Dunkirk (2017) | Based on a True Story

[@Erika-gn1tv]

It's a sad day when you can't demolish an innocent town in the name of historically accurate cinema.

[@sunnyjim1355]

As an Englishman I have to correct you... The French are never innocent. :p But for the record: near 140,00 French troops were also evacuated at Dunkirk, of which the mass majority returned to France to surrender. And the number of Frenchmen who participated in the D-Day Invasion? Just 177 comandos and 32 paratroppers. Just so people know the FACTS, which most French either don't know or won't admit to.

[@neilgriffiths6427]

But the "Free French" were allowed to "liberate" Paris (no colonial troops allowed). I bet Churchill and Eisenhower would have liked to have gone in with the massed regimental bands of the USA, plus the Highland bagpipers...

[@Riceball01]

I'm sure that if Nolan really wanted to he could have put green scrims around the tops of all those buildings and "demolished" them in post by compositing CG ruins on top of them. This would have kept the actual town pristine while at the same time giving it a historically accurate appearance.

[@copycatsworld7012]

It's political correctness gone mad!

[@USSChicago-pl2fq]

Neil Griffiths Spanish Republican Troops liberated Paris

[@j_eb230]

Absolutely loved this film, but one small nitpick was that there wasn't anywhere near enough soldiers on the beach.

[@CynicalHistorian]

could you imagine if they got 400k extras! That'd be crazy awesome

[@Mister.Psychology]

It's easy to CGI people when they are far away. Watch Gladiator. They just copy spectators and filled up the stadium with them. All are real human beings. In Lord of the Rings the orc army is CGI.

[@Tommy-5684]

it would also be record seting as the most Extras used in a film was the Russian version of war and piece releced in the 60s with 100,000 extras from the red army for the battle scines

[@YorkieKDS]

I find it amusing that people complain about the lack of numbers on the beach, they are the same people who complain about too much CGI in movies.

[@connorbranscombe6819]

100K? try 16k, still impressive but nowhere near what you stated.

[@ryanelliott71698]

Dunkirk, a movie that doesn’t have America as the protagonist. It’s sort of like ww2 in gaming, where you see 1 movie, you’ve seen them all, same places, same characters. I’m not hating on America, I’m just tired of a lack of representation of other nations involved. Although it could have been better for representing the french and other nations involved. I would love to see the invasion of Norway, China and other less known areas in ww2.

[@Phantom1op]

oh there are plenty of WWII films that do not star Americans, you just need to look at the film libraries from other countries to find them (most countries film industries tend to produce WWII films based on the exploits of their own nations anyway, which makes sense in context since most film industries try to produce films based on their own nations interests).

[@charadreemurr5386]

Ryan Elliott As an American, I gotta agree. It gets REALLY tiring when all you see are American heroes or battles in WW1/2 games. I always wanted to see more. I would love to see a Battlefield 1 style of WW2.Of course, more historically accurate. But a story that takes place on the different fronts and shows basically each sides perspective. I think it’d be interesting to play as the French holding of the Germans, or etc.

[@LuulitaCD]

A Norwegian movie was made recently on the invasion of Norway, focusing on the Kings part: www.imdb.com/title/tt4353996/

[@stalkinghorse883]

Ryan Elliot A very good WW2 movie without a single American is "The Winter War" (Talvisota in Finnish) It is a Finish made movie about the Winter War between Finland and the USSR. It is on KZbin.

[@Typanoid]

Not a movie, but there's an interesting TV series called "The Heavy Water War" that focuses on a bunch of Norwegians that evacuated to England and formed a special team that focuses on sabotaging Norwegian factories collaborating with the German Occupation force.

[@hemmingwayfan]

Any World War 2 film that makes your sphincter clench at the sound of a Stuka siren is doing something right.

[@kumaflamewar6524]

I wanted him to mention those. I like the change to something that's scary given how desensitized to the actual sound modern audiences are.

[@ScotCrusader]

It's a shame that the French and 51st Highland troops at St. Valery never got a mention. They were still fighting after the evacuation at Dunkirk.

[@lawrencedockery9032]

Mr. Dawson is based on Charles Lightholler, who sailed his private yacht (the Sundowner). Lightholler is known for having been the senior surviving officer on the Titanic.

[@donathandorko]

I have been waiting for someone to point this out since seeing the movie last year and you sir, are the first person I have seen do it. Big old like for ya!

[@tmac5962]

Lightholler also was an officer on a ship that sank a u-boat during WW1, and supposedly he ordered the German survivors to be machine gunned. Or something. Check his wikipedia page, fascinating dude.

[@anttibjorklund1869]

"Scissors beat paper" You're lucky I didn't choke from laughter! XD

[@sara_sah-raezzat5086]

The myth making of The Little Ships was crucial at the time. It helped build that “we’re all in this together” feeling that was so vital on the home front. And that myth still has power; like Robin Hood or Sir Francis Drake. Even Churchill himself has become part myth. Yes it’s overblown and inaccurate, but the myth itself has become a part of history. And as such it has to be part of the story. For a look at that myth making I suggest the film Their Finest. It’s the story of wartime filmmakers making a film out of the story of one of the little ships. It’s a home front film, so bombs but no battles and a fair bit of romance (in an understated British way).

[@sirmeowthelibrarycat]

Bluestocking Sara 😾 A question for you! Are you British or American or what? If the first, then your comment is most unwelcome. If the second, then the USA was neutral in 1940 and did not play any role in this event. If the third, then perhaps your awareness of recent history is somewhat scant. What took place at Dunkirk meant that we in Britain retained something of an army to be developed as defence against invasion. Had the rescue attempt failed, Britain would have had no option but to surrender to the Nazi behemoth. To refer to ‘myth making’ is to denigrate the achievements of those who took part at great risk to themselves. Remind yourself of the losses that occurred even as the naval flotilla sailed to and from the beaches at Dunkirk. Also note that a substantial number of French and Belgian troops were rescued and given a chance to drive the Nazi forces out of their countries. Shame on you for belittling one of the most significant naval successes in British history.

[@tobymcelhinney5354]

Graham Hoff If that were true we would have surrendered.

