Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
oxford_town
Aug 6, 2009

Simplex posted:

I think this is what makes Dunkirk a pretty fascinating subject for a film, especially if you wanted to make an anti-war film. The modern, American public perception of Churchill is of this great wartime leader, but I don't really think that squares with the historical record. He decisively lost an election before the war was even over. Pre-war Churchill was known as an ardent British imperialist and was a staunch anti-Communist. The cost of British "victory" in the war though was the communist takeover of Eastern Europe and the collapse of the British Empire. I think there is the same kind of dichotomy with the evacuation at Dunkirk. It's a successful military operation, set against the backdrop of a crushing military defeat. It's a morale boosting speech, meant to inspire the people to keep fighting, but it's filled with a bunch of empty promises.

That's not just the "American" perception, the mainstream British perception is that he was one of the greatest leaders of the country. The widely-held view is that he was a brilliant wartime leader but not so in peacetime, which excuses his defeat to Attlee. (This also allowed Churchill, at the time, to deflect the blame for the loss of India & the breakup of the Empire onto Attlee).

Churchill's handling of Dunkirk was a brilliant propaganda coup. The film shows that; the soldiers are baffled by being received by a cheering civilian population, who view their return as a victory rather than an ignominious defeat. There is indeed a dichotomy, but I'm not sure it's so straightforwardly anti-war.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

oxford_town
Aug 6, 2009

Phanatic posted:

His plane was a Mark Ia . It had an 85-gallon fuel tank, which would be good for several hundred miles of cruising, but actually being in air combat would eat into that fast, and he spent a good amount of time in combat.

I think there's a line at the beginning about how Tom Hardy's squadron is dumping fuel to the minimum required for a return trip to aid their manoeuvrability when dogfighting.

  • Locked thread