophic moment, that resulted from--as you aptly put it--"the state failing at its quintessential task." I would MUCH rather see a well-funded, well-made movie that strives to achieve (b) than one of equal quality that mostly achieved (a).

I think that telling the story of Dunkirk as an (a) is perhaps entertaining and to a VERY limited extent edifying, but falls far short of what we should at this stage expect or at least hope for in such genres of film. We need stories that position more hearts and minds to cope with the harsh realities of life on 21st century Earth and better decide for themselves about the best of a set of bad options.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: DUNKIRK
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:48 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 26304
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 15384
Anthropoid wrote:
reinald wrote:
That is a damn large box you are opening.

From interservcie rivalry and air forces fighting for independence which led to Douhetist armaments programs. To populations desillusioned about war by the Great War and unwilling to fight.

For me it is a tale of the state failing at its quintessential task. British military policy which left the country with a colonial constabulary instead of an army, too little fighters and destroyers. But, hey, useless battleships look good in the newspaper, why bother with armored, sorry armoured, warfare. The French having a huge army and air force that could have kicked Hitler's butt. However, they wanted to re-fight the Great War because apparently France had no retirement arrangements for generals or something. The Germans were little better, apparently Hitler's, his ministers' and the oh so elite general staff's reading comprehension concerning basic statistics was nonexistant. Germany and its allies where demographically and economically in no shape whatsoever to fight a global war. Or why did most German divisions by the end of the war still have a horse drawn train, Hungarian artillery to turn German gunners into infantry and "Osttruppen" on the Atlantic wall? All they did was getting in lucky punches at the beginning because they stumbled over the right army doctrine.


Well said, +repped. I agree in full.

All I'm saying is: Dunkirk, can be characterized as an (a) "heroic" moment, or it can characterized as a (b) tragic, nearly catastrophic moment, that resulted from--as you aptly put it--"the state failing at its quintessential task." I would MUCH rather see a well-funded, well-made movie that strives to achieve (b) than one of equal quality that mostly achieved (a).

I think that telling the story of Dunkirk as an (a) is perhaps entertaining and to a VERY limited extent edifying, but falls far short of what we should at this stage expect or at least hope for in such genres of film. We need stories that position more hearts and minds to cope with the harsh realities of life on 21st century Earth and better decide for themselves about the best of a set of bad options.



I haven't seen Dunkirk yet, but I am hoping that it is a better movie than the monstrosity known as "Pearl Harbor" (the POS with Ben Affleck).

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: DUNKIRK
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:48 pm 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 14055
Reputation points: 8907

_________________
Even so, never go to a gunfight without a gun and, if you intend to win, never go to a religious war without religion. You'll lose.
tomkratman.com


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: DUNKIRK
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:14 am 
Offline
PFC

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:58 pm
Posts: 232
Location: Olathe, Kansas
Reputation points: 1268
The complaining done by SJWs with regards to historical shows like these is hilarious. American audiences are so dumb-down (in Hollywood producer mind's') that we need to see WW2 films with blacks fighting on the front line with hip-hop in the background, a female general with pink ribbons dictating a fighting withdrawal, or a trans-gendered, Asian hunchback with one eye playing the Sgt leading a squad to cover. It is diversity gone nuts. WW2 was a war fought mainly by white men for the benefit of the rest of the world. Sure, there were Indians and other colonial forces that had minorities under the UK and Commonwealth, but America's combat troops were 99% Whites and light-skinned Latinos.

Liberals can always go to Broadway and see Hamilton if they want revisionist, artsy garbage. :mrgreen:

Reminds me of Bryant Gumbel complaining about covering the Winter Olympics because it was "all white guys" competing.

_________________
"What will your saga be? How will your descendants remember your name?" ~ Landreth


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group