[@grahamhoff3867]

You ran away End of

[@TheHalcyonTwilight]

Yeah nah. The Nazis had no capability to invade the British Isles. By the time they could make enough landing ships to do so, the losses at Dunkirk would have been recovered. Our formidable Navy was still intact, as was the RAF. Our tanks, artillery and field guns were left in Dunkirk either way so that's irrelevant. The men would be a tragic loss, especially to morale, but there would have been no surrender.

[@tobymcelhinney5354]

Graham Hoff Then fought them in Africa, in the Air and in the Sea not to mention the Japanese alone. We didn't want to waste troops on a lost cause because we were already spread thin.

[@connormclernon26]

I don’t mean to be that guy, but that was an actual spitfire landing on Dunkirk beach at 9:22. Also, as a pilot, the main issue I have with the gliding is that the guy turned. When you’re making an emergency landing, you’re only supposed to turn within 30 degrees of straight line at the altitude he was at because turning eats up a lot of lift

[@DatCameraMON]

As a non-pilot, can you explain the reason for that particular degree of turn? Wild guess but, does it have to do with the loss of speed?

[@DatCameraMON]

Ah, thank you for the clarification.

[@AudieHolland]

*Some Illustration* Look up "B 52 JET AIRCRAFT CRASH" Yes, the title is also a SPOILER Anyway, *any* plane making too steep of a turn will lose lift and stall, dropping down untill the momentum of its increasing airspeed by falling down will allow it to glide some more. That is, IF you have some altitude to begin with.

[@ISawABear]

Secondly 10:20 why does not one damn historical reviewer for this movie point out the at the very opening of the "The Sea" story line show that the navy was literally in the process of commandeering a bunch of civilian ships. You're not wrong when you say the civilians are over emphasized but no one ever talks about the scene Nolan specifically put in to address the myth.

[@SeanA099]

I Saw A Bear yeah. The captain of the boat goes away from the dock without permission because he knew the boat better than the Navy did

[@GoErikTheRed]

But then in later scenes it's very clearly civilians manning all the ships

[@Tastatur13]

I think you forgot to mention one interesting thing about the movie: You barely see any german soldiers, except for their fighters and in the scene where they capture the pilot, but even then they are kind of blurred out and not in the focus. Apart from that you mostly only see their helmets, hear them shooting, but you never see individual persons and faces. So for nearly the whole movie, the approaching german army is some kind of seemingly distant, almost unreal threat. Except for those moments when german artillery shells hit the beach or their bullets fly aroung the allied soldiers, then everyone is istantly reminded of how dangerous and dire the whole situation really is. I think this idea was absolutely brilliant!

[@ISawABear]

8:50 no he doesn't, i counted in theaters and at home several times. He used somewhere around 20 seconds of ammo. Part of the seemingly endless ammo are probably people counting the same kills but shown from 2 different angles or viewpoints. There's not even close to 70 second worth of ammo firing from ALL the spitfires in this movie let alone 1.

[@pluckyduck11y]

Interesting note. Yeah, he definitely doesn't use over a minute of ammo firing. It was 30 seconds tops, but always judicious and frugal expenditure. Although I do think his wingmate who has to ditch in the sea should have been written in the plot to take out one of the enemy which Farrier (Tom Hardy's character) takes down instead. For instance, instead of Farrier saving the wingmate, have it the other way around. This saves Farrier's ammo, and shows him step it up later to take out the bombers. Just a minor quibble to balance the action.

[@californiadreamin8423]

As a young boy, my Dad took me to see the first Dunkirk film ( with the actor John Mills). I was startled when during the film, my Dad said " It was just like that" !! It was only then I was shocked and realised he was actually there. I've tried to retrace the route he took from Arras where he celebrated his 21st birthday, to Lens, to Ypres ( Ee-pree ) to Dunkirk. Imagine being told by your Doctor Officer, " change into clean clothes, divide into small groups, you have one order....get back to England...its every man for himself " Conscripted for 6 months in 39, with only a Red Cross armband for protection ( not ) he spent 6 years in France, North Africa, Salerno, Anzio and the Gothic Line until the war in Europe ended. My Dad returned to Dunkirk , for the first time, for a memorial service not long before he died. By chance he met up with many of his friends who he hadn't seen since then. Only then did my Mother understand their comradeship , and what they had gone through, even though they only talked about the funny things they had experienced. I'm looking forward to watching this film, perhaps only because it will remind me of the stories I had to drag out of my Dad. Yes...as an ageing man now, i can say...he was my hero.

[@fortis3686]

A historical ww2 film, with no CGI and no central main character. Reminds me of films like Tora Tora Tora and a Bridge Too Far.

[@blondbraid7986]

While the story and practical effects were great, Dunkirk is one of the few movies that could have been improved with CGI considering two big inaccuracies (the town isn't destroyed and there's far less people waiting on the beach than in reality) could have been easily fixed with some CGI.

[@nathankingham1248]

My only problem is your comment on the Germans going around the maginot. It wasn’t easy at all. The French and British knew that the Germans would try it, just not from where and ended up leaving the Ardennes undefended since they believed it was impassable by tanks, which the Germans disproved. The allies did react to this, the French beginning 3 counter offensives of the germans and the British beginning 1. These failed, however, due to the allied tanks being too slow to effectively stop them. It did scare the german advance into stopping until the infantry pushed up to cover their flanks. So it wasn’t easy to flank the enemy at all.

[@jimmypownall4409]

My dad is a train nerd and Apparently the carriages at the end were from the late 50s and the upholstery was from the late 60s

[@rodden1953]

Yes but it was my only gripe , pity they couldnt have got an older one

[@willheron4617]

the real hero here was that double gate he scrambled over at the start , it seemed to hold back the whole German army throughout the movie

[@HigHrvatski]

The French rear guard fell after the last of their comrades got on the rescue ship. Reporters named their deed similar to the 300 Spartans at Thermopile.

[@guybrushgetchell2945]

Now imagine what Michael Bay would've done with this

[@Synthprayer]

Guybrush Getchell would have had robots, tits, old Linkin Park songs, and the American flag next to a sober Churchill.

[@linda10989]

Nicholas Gonzales And explosions! Lots and lots of them! He loves to blow shit up, big time

[@WildWestSamurai]

It'd probably include a bunch of ethnic caricatures, too. Black guys going "Daaaayummm" a lot. Oh, and hot chicks. Lots and lots of hot chicks, in sepia tone, with sunsets in the background. And constant camera movement swiveling around the characters, because God forbid Bay ever direct a single static shot in any of his movies. Oh. And a bunch of guys going, "Where's the goddamn air support?" Because Michael Bay's a right-wing conspiracy theorist, like that.

