Dunkirk

[The Franchise]

Christopher Nolan.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

You don't want the enemy to get a hold of your technology to find out how it works and its weaknesses. Not to mention code books, maps, etc. The US captured some Zeros and figured out they were really slow on certain turns.

Ah, makes sense. Thank you.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I will just say one thing about WWII in general and its bleakness:

I don't want to take anything away from the sacrifices that American, British, and Western European people made during that war, but World War II was really fought on the Eastern Front. And while actions like Dunkirk, Overlord and The Battle of Bulge were dangerous and harrowing, they really pale in comparison to what happened on the other side of the continent.

If you were to take the Eastern Front, remove it from WWII and make it its own war, it is the largest in human history and deadlier than WWI on its own. Seven out of eight Germans that died did so on the Eastern Front.

A bit off topic, how did Russia become a superpower and maintain such prominence throughout the bloodshed?

It's a large country but seems a vast portion of it is a barren wasteland. What isn't a wasteland suffers some of the harshest winters known to man. They've been involved in some of the bloodiest wars. They've lost a shit ton of working age men.

[007]

Originally Posted by Frazod

It would have been fine had Nolan not thrown it in a ****ing blender in his endless quest to prove how clever he is.

Exactly. I just could not get into it at all. Its a disjointed mess.

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

A bit off topic, how did Russia become a superpower and maintain such prominence throughout the bloodshed?

It's a large country but seems a vast portion of it is a barren wasteland. What isn't a wasteland suffers some of the harshest winters known to man. They've been involved in some of the bloodiest wars. They've lost a shit ton of working age men.

Quantity over quality has always been a Russian thing. While Siberia has harsh winters, western and southern Russia where the vast majority of the population lives has no more harsher winters than say Poland and less harsh winters than Finland. That area is also bigger than most European countries.

Western Russia is also extremely fertile and able to support a huge population. Remember also that the German invasion of Russia was put on hold as the army had to swing south to assist the Italians in capturing Greece, as the Greeks had completely pushed the Italians out of Greece and were marching up the Adriatic coast looking to completely destroy the Italian army.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Quantity over quality has always been a Russian thing. While Siberia has harsh winters, western and southern Russia where the vast majority of the population lives has no more harsher winters than say Poland and less harsh winters than Finland. That area is also bigger than most European countries.

Western Russia is also extremely fertile and able to support a huge population. Remember also that the German invasion of Russia was put on hold as the army had to swing south to assist the Italians in capturing Greece, as the Greeks had completely pushed the Italians out of Greece and were marching up the Adriatic coast looking to completely destroy the Italian army.

The Germans have always been pretty bad at picking allies.

The 'sick man of Europe' - the Ottoman Empire in WWI, and Italy in WWII did more to hurt Germany than help them. I understand the thought behind the Ottoman Empire (the Germans seemed to think that the Muslims would rise up en mass throughout Europe in support of the Sheikh - they did not) and I guess Hitler saw Mussolini as something of a role model but had they managed to get better allies here and there, they could've actually won something.

But hell, the Germans could've done dozens of things differently over WWI and WWII and won (especially WWI; several monumental cockups there).

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Quantity over quality has always been a Russian thing. While Siberia has harsh winters, western and southern Russia where the vast majority of the population lives has no more harsher winters than say Poland and less harsh winters than Finland. That area is also bigger than most European countries.

Western Russia is also extremely fertile and able to support a huge population. Remember also that the German invasion of Russia was put on hold as the army had to swing south to assist the Italians in capturing Greece, as the Greeks had completely pushed the Italians out of Greece and were marching up the Adriatic coast looking to completely destroy the Italian army.

This is true, but as Anthony Beevor noted in Stalingrad, a lot of the rationale for the six-week delay in the invasion was due to not just that, but pacifying Yugoslavia, and also difficulties in delivering supplies and waiting for the spring mud season to pass. The diversions south get a lot of publicity, but I don't think they were the entire reason.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

A bit off topic, how did Russia become a superpower and maintain such prominence throughout the bloodshed?

It's a large country but seems a vast portion of it is a barren wasteland. What isn't a wasteland suffers some of the harshest winters known to man. They've been involved in some of the bloodiest wars. They've lost a shit ton of working age men.

