Review:- Nice movie: cannot understand why ‘Diversity’ does not play larger part!

There have been as many opinions as grains of sand as to the likelihood of a successful retreat, by a battered, disorganised British Army, from the beaches, piers and waves of Dunkirk. No one really understood why an Army of over 275,000 weary, demoralised British soldiers; along with approximately 140,000 French, Belgian and Polish soldiers of a similar demeanour; was allowed to escape the overwhelming menace of the German tank divisions and regiments.

The simple fact, borne out by research after the War was over, was that the evacuation was allowed to happen because the British and French armour regiments attacked an exposed Panzer Division at Arras, exposed because they had outrun their supply chains, artillery and infantry support; and were in serious danger of being outflanked and forced into retreat.

After the attack was beaten off, Von Runstedt, after urgent reviews with his subordinates, signalled Berlin and Hitler that he wanted a pause, to regroup and re-inforce, before pressing into Dunkirk. Hitler agreed, giving Von Runstedt to ability to decide when to advance, as he had been promised by Goering that the Luftwaffe would clear the air of the R.A.F, and the beaches of the British Army.

The Luftwaffe did their best, but lost 156 aircraft whilst bombing the ‘little ships’ whilst the R.A.F. lost 145 aircraft, and, more importantly, precious pilots. The Germans regrouped, reinforced and commenced moving after three days, there was an organized and extremely competent defence; but ‘Operation Dynamo’ was in full swing, and only the dead were left on the Dunkirk beaches. The surviving soldiers formed the nucleus of a resurgent British Army, which eventually, together with America, Canada, and Free French; as part of the Allied Cause, returned on 6th June 1944, and on towards victory.

The film ‘Dunkirk’ is now on general release, but USA Today reviewed ‘Disaster turned Survival’ movie named ‘Dunkirk’ with the following words:-

Dunkirk is also one of the best-scored films in recent memory, and Hans Zimmer’s music plays as important a role as any character. With shades of Edward Elgar’s Enigma Variations, the melodies are glorious, yet Zimmer also creates an instrumental ticking-clock soundtrack that’s a propulsive force in the action scenes.

The trio of timelines can be jarring as you figure out how they all fit, and the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way. Still, Nolan’s feat is undeniable: He’s made an immersive war movie that celebrates the good of mankind while also making it clear that no victory is without sacrifice.

Yes, I can just imagine David Oyelowo calling up the casting director and stating that a 17.8% of the Army roles on the Dunkirk beach scenes should be reserved for B.A.M.E. (work it out yourselves) actors!

5 comments for “Review:- Nice movie: cannot understand why ‘Diversity’ does not play larger part!

  1. rapscallion
    July 19, 2017 at 2:02 pm

    USA Today appears to have forgotten that this film is about an historical event. Strangely there weren’t many, if any, women or melanin rich people at Dunkirk.

    Odd that!

  2. Hereward Unbowed.
    July 19, 2017 at 2:48 pm

    melanin might have been there but no one saw her.

    Lets reverse the tables and look back to the spirit of the age and wonder what our grandfathers who were fighting for us, for their nation and for those whom had gone before them………………………..

    Why is is that these cultural Marxist fookwits want to rewrite history?

    Could it be that they are afraid of a very real narrative, and in case it offends our new neighbours and countrymen fellow passport holders?

    And what of and if, those brave lads who ran the gauntlet of German Bombs and artillery, both the rescued and the rescuers, many of whom later returned to the fight…………..if they’d know then what ‘is’ now, would they have fought and died to protect England knowing how it was all going to be tossed away?

    I rather think not, what say you?

    Finally, and to me this is a betrayal, a betrayal we’ve allowed to become a capitulation. It was never done in our name but we stood by and watched it and in the eyes of the law, bystanding – not intervening………… that’s akin to complicity.

    • Errol
      July 19, 2017 at 8:00 pm

      I’m not sure you answer your question.

      Why do the Left want to represent history inaccurately? Why do they want to totally reverse history to enforce their dogmatic, inaccurate perspective on it? Is it fear of showing how things were compared to the misery of today? To disguise their own absolute failing?

      Or is there something deeper, a desperate racism they want to hide in their pretence?

      Of course, if the Left are not continually challenged they will reverse historical truth and re-write it to suit their own twisted agenda. Then we may as well shoot ourselves, as the rest of the country will be immersed in a pathetic and pointless 2 minute hate.

      Heck, we already have the ‘terror of the month’ nonsense to busyour minds against the enemy because the state refuses to let us act and resolve the problem ourselves.

  3. Ted Treen
    July 20, 2017 at 3:28 pm

    Perhaps USA Today would like to fund a remake of “Gone with the Wind” with Whoopi Goldberg and Samuel L. Jackson as Scarlett O’Hara and Rhett Butler. They could end it with Jackson saying, “Frankly yo mofo, I don’t give a f*ck”.

  4. Bob H
    July 26, 2017 at 9:31 am

    What few people realise is that of more than 100,000 French soldiers evacuated from Dunkirk, only about 3000 agreed to stay and join De Gaulle’s Free French Forces.
    The rest requested to back to France, most spending the war in POW camps as slave labour.

Comments are closed.