[@linda10989]

WildWestSamurai You nailed every point right on the head! And the lead women have to wear Daisy Duke shorts

[@a.morphous66]

Not to mention that literally every plane and boat would be CGI, rather than real ones.

[@VA128Kaiser]

Also did you notice that the British seemed to have forgotten that they have Anti-Aircraft guns.

[@MichaelCollins1922]

There's a funny story about that in Walter Lord's "Miracle at Dunkirk." The commander of the battery of heavier anti-aircraft batteries was told to man the guns and send all non-essential personnel to the beach. Somehow, the order got lost in translation, and he took it to mean send all personnel down to the beach, and spike the guns. Without thinking, he ordered his men to spike the guns, thereby denying the BEF some of their best weapons against the Luftwaffe.

[@vassilizaitzev1]

MichaelCollins1922 “You fool...just go.”

[@fdsdh1]

some more minor nitpicks for you, like really minor except maybe the first one: The perimeter is way too small when we see the start of the film, its literally a 100m from the perimeter to the beach, this is just not secure at all. At that point the evacuation would no longer be possible. In reality many units remained outside of Dunkirk to halt the German advance- this is also one of the reasons the Germans paused they were taking quite high casualties, particularly in tanks. Its a bit weird because the film shows us a propaganda leaflet that has the "true" extent of the perimeter on it, but decides the Germans are in the town anyway. This is probably a narrative choice instead of having a scene of soldiers walking for miles. The aircraft in the film are flying far too low, and the fighting styles of the aircraft are also incorrect for the time. The 109's typically did not engage in low level turning fights in which the Spitfire would have the advantage, instead they used their better diving characteristics to attach from above "watch out for the Hun in the Sun" (early marques of Spitfire could also not pull of negative G manouvers due to the float carburettor system which would stall the engine in a prolonged or steep dive, the 109 had fuel injection so did not suffer from this issue). This choice was probably to make it easier to film, at higher altitudes it would be more expensive and difficult and it wouldn't tie up with the ships very well. Also the Bf109's are actualy HA1112's which have Merlin engines, but no way to avoid that given how many real flying 109's there are... and out of that number, the ones where the owners are willing to have them used in stunt style flying. If you want to go all the way and transcend into a new level of largely pointless pedantry the HA1112 is based on the Bf109G, whereas at the time of Dunkirk the Luftwaffe used the 109E. Some of the architecture within Dunkirk was clearly modern (unavoidable again if you film on location) Some of the troops we see on the mole clearly have prop guns which are not patterned after the SMLE, its a bit sloppy. There is also an explosion on the mole which is a bomb dropped from an aircraft. However the explosion is far too small to be any bomb, its more like a grenade. At the end when Tom Hardy's Spitfire is burning its clearly a prop plane. Spitfires were one of the first all metal aircraft, the engine block on the prop is completely gone and you can see a rod holding the prop in place. Sometimes I feel they made the film with an expectation to use more special effects enhancements then decided against it later on, the had better mock ups in the 1960's BoB film.

[@sirmeowthelibrarycat]

fdsdh1 😡Well, hello Professor Know All. Did you expect an historical disquisition on this event? It was presented as the experiences of three participants only, and not the entire struggle. A large dose of humility would be much appreciated from you!

[@fdsdh1]

Sir Meow The Library Cat which is why it is nitpicks and pointless pedantry

[@Aragorn195]

I only got 1 question. WHERE IS EVERYONE?! There was supposed to be over 300,000 soldiers on that beach no? Then why does it look like there are less than 10,000? The beach is completely empty. Where is all the equipment aswell? Okay so that wasnt maybe 1 question

[@gmbrusselsprout]

I'm glad you noticed the lack of colonial troops fighting in the battle, a lot of people and war movies tend to skip over that - especially since the British Raj was able to field the largest non-conscripted army ever in WWII, which means there would have been loads of Indian troops fighting with the Brits but they are often forgotten. Some movies are starting to overturn this (even though it's fiction, Wonder Woman comes to mind) but I just think it's a common, silly problem in WWII movies

[@King_George_VI]

A ‘failed offensive into Germany’ suggests that there was some sort of effort put into said offensive lol. The Saar ‘Offensive’ is really a misnomer. They sent a handful of colonial divisions across the border, occupied a couple of abandoned towns, took some photos, and then Gamelin lied to the Poles about how they were already pulling several divisions from the East to the West to counter the French advance. When the Polish campaign was wrapped up, Gamelin pulled everyone back behind the Maginot and refocused on his plans for Belgium. It would later be found out that not only was the Siegfried Line neither complete nor as formidable as boasted at the time, but the “frontier from Aachen to Basle was held by no more than 25 reserve, militia, and depot divisions, with not one single tank under their command and enough ammunition for only 3 days’ battle,” (Alistair Horne’s “To Lose A Battle”, pp 144). Also, another reason for the infamous halt order-and the one to which I concur with-was the shock of the primarily British led armoured counterattack at Arras. Whilst the initial plan called for many more forces to be involved, the improvised attack saw an adhoc unit comprised of just 74 tanks (and some infantry that had been detached for support) push back the 3rd SS Panzer Division and send them routing, only being saved by Rommel’s personal intervention. I highly recommend watching Lindy Beige’s video on this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sKOXfpenjceebcU Just a lengthy comment on some of my thoughts. Dunno if you’ll even see this, but brilliant video nonetheless! Cheers

[@BobdeepGupta]

Also, to add to the nit-picky inaccuracies, the Bf-109 E in this film is actually a HA-1112. Battle of Britain 1969 also used them.

[@CynicalHistorian]

Yeah, but they are practically the same for film purposes. There's only about 30 functional originals (all with heavy modifications), so the Spanish variant is an understandable concession

[@dmcc5110]

One of the big inaccuracies was the fact that spitfires would have had been able to stay in the air way longer than depicted, their fuel consumption is not that ridiculously high that they can only fly the same distance that some people have actually swam before and stay in the air for only an hour

[@gguerrero11]

What about the concerns that the beach wasn't depicted as crowed as it was in Atonement?