How They Won:

1) Soviets didn't just fight with men. Soviet women fought in massive numbers in WWII. That can help blunt those losses. Additionally, people of all ages fought, and almost everyone was conscripted. For example, schools were let out around Moscow so that women and children could dig trenches and anti-tank ditches in preparation for the arrival of the Heer (German Army).

2) The Soviets had 170 million people to draw from even after the famines and purges. That is roughly twice the German population.

3) The Soviet state was criminal and ruthless. It is much easier to win wars when you care not for your own losses, and you can force the populace to do your bidding under threat of starvation and extermination. They were ordered to destroy everything, literal scorched earth, to deny the Germans shelter and food from the land. This makes it much more difficult to sustain an invasion, especially one along a 2000 mile long front.

4) As you accurately noted, much of it is a wasteland, but it's a wasteland the enemy had to move across. A wasteland with brutally cold winters and rainy seasons so bad the mud could suck up a tank; a wasteland with lice giving the Germans typhus.

5) The Soviets received significant assistance from the US and UK in Lend-Lease materials which made continued industrialization easier

6) Stalin made the brilliant decision to decommission Soviet factories and move them east of the Urals, sometimes all the way to Siberia, out of range of the Luftwaffe. And because they were so ruthless, they forced women and prison labor to rebuild those factories and work under inhumane conditions to continually produce material.

7) The Germans had significant logistical issues that made supplying the army difficult (Soviet rail gauge was different, which ruled out trains), and Hitler diverted several thrusts North and South from Army Group Center, which slowed the drive to Moscow. Also, the Germans never supplied their soldiers with proper winter uniforms, and much of the Heer had to resort to stuffing their shoes and uniforms with newspaper to offset frostbite, which crippled nearly as many men as combat.

8) Because the Nazis were Nazis and were committed to the idea of Rassenkampf (Race War), they annihilated the Baltic population and the Ukranians who initially greeted them as liberators. Had they not treated them as sub-human, they could have won. Basically, Hitler needed to act like a wrestling heel. He could have intended to wipe out those populations after the USSR was pacified, but because Nazi ideology was so fervent, they couldn't see those potential allies as anything but subhumans.

How They Maintained Superiority:

The Soviet Union was goddamned gigantic and there were so many people and so many resources that it's really hard to comprehend.

They annexed a ton of satellite states during post-WWII concessions, which helped blunt their losses from WWII considerably. They were also so terribly mismanaged that any level of competent bureaucracy would see them rise to world prominence based upon the size of their population and the breadth of their resources. The state was also horrifically imbalanced. They spent such a large portion of their GDP on projecting military strength that they rotted from within. In some ways, it was the policy equivalent of a Pyrrhic Victory.

[Prison Bitch]

Saw it in the theaters

One of the most boring films I can recall

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

How They Won:

1) Soviets didn't just fight with men. Soviet women fought in massive numbers in WWII. That can help blunt those losses. Additionally, people of all ages fought, and almost everyone was conscripted. For example, schools were let out around Moscow so that women and children could dig trenches and anti-tank ditches in preparation for the arrival of the Heer (German Army).

2) The Soviets had 170 million people to draw from even after the famines and purges. That is roughly twice the German population.

3) The Soviet state was criminal and ruthless. It is much easier to win wars when you care not for your own losses, and you can force the populace to do your bidding under threat of starvation and extermination. They were ordered to destroy everything, literal scorched earth, to deny the Germans shelter and food from the land. This makes it much more difficult to sustain an invasion, especially one along a 2000 mile long front.

4) As you accurately noted, much of it is a wasteland, but it's a wasteland the enemy had to move across. A wasteland with brutally cold winters and rainy seasons so bad the mud could suck up a tank; a wasteland with lice giving the Germans typhus.

5) The Soviets received significant assistance from the US and UK in Lend-Lease materials which made continued industrialization easier

6) Stalin made the brilliant decision to decommission Soviet factories and move them east of the Urals, sometimes all the way to Siberia, out of range of the Luftwaffe. And because they were so ruthless, they forced women and prison labor to rebuild those factories and work under inhumane conditions to continually produce material.

