Here’s a good article on fact vs fiction in the movie from a British WWII historian. In summary, he thinks it’s pretty good. Even some seemingly overly dramatic moments, like the soldier walking into the water to swim to England, or the Spitfire ditching miraculously close to a boat, ring true.
He also says that pilots reported gliding in their Spitfires for 15 miles, so the length of his glide is realistic (but shooting down a plane while gliding is pure Hollywood).
It wasn’t quite as that sounds - the Geneva Conventions allowed for “other ranks” POWs to be used as civilian labour (my father was put to work in a railway marshalling yard, and down a coalmine in Poland, which I suspect was grimmer than he let on), but officers were simply interned. It was hardly a fun holiday, but it was far from the conditions in concentration camps and for those from the Western Allies, much better than for Russians.
They’re not just coming over a hill, they’re right there. You see a gun pointed at him and he puts his hands behind his head.
Right. I just saw this last night and it’s very clear: he’s caught by the Germans.
I plan to see the movie this weekend.
I’ve always wondered if the Germans deliberately let the troops escape?
Absorbing 200,000 or more POWS at one time would have been daunting and a massive undertaking. The resources needed would have hurt Germany’s war effort.
They did let the Luftwaffe pick off some. But it didn’t seem like the professional German Army wanted a massacre of this scale.
Better to let them go and focus on the war.
Are there any estimates of the POWS captured at Dunkirk?
A lot escaped but there were obviously many that didn’t get a boat ride and were captured.
It quite a remarkable story from WWII. I’m looking forward to seeing the movie.
No, it’s just a giant mystery. No one has any idea. If only there had been more historians interested in WWII, instead of scholars completely ignoring it. :rolleyes:
I saw this last night at the IMAX and was very impressed. Christopher Nolan is a true craftsman and it’s very satisfying to see such a skillful execution of such a specific intent.
I believe this was sold as a movie about the experience of being there. There was minimal exposition and we didn’t see any of the detailed planning. Even the higher ranked officers served as a reaction to the experience rather than as plot devices.
Everything seemed designed to maximize the experience. The jumping timeline really de-emphasized the linear plot and drew attention to the individual moments of trying to survive. The camera shots and movements were stunning. I really had a sense of the vastness of the ocean, the disorientation of being on a capsizing ship, the difficulty of the air fights, the confusion and just trying to take one step at a time. Yet it avoided being ridiculously busy (something that seems too common in current action movies), and felt very grounded.
I’ve felt a little numb about action movies and the comic book franchises these days. The trailers don’t really stand out to me, and seem to have crazy indecipherable short cuts where I have no idea what is happening. It all becomes a blur of silliness, and I lose interest fast. This seemed like the opposite, and seemed skillfully designed to let emotions and the experience linger for maximum impact.
So in summary: meh, it was alright I guess. 
I was politely asking what were the estimates for POW’s at Dunkirk.
I’ve read several articles about the movie and none mentioned how many soldiers weren’t saved.
It was very chaotic but at some point the POW’s would have been processed and their names recorded.
[Moderating]
TroutMan, the snark isn’t necessary. aceplace57 was clearly asking what those estimates were, not whether they existed, despite the literal interpretation of his phrasing.
Post 19 above says 40,000 British. This estimate is confirmed by many sources on the web.
ETA: Apologies for the snark. Bad day.
Thank you.
The numbers of captured were lower than I expected.
The Dunkirk evacuation made a significant difference.
There’s a lot of historical analysis (and armchair-general-with-hindsight analysis) on the topic.
IIRC, the Germans didn’t want to overextend themselves and take unnecessary casualties, and they thought that the British wouldn’t be able to quickly organize a significant evacuation. Hell, the British didn’t think they’d be able to evacuate more than a few tens of thousands at first. So the German generals likely thought they’d be able to take a few days to rest and resupply, and still be able to capture the majority of the British forces. Pushing the advance could conceivably have resulted in thousands of German casualties, to conceivably only prevent the evacuation of a few thousand British soldiers.
Yes, armored formations are great at penetrating weak points and exploiting over long distances, but would take a lot of casualties attacking an entrenched defender who can’t retreat. If the Germans tried to force a rapid attack at Dunkirk, their spearhead units would probably take significant casualties, leaving them in worse shape for defeating the rest of France. With hindsight we know that the worst that would happen is the French campaign would drag on for a few more weeks or months, but at the time the Germans were still looking at a long campaign to defeat the rest of France that would rely on having those spearhead units in great shape.
Flare gun.
That was my take on it, too - he represents those left behind.
Is there some reason the troops waiting on the beach were queued up so neatly? Surely they’d have to move inland with the tides twice a day while awaiting transport.
Yes. Although they’re kind of out of focus compared to the RAF pilot, their helmets are unmistakable.
Aren’t the English known for queuing up?
More serious - military discipline. You don’t want a group of desperate people turning into a mob.