[@492resolute3]

I think that spitfire is based on N3200,It was shot down,landed on a beach and its pilot was captured at Dunkirk

[@jeffreydudgeon4579]

During my Naval War College Strategy and War class, during the conversation about the war in Europe, we talked about why the German military paused outside of Dunkirk. And the reason discussed was it was a lesson learned from the Poland campaign. The Germans experienced heavy casualties (especially among their armored forces) when they drove into Warsaw and it turned into urban combat. So the German army (who didn't want to give the air force the credit) and Hitler decided not to repeat that and didn't drive into the actual city.

[@killiankingswell6807]

Shooting the movie in modern-day Dunkirk also has another drawback: the city looks way too modern for WWII. On a huge cinema screen, you notice it even more (facades with TV and Internet cables, windows with roller shutters, modern billboards and street lamps, buildings from the 1970s or the 1980s). Check this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJLFXniEas14oqc#t=40s The soldiers are walking past buildings which could not exist in 1940.

[@MalaysianChopsticks]

During the movie. I felt like I finally breathe when the ticking stops. When it stopped, I took a long breath, a drop of tears came down my face, I was genuinely happy and relax. But I know this will not stop that easily, it’ll come back.

[@felixsantosa3815]

To be fair tho, it was referenced/hinted near the start that the RN was taking over small ships. The Frenchies are also shown holding the line so that's neat too.

[@a.morphous66]

Felix Santosa The RN commandeering vessels was more than referenced at the beginning. It was explicitly shown.

[@MRKapcer13]

"There was a failed offensive into Germany" don't let that mistake you: there wasn't an offensive. The Saar Offensive could have easily crushed Germans, but the French called it off after a few days for no real reason. In reality had Anglo-French forces actually intervened as they promised Poland they would, Germany would have stood no chance, as it was committed entirely in Poland and the USSR delayed until the 17th to make sure that the Western Allies were indeed absolutely toothless.

[@MRKapcer13]

Also on the subject of BF-109. The nosecone itself could have been yellow in 1939. However, the more important issue is that what is shown isn't a BF-109 at all (which is fair enough. Getting hold of BF-109 E-3 or E-1 is probably not the simplest task). In the scene you show when you talk about the BF-109, it's really obvious that it isn't an early war BF-109. Rather, they used a Hispano Aviacion, which was a license-built BF-109G-2 with a bunch of updates such as a different air intake. This is really obvious in a few of the scenes, such as the one you show.

[@trauko1388]

...and a Rolls Royce Merlin engine, hence the ugly nose on the 109.

[@sirmeowthelibrarycat]

MRKapcer13 😳 Are you deluded? The Wehrmacht forces in the West were so powerful and supported by air power that the French army, except for the force commanded by De Gaulle, was completely overwhelmed. That was why the British army had to fall back to the coast or be surrounded and cut to pieces. Had the panzer army generals been permitted to continue their drive to the Channel the war would have been lost for us together with almost all of our army. Then the Wehrmacht forces would have been available to attack the USSR earlier in 1941. I dread to think of what outcome would have occurred in that situation, given what did happen when the Germans attacked nearly capturing Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad.

[@trauko1388]

The French fought a lot harder than usually depicted, which is why the British could escape in the end, otherwise... It wanst possible to have Barbarossa earlier, weather, you know?

[@BrorealeK]

Sir Meow, in 1939 the German Army in the West was a skeleton force. They didn't have permanent divisions that always stayed on one front or the other, the entire Wehrmacht was committed to Poland. Along the direct border between France and Germany, the French armies mustered 40 divisions to the Germans' 22, most of those static divisions with no transport equipment or artillery. At that point France had an advantage in both quantity and quality of troops--and even if they couldn't invade all of Germany, it would have made the USSR reconsider their deal and kept German troops away from Poland, which might have been a tougher nut to crack. Also, the German presence in France in 1939 was so light that it didn't significantly affect Operation Barbarossa. It was the Spring campaign into the Balkans that gave the German high command pause, requiring them to wait until June to invade. Apart from that, the strategic plan for Barbarossa was extremely simple and vague, with nothing but three plans of attack (North, Central, South) and a line drawn at the ill-defined edge of European Russia for the first year's goals. Logistics and enemy reserves weren't taken into account, and by all accounts only a minority of Nazi generals knew what they were getting into. Numbers weren't the Nazis' problem in 1941, it was planning, intelligence, and logistics.

[@joryadamson7854]

I heard somewhere that the character of Mr. Dawson was based on Charles Lightoller who was the 2nd Officer on Titanic

[@andersonandrighi4539]

The British actually rescued french troops. In the movie they refuse them, but in history they were rescued.

[@CynicalHistorian]

+Anderson Andrighi they did so. But just as the film depicts, they were denied passage until the British had evacuated their own

[@mikeytrains1]

Railfans like myself, however, were pissed to see LITERAL BR Mk1s dressed up as Southern Railway coaches... Mk1s were never built in 1940. British Railways didn't do an existence until 1948.

[@CynicalHistorian]

That's the kind of pedantry I like. No way that I could've spotted that

[@mikeytrains1]

The Cynical Historian Chris Eden-Green at “Gauge the Issue” already did before me mate.

[@mikeytrains1]

The Cynical Historian Chris Eden-Green at Gauge the Issue did before me though, sadly. SR Maunsells would have fitted better, but the movie made up for it with them being painted in SR Green.

[@mikeytrains1]

The Cynical Historian If you were, like me, well versed in railway equipment from that time period, it’d be semi-easy.

[@pedrohpires1]

Man, this is the only film I ever seen that could make me cry. My relief with the evacuation and Tom Hardy’s scene on the plane did what countless dog deaths couldn’t.

[@heathercontois4501]

My dad is a bog WW2 buff, and i took him to see this in theaters. 1-I had never been to a movie where they used the soundtrack as part of the "dialog" of the film. 2-My dad was beyond impressed with how they did the film and timeline for it. 3- I watched History Buffs review and I understand his immense need to have it all be as accurate as possible, but (and tis is from a complete novice history buff) i actually thought the choice to use less extras as a way to show the bleakness of the situation, rather than destroy the French beach for filming purposes, just to have every man and piece of artillery accounted for for factual reasons.