7) The Germans had significant logistical issues that made supplying the army difficult (Soviet rail gauge was different, which ruled out trains), and Hitler diverted several thrusts North and South from Army Group Center, which slowed the drive to Moscow. Also, the Germans never supplied their soldiers with proper winter uniforms, and much of the Heer had to resort to stuffing their shoes and uniforms with newspaper to offset frostbite, which crippled nearly as many men as combat.

8) Because the Nazis were Nazis and were committed to the idea of Rassenkampf (Race War), they annihilated the Baltic population and the Ukranians who initially greeted them as liberators. Had they not treated them as sub-human, they could have won. Basically, Hitler needed to act like a wrestling heel. He could have intended to wipe out those populations after the USSR was pacified, but because Nazi ideology was so fervent, they couldn't see those potential allies as anything but subhumans.

How They Maintained Superiority:

The Soviet Union was goddamned gigantic and there were so many people and so many resources that it's really hard to comprehend.

They annexed a ton of satellite states during post-WWII concessions, which helped blunt their losses from WWII considerably. They were also so terribly mismanaged that any level of competent bureaucracy would see them rise to world prominence based upon the size of their population and the breadth of their resources. The state was also horrifically imbalanced. They spent such a large portion of their GDP on projecting military strength that they rotted from within. In some ways, it was the policy equivalent of a Pyrrhic Victory.

Mostly true, but These were the only 2 factors that mattered.

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

This is true, but as Anthony Beevor noted in Stalingrad, a lot of the rationale for the six-week delay in the invasion was due to not just that, but pacifying Yugoslavia, and also difficulties in delivering supplies and waiting for the spring mud season to pass. The diversions south get a lot of publicity, but I don't think they were the entire reason.

Once Italy brought Greece into the war it couldn't stay unconquered. Having Greece on the Allies side and unconquered means that the allies could land in Greek ports and head up the Adriatic coast into Austria, Hungary, and Bavaria without much resistance. Not a crumbling Italian army or one that the Greeks had already pretty much destroyed could stand in their way.

The British Navy had pretty much already made the Med their own.

No D-Day or invasion of Sicily needed.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

How They Won:

1) Soviets didn't just fight with men. Soviet women fought in massive numbers in WWII. That can help blunt those losses. Additionally, people of all ages fought, and almost everyone was conscripted. For example, schools were let out around Moscow so that women and children could dig trenches and anti-tank ditches in preparation for the arrival of the Heer (German Army).

2) The Soviets had 170 million people to draw from even after the famines and purges. That is roughly twice the German population.

3) The Soviet state was criminal and ruthless. It is much easier to win wars when you care not for your own losses, and you can force the populace to do your bidding under threat of starvation and extermination. They were ordered to destroy everything, literal scorched earth, to deny the Germans shelter and food from the land. This makes it much more difficult to sustain an invasion, especially one along a 2000 mile long front.

4) As you accurately noted, much of it is a wasteland, but it's a wasteland the enemy had to move across. A wasteland with brutally cold winters and rainy seasons so bad the mud could suck up a tank; a wasteland with lice giving the Germans typhus.

5) The Soviets received significant assistance from the US and UK in Lend-Lease materials which made continued industrialization easier

6) Stalin made the brilliant decision to decommission Soviet factories and move them east of the Urals, sometimes all the way to Siberia, out of range of the Luftwaffe. And because they were so ruthless, they forced women and prison labor to rebuild those factories and work under inhumane conditions to continually produce material.

7) The Germans had significant logistical issues that made supplying the army difficult (Soviet rail gauge was different, which ruled out trains), and Hitler diverted several thrusts North and South from Army Group Center, which slowed the drive to Moscow. Also, the Germans never supplied their soldiers with proper winter uniforms, and much of the Heer had to resort to stuffing their shoes and uniforms with newspaper to offset frostbite, which crippled nearly as many men as combat.

