Dunkirk

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Hoopsdoc

There weren’t Kamikaze’s and banzai charges on the eastern front.

Yes, there were. Men in penal companies were forced to charge German machine guns without weapons. And there was nowhere near the amount of civilian suffering encountered in the Pacific theater between the US and Japan. The Japanese did awful things to the Chinese, but there was widespread rape and murder perpetrated by both armies (and their partisans) on the Eastern front.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by Hoopsdoc

The brutality involved in trying to roust thousands upon thousands of Japanese soldiers out of their islands caves in the Pacific, when they would much rather be burned alive than suffer the disgrace of surrender, was just as bad.

Both the eastern front and the pacific campaign were just unbelievably brutal.

There was brutality all over the world in WWII. But the eastern front dominated the combat deaths:

Most of those German deaths were the eastern front. Stalingrad accounted for almost 2 million deaths by itself.

[Hoopsdoc]

Originally Posted by Chief Pagan

There was brutality all over the world in WWII. But the eastern front dominated the combat deaths:

Most of those German deaths were the eastern front. Stalingrad accounted for almost 2 million deaths by itself.

Right, more people died on the eastern front and the conditions were brutally awful. That’s just fact.

[staylor26]

I’ve seen it 3 times already and I usually don’t like war movies.

Probably my movie of the year, though this hasn’t been a great year for movies (Wind River and Get Out round out my top 3).

[Prison Bitch]

Saw it in the theaters

One of the most boring films I can recall

[notorious]

I liked it. It did a great job of building suspense, and it managed to show the fright and emotional horror of war without gratuitous gore.

The Spitfire gliding at the end was a little over the top. The real pilot the character was based on landed the plane gear up and walked to the loading area where he got onto a ship, which makes a lot more sense than the movie.

Several ships that were in the movie participated in the real Dunkirk evacuation. That's pretty cool.

http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/dunkirk/

[BigRedChief]

TIL the second officer of the Titanic, who survived by swimming from the sinking ship to a capsized raft, later in life sailed his civilian craft to Dunkirk and helped evacuate over 130 men. https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearn...SQ&sh=a31259bd

[DJ's left nut]

A little 8 minute black and white 'silent movie' re-imagining of Dunkirk. Kinda interesting

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

A little 8 minute black and white 'silent movie' re-imagining of Dunkirk. Kinda interesting

I wish somebody would edit it into chronological order.

[keg in kc]

Putting aside the regional conflicts that continued well past 1945 and focusing just on the major Axis/Allied war itself, one facet of the eastern/western front debate is the development and use of atomic bombs. There's no telling how much longer the Pacific campaign would have lasted nor how many lives would have been lost had the battle versus Japan ended conventionally. It's odd to say it, but at the least hundreds of thousands were saved, perhaps millions.

[ShiftyEyedWaterboy]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Putting aside the regional conflicts that continued well past 1945 and focusing just on the major Axis/Allied war itself, one facet of the eastern/western front debate is the development and use of atomic bombs. There's no telling how much longer the Pacific campaign would have lasted nor how many lives would have been lost had the battle versus Japan ended conventionally. It's odd to say it, but at the least hundreds of thousands were saved, perhaps millions.

A lot of historians think Japan would’ve surrendered quickly after the Soviets got involved. We’ll never know. Assuming that’s not the case, though, the bombs might’ve saved 1-2 million lives.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by ShiftyEyedWaterboy

A lot of historians think Japan would’ve surrendered quickly after the Soviets got involved. We’ll never know. Assuming that’s not the case, though, the bombs might’ve saved 1-2 million lives.

Yea and who knows if /when the Russians would have gotten involved.

Stalin's promises were worth about as much as Hitler's.

[Hoopsdoc]

Originally Posted by ShiftyEyedWaterboy

A lot of historians think Japan would’ve surrendered quickly after the Soviets got involved. We’ll never know. Assuming that’s not the case, though, the bombs might’ve saved 1-2 million lives.

I don’t buy it. The Japanese were FANATICS when it came to their homeland and their emperor. They would have fought to the death against ANYONE.

The allies had to agree not to remove Hirohito as a condition of Japans surrender, which still puzzles me. The dude should have been tried for war crimes.

[ShiftyEyedWaterboy]

Originally Posted by Hoopsdoc

I don’t buy it. The Japanese were FANATICS when it came to their homeland and their emperor. They would have fought to the death against ANYONE.

The allies had to agree not to remove Hirohito as a condition of Japans surrender, which still puzzles me. The dude should have been tried for war crimes.

I'm not an expert on the Pacific theatre but my understanding is that at that point in the war Japanese high command was under no illusions about their chances. Their idea was to make a US invasion of the mainland sound so unpalatable to the US that they could negotiate favorable terms with the help of the Soviets (who had been neutral in the Pacific). After Stalin, who wanted more influence in the Pacific, declared war and the Red Army invaded Manchuria that went out the window. Couple that with the bomb and I'm sure both played a big role.

I've always heard that Hirohito was largely a puppet of the military but you're right about a lot of Japanese war criminals getting off.