[@jamstonjulian6947]

How is filming in Dunkirk a testament to historical accuracy when the town looks completely different now? That's like making a movie about a young Robert De Niro and casting old Robert De Niro. Sure, it's the right guy but the wrong decision to tell the story.

[@CynicalHistorian]

I find this a fascinating question, especially with the example you give. If argue it shows a willingness to include the community, fidelity to the subject matter, and honest layout. But one could argue the opposite, hence the nitpick in the review. You've rephrased that in a good way, but one i can't answer

[@Nonsense010688]

@@CynicalHistorian I know I'm late to the party, but I know another example of this problem: The 300 Spartans (1962). As the title will have already told you, this is a movie about the battle of Thermopylae. This was shot on location on Thermopylae. Problem is, the place now is far wider then it was supposedly during the battle. Today you could easily have many chariots driving along each other and the movie shows that. So because of the original location you have a thin spartan line in what is pretty open field. While in reality the whole "trick" of this battle was that the heavily armored spartans where standing deep on a narrow place.

[@CynicalHistorian]

There have been a couple people to point out there was a downed Spitfires on the beaches during the evacuation. The problem is that the pictures clearly show that it crashed with its tail ripped off in the distance (obviously not a landing like in the film): twitter.com/1940Andy/status/889545128209207296

[@mergenbeen]

You forgot something, the real Dunkirk beach was full as in overcrowded with troops, debri, equipment and wounded. In the movie are only a few straight lines of soldiers.

[@alex4833]

Great review, Cypher! I was wondering how historically accurate Dunkirk is, and your video is helpful. Do you plan to review Oppenheimer (Nolan's next film)?

[@AudieHolland]

When the Spitfire glides down and the Stuka divebomber attacks, it is merely *implied* that the Spitfire somehow, miraculously, shot down an attacker coming down from great height at great speed. Something even fighters with ample fuel and ammunition could not manage. I mean, you have to pull up and start a very steep climb to train your guns on a divebomber attacking. And you can only keep it up for a second or two before the plane will inevitably stall. So the gliding Spitfire never fired on the Stuka. In the movie's reality, it was probably shot down by a gunner from the ground. Stuka divebombers were unstoppable when diving but once they had completed their bomb run, they were flying low and slow and were easy pickings for ground fire and Hurricanes. Spitfires may have been too fast that close to the ground.

[@grimtheghastly8878]

French: [sets up the Maginot Line] German: *HA! YOU JUST ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD!*

[@masterofinsanity1993]

The yellow nose on the 109s was adopted in August 1940 by some squadrons (II./JG 51, 7./JG 27). So close, Nolan! Also, a bigger inaccuracy is that Nolan didn't use actual Bf 109 Es for the dogfights. These are Spanish HA-1112. Hitler gave Franco some Bf 109 G variants, minus the engines, so Franco had to fit them with British RR Merlin engines (spitfire engines). The HA-1112 were also used in the 1960s film 'Battle Of Britain,' instead of actual 109s (of which too few are air worthy). I don't know if Nolan was unable to get his hands into an actual 109 E or he simply wanted to pay homage to the 1960s film.

[@dewittbourchier7169]

My nitpick is how the French, yet again, are underrepresented and basically forgotten. They were, as you mention, the ones keeping the Germans at bay. It would have been better to show the French more. For example, they could have made the Tom Hardy character French instead of British, inaccurate yes, but a way of showing the French were very much involved.

[@ericreinholt8838]

I really liked how the disorientation of the movie immersed you into the movie, as if you are a soldier on the ground watching everything happen around you.

[@AudieHolland]

Great mention that "Blitzkrieg" was not an official phrase invented by the Germans. Only a few years ago, I learned that that was just its popular name, like, in the newspapers and generally among non-Germans at the time. Now some nitpickings from me concerning this review: *1)* Even though the British dubbed it the "Me-109," its official name was "Bf-109" because it was built at the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (BFW). "BFW was reconstituted as "Messerschmitt AG" on July 11, 1938" and from then on, its planes were designated with the "Me" prefix. Some examples: Me-163 "Komet" and Me-262 "Schwalbe." *2)* This film was not just shot on the actual location. Among the UK and California of all places, shooting was also done for four weeks in Urk, The Netherlands. Probably because Urk has remained a small fishing village. A different French coastal town stood in for the street scenes in the movie because present day Dunkirk is unrecognizable compared to how it looked during World War 2.

[@hosank]

not to be *that guy*, but the thing about the filming street scenes is partially incorrect: They were actually filmed in Malo-les-Bains (a village a couple of miles up the coast from Dunkirk) specifically because the actual city of Dunkirk was so destroyed by the evacuation and later rebuilt with a lot of 'modernist' in-fill that it wouldn't look authentic. You're absolutely right about the city needing to look more 'destroyed' though - but that plays into one of the weaker points of the movie: (Ironically, in this case) Nolan's reluctance to use any CGI. To me this lack of digital effects is particularly felt when glaring during wide-shots of the beach...you don't see more than a few hundred men on mostly empty sandbanks, when in reality it would have been cluttered to the brim with 400 000 men and equipment.

[@mbfilms8245]

Great video. I disagree with one thing though - the point about the spitfire not being able to land on the beach. They did literally land a spitfire on Dunkirk beach for the movie, so clearly it is possible.

[@SubCapt]

Indeed. IIRC the sand just has to be wet enough.

[@CynicalHistorian]

they crashed, not landed. Here is a picture of it: twitter.com/1940Andy/status/889545128209207296

[@mbfilms8245]

The Cynical Historian I know I'm just saying it definitely can be done because Nolan & his team did it. But it's not important. Good video!

[@CynicalHistorian]

+MBFilms Looking at the clip of the landing, they might have packed the sand down and laid something on top to make it safe

[@MrEd8846]

The Cynical Historian did you read the caption of that picture? the one that says they landed, taxi' d to the dunes then destroyed by the pilot. also a crash landing you would see more damage to the propeller of the plane which isn't really visible

[@sammccullough1255]

Maybe 12 Strong will the next historically accurate movie. Why am I joking about, it's not.