8) Because the Nazis were Nazis and were committed to the idea of Rassenkampf (Race War), they annihilated the Baltic population and the Ukranians who initially greeted them as liberators. Had they not treated them as sub-human, they could have won. Basically, Hitler needed to act like a wrestling heel. He could have intended to wipe out those populations after the USSR was pacified, but because Nazi ideology was so fervent, they couldn't see those potential allies as anything but subhumans.

How They Maintained Superiority:

The Soviet Union was goddamned gigantic and there were so many people and so many resources that it's really hard to comprehend.

They annexed a ton of satellite states during post-WWII concessions, which helped blunt their losses from WWII considerably. They were also so terribly mismanaged that any level of competent bureaucracy would see them rise to world prominence based upon the size of their population and the breadth of their resources. The state was also horrifically imbalanced. They spent such a large portion of their GDP on projecting military strength that they rotted from within. In some ways, it was the policy equivalent of a Pyrrhic Victory.

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Quantity over quality has always been a Russian thing. While Siberia has harsh winters, western and southern Russia where the vast majority of the population lives has no more harsher winters than say Poland and less harsh winters than Finland. That area is also bigger than most European countries.



Western Russia is also extremely fertile and able to support a huge population. Remember also that the German invasion of Russia was put on hold as the army had to swing south to assist the Italians in capturing Greece, as the Greeks had completely pushed the Italians out of Greece and were marching up the Adriatic coast looking to completely destroy the Italian army.

Thanks for the responses. Interesting stuff.

[Great Expectations]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

A bit off topic, how did Russia become a superpower and maintain such prominence throughout the bloodshed?

It's a large country but seems a vast portion of it is a barren wasteland. What isn't a wasteland suffers some of the harshest winters known to man. They've been involved in some of the bloodiest wars. They've lost a shit ton of working age men.

The other factor that has helped them win when they were on the brink of defeat was overconfidence by their attacker. Twice they’ve been getting their ass kicked only to be saved by the brutal weather of their country.

And to stay on the thread topic, while the movie was great, and borderline fantastic it didn’t quite get the same character development of the best war movies. Saving Private Ryan, Apocolypse Now, Platoon and Mini-Series like Band of Brothers are on a different level.

I thought Dunkirk was very good, but more on par with films like Fury, Jarhead, or Black Hawk Down.

[Miles]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

BTW - if Nolan ever wanted to do just a basic 'guys flying' movie set in WWII and do it on a similar scale, I'd probably kill a busload of nuns to watch it. Those scenes were just amazing and if we could get 110 minutes of that, it would be positively orgasmic.

EDIT: So I think I understand why I liked this movie more than some. This little video on the difference between presentations in IMAX and...well pretty much everything else, makes it pretty clear.



This movie had to be seen in IMAX to appreciate it. That was essentially Nolan's entire point in shooting it the way he did.

I saw Intersteller at the Bullock Texas history museum in 70mm IMAX and it was the greatest I’ve seen that way. The theater and that format blew me away. Its likely among the top in the US as well and Nolan’s use of the format was just incredible.

Saw Dunkirk at a full IMAX in 70mm in Dallas at one of the few screens showing it that way as well (only 2 in TX did). Seeing on a giant screen of a real IMAX was very intense. Wish I could have seen it at the Bullock in Austin but it was close enough.

[notorious]

I liked it. It did a great job of building suspense, and it managed to show the fright and emotional horror of war without gratuitous gore.

The Spitfire gliding at the end was a little over the top. The real pilot the character was based on landed the plane gear up and walked to the loading area where he got onto a ship, which makes a lot more sense than the movie.

Several ships that were in the movie participated in the real Dunkirk evacuation. That's pretty cool.

http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/dunkirk/

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Miles

I saw Intersteller at the Bullock Texas history museum in 70mm IMAX and it was the greatest I’ve seen that way. The theater and that format blew me away. Its likely among the top in the US as well and Nolan’s use of the format was just incredible.

Saw Dunkirk at a full IMAX in 70mm in Dallas at one of the few screens showing it that way as well (only 2 in TX did). Seeing on a giant screen of a real IMAX was very intense. Wish I could have seen it at the Bullock in Austin but it was close enough.

I'm sure that seeing this movie in 70mm increased my opinion of this movie as it would with every movie with a master cinematic director.