OT The Darkest Hour Opinions

[goose_2]

Ok so this weekend my wife and I went out for our Anniversary and we saw the new movie with Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill known as The Darkest Hour.

I loved it, absolutely loved it. Laughed a lot, got gooseys a lot, even close to tears a couple of times. (I am a sentimental soft sop)

I considered it a part 2 of Dunkirk by Christopher Nolan that came out early last year.

I know I am in the minority on this forum as actually appreciating that film, but I am wondering if people appreciated this one as much as I did.

2 things I am walking away with.

1) Did Winston Churchill actually take the Subway and connect with the people? That was an incredibly important scene for the movie and I would hate to think it was made up out of whole cloth.

2) The way it played out, made me more fully understand why Hitler may have been holding off his Panzers at Dunkirk as if there were possible peace talks why provoke your peace partners by unnecessarily annihilating their army.

It also makes more sense why Rudolf Hess flew out to Britain as if Winston's hold on Great Britain was as tenuous as it was portrayed, Rudolf may have very easily found collaborators to help overthrow the government and bring the Brits to negotiations.

Thank God that did not happen.

Thoughts on the movie?
I enjoyed it thoroughly and highly recommend it.

[DeMeza]

From rogerebert.com:
“It’s a strange irony that the same patch of British history—a few days in the spring of 1940—has been treated in two big, Oscar-aimed 2017 movies (and even plays a role in a third film from earlier this year, “Their Finest”). In various ways, Wright’s film and Christopher Nolan’s “Dunkirk” are instructive companion pieces, with different aims that effectively orient them toward different audiences. “Dunkirk” imagines the evacuation of British troops under the onslaught of Nazi forces in a way that puts sensation over sense; it says nothing of the event’s historical context or import. Indeed, it could have been made with all action and no words, where “Darkest Hour” is all about words, words-as-action and this seminal event’s meaning to our world. It asks you to engage intellectually, not just viscerally.”

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/darkest-hour-2017

May I suggest Alanbrooke War Diaries? https://www.amazon.com/Alanbrooke-War-D ... 1842125265.

On the long list of things I didn’t know about WWII from this amazing book:
After retreating with his division towards Dunkirk, Alanbrooke is recalled to London. There, he meets Dill (who was CIGS, until Alanbrooke got the job), who orders him to travel back to France and take command of a corps in the western part of France. Alanbrooke, who had just witnessed the complete collapse of the French armed forces, was flabbergasted, but he quickly travels back to France. There, his previous assessment of the futility of this endeavour is reinforced by the utter chaos amongst the French units.
So, he calls Dill over the phone. They speak for a bit, then Dill hands the phone to Churchill! Alanbrooke, who had never talked with Churchill before, then spends 30 minutes arguing that the three British divisions should be evacuated immediately, or they would have a Dunkirk II situation soonish. Alanbrooke basically wears Churchill down and evacuation is accepted by the PM.

The book is filled to the brim with stuff like this. Probably the best book I have ever read about WWII.

[PoorOldSpike]

I haven't seen the Darkest Hour yet but I'll be interested to see if it touches on the mystery of why Churchill never sent battleships into the Channel to shell the shite out of the Germans around Dunkirk..

[DeMeza]

I haven't seen the Darkest Hour yet but I'll be interested to see if it touches on the mystery of why Churchill never sent battleships into the Channel to shell the shite out of the Germans around Dunkirk..

I believe the reason was to preserve the battleships to handle future sea battles against German capital ships. In this lies the belief of that time that battleships were still the most important part of a fleet. Only later did it become clear that air superiority was the most important factor and carriers were way more important than battleships.

[PoorOldSpike]

I haven't seen the Darkest Hour yet but I'll be interested to see if it touches on the mystery of why Churchill never sent battleships into the Channel to shell the shite out of the Germans around Dunkirk..

I believe the reason was to preserve the battleships to handle future sea battles against German capital ships. In this lies the belief of that time that battleships were still the most important part of a fleet. Only later did it become clear that air superiority was the most important factor and carriers were way more important than battleships.

Nevertheless at the time of Dunkirk the Royal Navy had 4 battleships and 3 battlecruisers in the Home Fleet and it sticks in my craw that Churchill never sent at least a couple to shell the jerries around Dunkirk instead of leaving the troops hanging out to dry on the beaches.
Battleships can take tremendous punishment and it's debatable whether the Luftwaffe of that period could have seriously damaged them, especially if the RAF was giving fighter cover.
As a wargamer I think I'd have sent 2 battleships and a battlecruiser to shell jerry, but under strict orders to withdraw immediately if they began taking serious damage.
http://www.naval-history.net/xDKWW2-4006-15RNHome1.htm