[@austinburras2993]

Sam McCullough d

[@MrArtbv]

Re: The German "Tank Halt". The MAIN reason was that even after pinning and forcing the evacuation of the vast majority of the BEF (The Brits, two divisions were still in southern France near Cherbourg and Le Havre) and the destruction of two French Armies in the process... Roughly 60 French divisions remained. Granted the best French units were destroyed; but still, the German High Command realized a significant battle remained. In fact, so did 90% of France including the defenses around Paris and of course the garrisons in the still intact Maginot Line. So the Germans needed to refit, re-arm and refuel their 10 Panzer divisions before finishing off the French. Also the actual terrain around Dunkirk wasn't that great for tanks, there were marshes, canals etc that precluded the slashing flanking attacks that had previously been so successful. So the decision was made to use primarily infantry with the German AF stopping any evacuation of large numbers. Goering however, failed to realize that the Luftwaffe was going to be of limited effect at least for a week or so. Being a short range tactical AF; it had to redeploy forward from it's German bases to be able to effectively dominate the airspace over Dunkirk. This was slowed to a crawl as all the Luftwaffe bombs, fuel, parts, ammo etc had to be loaded on trucks and then transported east to west ACROSS the supply lines of the German Army moving north to south. There were enormous, miles deep traffic jams everywhere; especially at river crossings where only a single pontoon bridge might exist as the retreating Allies had blown ALL the main ones. And finally the weather refused to co-operate with several critical days having fog, rain, etc. Even when everything finally "clicked"... the area immediately around Dunkirk was blanketed by the thick smoke of 10 British divisions and 3 Corps level HQs burning everything they couldn't evacuate. Dunkirk was literally God's own dumpster fire. It was so bad that the British small boat flotillas were told to steer for the huge column of smoke by day, and the glow or the fires by night. One of my biggest bones to pick with the movie is how "tidy" it is... Those beaches were literally covered in junk. Tens and tens of thousands of rucksacks, blankets, gas masks, ration kits EVERYTHING; got left behind. Yet Nolan's beaches are pristine with perfect little queues of British soldiers lined up, perfectly spaced almost in formation. Here CGI would have been completely warranted to give an idea of the scale of the disaster overtaking the British Army as they abandoned EVERYTHING but the uniforms they were wearing and the rifles they carried. Just to give you an idea, the German Army still had salvage teams in the area a year after the evacuation. They actually recovered and melted down over 250,000 helmets alone. To this day after heavy storms all kinds of rusted out junk emerges from the sand... To get a much more realistic depiction of the beaches; search KZbin for "Battle of Britain, Opening Sequence". It's only a 5 or 10 second shot; but it does a far better job of conveying just how epic a disaster the final evacuation was, and the huge amounts of equipment left behind and the chaos the British Army had to extricate itself from.

[@Livelaughandlaughmore]

You forgot to include many more inaccuracies like how they had so much time to leave and it was because there were parts around Dunkirk that didn't give up fighting and many of them were french squads who were putting up a good fight and I felt like they didn't represent them well and could've shown those parts which would've made many people happy but also to see the German Bilitzkerg (i think I spelled that wrong

[@kylerichards4687]

"Can you think of another movie that purposely disorients its audience like that?" Well, I mean... Nolan did the same thing most famously in Memento, but he also did it in Inception, Interstellar, and to a certain extent in Batman Begins and Man of Steel (which he produced, but his fingerprints are all over certain parts). It's almost synonymous to Nolan at this point. But that's beside the point. Really great video.

[@matthewskinner1637]

Fun story, they hired a lot of the extras who play the British soldiers from my home town, one day before shooting one of the prop staff had a genuine clipboard from around the Dunkirk time, and the story goes that they apparently dropped it into the sea wrecking it entirely.

[@j.d.miller2700]

Is it just a rumor that Churchill was drunk when he made that speech?

[@CynicalHistorian]

He was drunk most of the time, so it wouldn't be surprising. And boy does he sound drunk

[@MichaelCollins1922]

Drink more, and you'll defeat you opponents.

[@hemmingwayfan]

I wasn't aware Churchill was ever sober

[@trauko1388]

That voice wasnt Churchill's, it was an actor's. www.theguardian.com/media/2000/oct/29/uknews.theobserver

[@trauko1388]

Hitler didnt drink nor ate meat, but he was using drugs since the moment Barbarossa went to hell, hence his ever erratic behavior.

[@gonzalesrafael22]

just want to reiterate that your content is awesome. thanks

[@FilmStudent07]

They stopped because their supply lines were overstretched and their flanks left unprotected. The British and Belgians did counter earlier in the war unsuccessfully. It wasn't Hitler who ordered the third hault ( one outside Dunkirk) but the general on the ground the leader of army group B. It's important to rember the allies had almost all their heavy equipment and tanks on the beach. Had the Germans pushed forward without adquite supplies and infintary support and the British countered the Germans would sustain heavy loses to their 5 panzer divisions deployed by army group B.

[@plinkbottle]

Spitfires could probably land on sand. I know of beaches where aircraft land on sand. It depends on the type of sand and how it drains

[@Tommy-5684]

id realy love to see Nolan do a film on the 303rd fighter squadron during the Battle of Britten as it would tell the story of a polish squadron who are not rememberd very well and in my opinion realy deserve to be as they lost the largest amount of men proportionally and i think also had the most kills

[@markwilliams2620]

Tommy Breitwieser "Silence! In Polish" If he does, I hope that line makes it back in.

[@Jamesmsteward]

Repeat Please!

[@redcoatgaming4141]

I think they make an appearance in the battle of Britain film

[@Nagrachlp]

Oh, they ARE remembered. At least by one desperate British flying instructor, who was hunted by two words for the rest of his live. "Repeat Please!"

[@dominict9325]

I really want Christopher Nolan to do more historical films, Dunkirk was fucking amazing.

[@Dexter037S4]

The Innaccuracies, I believe were done on purpose, as this movie is shot in such a way that it's a fractured memory, thus, the characters are only speaking of a *memory* not what actually happened, which is a GENIUS move.

[@huebert4446]

Another reason debated for hitlers halting is that some German generals had been carrying out orders that he didn’t approve. The halt order was his way of reasserting his dominance

[@theolamp5312]

I'm so glad you liked this film. My favorite film of 2017 is Three Billboards. But, I think Dunkirk is the best film I have seen (sometimes 2 films can share different spots in my mind). Usually I can only love a film if I care about the characters and their arc. In this case it didn't matter to me. The character was a collective. I felt the film was intense throughout. I will watch it again on a movie binge. Darkest Hour, followed by Dunkirk, and then Finest Hour. Not ranking in quality, just the logical progression of understanding the ideas.

