Nolan's Dunkirk

Sep 2012
286
Argentina
#1
What are your thoughts about the upcoming Christopher Noan's movie about Dunkirk? Do you think it will be a historically accurate film? I've heard he was using real Bf 103 planes. I myself am very excited about this film, it looks like it'll be a serious war film, and not the average blockbuster
 

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,243
South of the barcodes
#2
He has a good reputation for trying for accuracy.

Hes a good director.

The cast, with the exception of Harry Styles are high quality.

The ingredients are good i'll wait to see how it turns out.
 
Aug 2016
5
London Ontario Canada
#3
I recently wrote to Mr. Nolan on the historical accuracy of this film

Dear Mr. Nolan Its all good and well to tell the story of the Dunkirk evacuation, however if the events leading up to the evacuation are not accurately told, it propagates the lies that have existed in the history books on this event. Namely the failed Weygand offensive and the fact that operation Dynamo was kept from Britons allies namely the French and the Belgians. The French who failed to stop the Germans in the region of Sedan, allowing the Germans to cut off the British and Belgian armies and the French 7th army in the north eventually leading to the encirclement and the necessity for evacuation. The failed Weygand offensive had the British looking to escape and get back to England . The now given fact that it was not just the Panzer halt that allowed the British and some French to escape at Dunkirk. Irrefutable evidence now points to the role of the Belgian army ,the Belgian Army had no means of escape and yet fought a 4 day battle(May 24-28,1940) along the river Lys covering the British retreat . The Belgian King ( Leopold III) and his army were accused by the French and British of surrendering without notice thus allegedly exposing the British and causing their need for the escape at Dunkirk. When in fact it was the other way around, it was the British who purposely failed to notify the French or Belgians that they were getting out. The great lie was propagated by French Premier Renaud and backed up by Winston Churchill to appease the French . The French and the British used the Belgian Surrender as their scapegoat and blamed their defeats in the field on the Belgians. Mr.Nolan I implore you to layout the events leading up to the evacuation based on todays knowledge of events that have become declassified, so as the viewer can understand why the evacuation was necessary . Yet more importantly you will aid in telling the truth of what really happened and vindicate the honour of our King and his troops. Daniel A Wybo Spokesperson Royal League of Veterans of His Majesty King Leopold III
 
Aug 2016
5
London Ontario Canada
#4
Although the British military establishment has never publicly acknowledged the King Leopold III and his army, by their prolonged resistance saved the BEF, the world famous military expert Liddell Hart saw no reason for such reticence. In 1960 delivering a lecture to students and faculty at King College. Liddell Hart bluntly declared “ The British army at Dunkirk was saved from destruction by King Leopold III of the Belgians. Captain Liddell Hart said that Sir Arthur Bryant’s claim that the saving of the BEF was mainly due to Lord Alanbrooke did not stand up to examination. Hart went on to say, “ the unfortunate Belgian Army absorbed the weight of the German frontal attack from the north. By the time the Belgian front had turned the BEF had slipped out of reach and were nearing Dunkirk. Liddell Hart went further to say, “ if King Leopold III had left Belgium on May 25th as his ministers and Churchill had urged him to do so. The Belgian army would have surrendered immediately, instead of fighting on until early morning of May 28th. IF SO, THE BRITISH WOULD HAVE HAD VERY LITTLE CHANCE OF ESCAPING ENCIRCLEMENT, SO THAT IT COULD VERY REASONABLY BE CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE SAVED BY KING LEOPOLD III, WHO THEN WAS VIOLENTLY ABUSED BY BRITON AND FRANCE “



Flag this message Delete this message
[/COLOR]
 
Last edited:
Aug 2016
5
London Ontario Canada
#5
Although the British military establishment has never publicly acknowledged the King Leopold III and his army, by their prolonged resistance saved the BEF, the world famous military expert Liddell Hart saw no reason for such reticence. In 1960 delivering a lecture to students and faculty at King College. Liddell Hart bluntly declared “ The British army at Dunkirk was saved from destruction by King Leopold III of the Belgians. Captain Liddell Hart said that Sir Arthur Bryant’s claim that the saving of the BEF was mainly due to Lord Alanbrooke did not stand up to examination. Hart went on to say, “ the unfortunate Belgian Army absorbed the weight of the German frontal attack from the north. By the time the Belgian front had turned the BEF had slipped out of reach and were nearing Dunkirk. Liddell Hart went further to say, “ if King Leopold III had left Belgium on May 25th as his ministers and Churchill had urged him to do so. The Belgian army would have surrendered immediately, instead of fighting on until early morning of May 28th. IF SO, THE BRITISH WOULD HAVE HAD VERY LITTLE CHANCE OF ESCAPING ENCIRCLEMENT, SO THAT IT COULD VERY REASONABLY BE CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE SAVED BY KING LEOPOLD III, WHO THEN WAS VIOLENTLY ABUSED BY BRITON AND FRANCE “
 
Jan 2017
358
Shawnee
#6
I recently wrote to Mr. Nolan on the historical accuracy of this film

Dear Mr. Nolan Its all good and well to tell the story of the Dunkirk evacuation, however if the events leading up to the evacuation are not accurately told, it propagates the lies that have existed in the history books on this event. Namely the failed Weygand offensive and the fact that operation Dynamo was kept from Britons allies namely the French and the Belgians. The French who failed to stop the Germans in the region of Sedan, allowing the Germans to cut off the British and Belgian armies and the French 7th army in the north eventually leading to the encirclement and the necessity for evacuation. The failed Weygand offensive had the British looking to escape and get back to England . The now given fact that it was not just the Panzer halt that allowed the British and some French to escape at Dunkirk. Irrefutable evidence now points to the role of the Belgian army ,the Belgian Army had no means of escape and yet fought a 4 day battle(May 24-28,1940) along the river Lys covering the British retreat . The Belgian King ( Leopold III) and his army were accused by the French and British of surrendering without notice thus allegedly exposing the British and causing their need for the escape at Dunkirk. When in fact it was the other way around, it was the British who purposely failed to notify the French or Belgians that they were getting out. The great lie was propagated by French Premier Renaud and backed up by Winston Churchill to appease the French . The French and the British used the Belgian Surrender as their scapegoat and blamed their defeats in the field on the Belgians. Mr.Nolan I implore you to layout the events leading up to the evacuation based on todays knowledge of events that have become declassified, so as the viewer can understand why the evacuation was necessary . Yet more importantly you will aid in telling the truth of what really happened and vindicate the honour of our King and his troops. Daniel A Wybo Spokesperson Royal League of Veterans of His Majesty King Leopold III


Did he reply?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#9
What are your thoughts about the upcoming Christopher Noan's movie about Dunkirk? Do you think it will be a historically accurate film? I've heard he was using real Bf 103 planes. I myself am very excited about this film, it looks like it'll be a serious war film, and not the average blockbuster
Good movie over all, but disappointed that you only saw the faces of German soldiers once. Also, as this movie absolutely cannot be compared with the Sir John Mills classic-its very good in its own right.
 
Nov 2011
8,787
The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
#10
The trouble with we history geeks is that we often expect an historical film to be a sort of documentary. The movie business doesn't work that way. Nolan decided to show a famous battle through the imagined eyes of three or four small cogs in the huge machine. He has been slagged off for not showing women or Indians or French Africans (who may or may not have been there on the pertinent days)--but he didn't show the High command in London, the Germans, the French or the Belgians either--maybe if you want a documentary watch the History Channel ( or maybe not--they are full of it too).
 
Likes: redcoat

Similar History Discussions