[@dirufanboy1971]

Hitler actually halted the panzer advance in order to save face with the General Staff. Earlier in the offensive General Guderian had ignored Hitler's orders to halt the advance at a memorial of a WWI German victory and he felt he had to reassert his authority as Commander In Chief.

[@devanis]

If you're interested there's a french movie called "un week end à Zuydcoote " on the french side (not a happy movie) which can work complements this movie

[@erickd2570]

Hey love your videos and analysis. I am a art lover and would be awesome if you could name the art works from art pieces to photography that you present in your videos. I know it would be more work but would be great in the long run. Thank you for your work, cant wait to see more

[@CynicalHistorian]

I name movies I use, but if I named every photo and painting I use, that would increase editing time x2. I've gotta make choices on that, so stills don't get named directly for the sake of being able to put these out regularly

[@UkiWarBoy]

Actually blitzkrieg was not for just the circumvention of the maginot line but the capture of all early countries It is a tactic of saving artillarly and soldiers for the long haul that they expected from the world and the newspapers called it that AFTER several more countries went down

[@white-dragon4424]

6:43 That shot is inaccurate. That's Weymouth in Dorset, and the building in the background is the Pavilion, which wasn't built until the late 1950's. There was a much different building there during WWII, but that burnt down in the early 50's.

[@harryharris4889]

The defence of Dunkirk was not just a French Effort. British Defence and Offence around Dunkirk was most effective, famously the Battle of Arras for example. This is important to remember.

[@CIMAmotor]

The Grenadier Guard on the beach ("only Grenadiers' here mate") wasn't tall enough. My grandad was a Grenadier and he told me that they had to be at least 6 feet tall, the lad on the beach was clearly shorter.

[@elennapointer701]

Great summary and I agree with most of what you say. One nitpick, though. The historian Andy Saunders referred to Spitfires landing at Dunkirk - specifically two of them, wheels down, just as Farrier does in the film. Saunders apparently interviewed both pilots for a book and, furthermore, provides photographic evidence of the two burnt-out aircraft with their wheels clearly down. I think the photos are on his Twitter feed somewhere.

[@CynicalHistorian]

Out of curiosity, I tried to find this, but only found this: twitter.com/1940Andy/status/889952686174556161 That's clearly in the water. This one: twitter.com/1940Andy/status/889545128209207296 shows a plane that was destroyed by the landing, just as I said it would.

[@elennapointer701]

Fair enough. I shall hang my head and go back to the day job :D

[@CynicalHistorian]

Don't feel bad. Because of you, I wouldn't have seen the pictures

[@thefunmuffin9889]

Great video and have you heard of the Finnish movie Talvisota (The Winter War) and would you do that movie in a future analysis on historical accuracy.

[@tfd7915]

German general Von Rundstedt actually called two halts. The first was roundly ignored by hard charging front line commanders like Guderian and Rommel. So Von Rundstedt called a second halt this time with threats of court martials so they finally stopped. When Hitler got to Von Rundstedt's headquarters and found out what was going on he was furious and went into one of his patented rages. He seems to have been more concerned with subordinates not following orders than he was the battle at Dunkirk. It was Germany's bad luck that Goering arrived at the headquarters soon after and gave Hitler the excuse he needed to halt the army reorganize and stress the need to follow orders by offering to wipe them out from the air. A task that Goering failed at. Anyway based on the sequence of events I think Hitler was stopped more by his own paranoia about subordinates not doing what they were told than any military concerns. I can't prove that without reading Hitler's mind of course but it does seem to make sense. As for the movie I would have liked to have seen more of the details of what went on in the German high command during those days but I read somewhere that they didn't want to fill half the movie with Germans arguing in a room somewhere. Which I guess I understand. Still I thought it was a good movie.

[@fdsdh1]

I think German losses around the Dunkirk perimeter were also adding up, It was also poor tank country. Sending your army into a situation where the enemy might potentially be fighting to the death (no chance of withdrawal) is never a good move.

[@tfd7915]

The German high command was at this time split on the issue. The conservative generals like Von Rundstedt argued for some of the things you mentioned and worried about lengthening supply lines. More aggressive generals like Guderian who was on the front lines vehemently disagreed and believed that they could push through to the coast with little trouble. This was why he ignored Von Rundstedt's first halt order claiming (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) that he was only doing "reconnaissance in force". This of course infuriated Von Rundstedt. And Guderian's disobedience infuriated Hitler who seems to have been mostly clueless about the details of the military arguments. As for the arguments from both sides and who was right I tend to side with Guderian. But the only way to know for sure would be to go back and try it the other way.

[@michaelmiller7928]

Blitzkrieg was used only a few times to describe the actions. It just stuck after the war.

[@Gaslamp-Films]

You forgot the most grievous of inaccuracies; The train seats are blue pleather.

[@gonatas1]

Dunkirk is the reason there was (eventually) a US in the second world war. And most day I can't come across anybody under the age 60 who even knows what Dunkirk was. I think the movie lacked "scale." I was impressed they tried but you never get the impression that there are 300,000 men on that beach. HBO would have given you that.

[@jordancarmichael7901]

I’d like to see a movie by Nolan about the Australians, New Zealand Artillery, and the Canadians at Kapyong in the Korean War... don’t believe I’ve seen a movie about that yet.

[@jackwalters5506]

ME 109? IT'S BF 109, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[@__TheWiseMan__]

I saw this in the theaters and it was incredible. Generally I don't like loud noises but I gotta say, in this instance, it really helped immerse you in it, and it was loud as shit. Especially when they were in that little metal boat and the bullets randomly started piercing through it

[@theolamp5312]

I hate films that do time shifts. I hate films that don't give character development and a true involvement with the characters. That being said, I loved this film. Even though my favorite film of the year was Three Billboards, I think Dunkirk might have been the best film.

[@JeffreyDeCristofaro]

"It's like PULP FICTION in WWII, man!" 🤣 LMFAO. That being said, it's more like INCEPTION in WWII, given how brilliantly C. Nolan was able to bring in his fragmented maze-like narrative structure from his sci-fi film to capture the different perspectives of the real Dunkirk, able to create a coherent picture without either sacrificing significant points of this moment in history or audience interest. I really hope more filmmakers follow this trend in future depictions of past battles.

[@hargarlar]

Really like your content. Can you do one on 'Cinderella man' in the future?

[@douglasdaniel4504]

I've thought of it this way-- if the British had lost most of their army at Dunkirk, which was the expectation of just about everybody at the time, then one possibility is that Churchill, who was only a few weeks in the job of Prime Minister, would not have had the leverage to resist the 'reasonable' people around him (e.g., Lord Halifax) who saw the defeat in France as a devastating blow which left nothing but coming to terms with Hitler. If the British hadn't been so persnickety stubborn, Hitler might have had a completely free hand in the East, and there would have been nothing to pull America into the European war, especially as we were about to go ten rounds with the Japanese in any case.

[@stevetrousers6811]

A major nitpick for me was the lack of emotional connection, too few soldiers, too little damage - the big green 1960s warehouse and the 2012 tower. Might as well had modern day sun bathers on the beach too 🤦‍♂️

[@degenerate3288]

LOVED THIS FILM

[@matthbgaming1223]

11:17 It's not ME-109! It's the Bf-109 named after the company Bayerische Flugzeugwerke in its first flight in 1935, in 1938 the company Messcerschmitt bought the company and licence production of the aircraft the company manufactured; and also the yellow painted noses were also seen on Ju-87 "Stukas" or "Jericho Trumpets", other bombers and fighters, and the heavy fighter the Bf-110 also made by the company that made the Bf-109. Anyway Great Video! Keep up the good work!

[@SPQRTempus]

Even Messerschmitt themselves used the terms Bf and ME interchangeably on official documents (sometimes even within the same document!) to describe the 109. But you really want to nit pick, those 109's weren't even proper 109s. They're Buchon Ha-1112, a Spanish built clone of the 109-G powered by Rolls Royce Merlin engines and modified to look like 109-Es. There are a couple of period correct airworthy 109-E3's the film makers could have used instead but I suspect that either the owners refused to let them be used or the insurance cost too much. But at the end of the day, the visual similarity is enough to fool the average movie goer.

[@aewhatever]

Every time I heard Winston Churchills speaking in a documentary, I always pictured him drunk. It sounded like he was about to pass out after every sentence.

[@themaximumgamer7834]

I love the movie. Perfectly made. But one other issue I think you missed. When the officer says "there's 400,000 men on this beach sir", it isn't ever shown. Christopher Nolen was too stubborn on cgi and the amount of extras wasn't nearly enough to show the amount of men on the beach

[@LJPMotorsports]

Meh. It was alright. But I've always been amused by Great Britain's ability to make a military retreat sound like something glorious. The British propaganda machine has always been top notch.

[@a.morphous66]

It did save almost the entirety of the BEF, which was a huge portion of the British Army. Even though it was technically a defeat, it was a pretty masterful handling of the event.

[@TommyTom21]

American propaganda gets boring after a while.

@@TommyTom21 There is always someone like you, someone who absolutely refuses to take any criticism directed towards their country and instead goes, "bu-bu-but, America!" Deflection and whataboutism to shift everything negative onto Americans gets boring after a while.

[@white-dragon4424]

You know why Hitler really stopped his Panzers at Dunkirk? It's because he still wanted Britain as an ally. Even up to the Battle of Britain he was still hoping that Britain would "see sense" and join the Axis. His only alternative was to knock us out of the war by forcing a surrender, at which point he'd turn all of his forces on the enemy that he did want to fight, the Russians. It's obvious that he had no serious plans to invade Britain, because he didn't have the amphibious equipment to attempt an invasion, especially a complete lack of dedicated landing craft. All he had for a supposed invasion were converted canal boats that were not at all fit for crossing open sea. At the time the Channel was also the most heavily mined stretch of water in the world, and was patrolled by the strongest navy in the world, the RN. Even if, by some miracle, he did make it across, his forces would soon be overrun and obliterated by the British, and he knew it.

[@jacobprice2579]

A mate of mine nit packed that the window frame on the train at the end would be inaccurate for 1940.

[@rodden1953]

My Dad was there, he came home on a Destroyer HMS Malcolm that by coincidence was one of the ships my Grandfather was on after ww1. Dad said it was mayhem and funny thing is like the film Dads train stopped at Woking not far from where we live, he said I could have got off the train and walked home and no one would have known he was missing .I loved the film and im sure Dad would have too.

[@xiaomingberserker3864]

Dunkirk tells the story of surviving, not History , as it was said by Nolan during an interview. For the french, this movie is not an insult because it is a british movie made to feel proud (last scene with hardy), the real problem is to portray more than half of the french soldiers as black people on the beach, this one is not classy. But except that, this is movie is, as a non-historical movie, pretty cool.

[@commondognut]

Surprised you didn't talk about the inaccuracies in the air combat

[@clarkyboio]

Also, the few huundred people on the beach when theres meant to be 400,000

[@UndeadSlayer5]

Good job on the review but how come this one is 12 mins long this time. And can u please review Ip man and the Battleship Island next?

[@Alison-dt5wo]

Concerning whether or not this movie pushes the myth of the small boats - I didn't know anything about Dunkirk until I watched the movie, and my impression was that the 300,000 made it out through small boats. Only realised the mistake when I watched a documentary afterwards.

[@Riceball01]

A couple of other nitpicks that you could have done were that the BF-109s were not German 109s, I forget what they were but they weren't German. But that's understandable since I don't think that there any actual German 109s still flying, so a stand in would have to be used if you wanted to do it with real planes. The other nitpick, as pointed in another channel (History Buffs) was that the Dunkirk beac was far too empty and orderly. There should have been a lot more troops on the beach making the beach much more crowded than it was. While the argument has been made that it was because Nolan wanted to do it practically I don't buy that excuse since there's a couple of ways of doing this practically. The first would have been to use wood or cardboard standees (like what you see at movie theaters) painted up to look like people and stand them in the background and since they would be in the background you wouldn't need to paint them with very much detail. Alternately, he could have done multiple takes with his extras standing in different spots on the beach and then comped them together in post, true, there's post work involved but the people would all have been real, no CG people needed. This is actually an old trick that has been used many times, most notably on Braveheart.

[@МаксимБромберг]

Dear author! Have you seen a great french film Weekend at Zuidcotte or 6 minute one shot scene from Attonement?