-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Darkest Hour
- Thread starter ColoREDo
- Start date
I've read Oldman is a huge Bruce Dickinson fan, so it kind of makes sense.
Went today (couldn’t bear to watch UCF, lest I caused them bad karma). The theaters showing here generally are reserved seating only and most of the best seats are sold out a day in advance. So couldn’t go yesterday when we wanted to.
Very good drama. A lot of information on the first 20 or so days of Churchill’s premiership. Basically a unity war government, but. Churchill was distrusted by his own parties but was the only acceptable choice to the opposition Labor and Liberals. So the action is whether the Tories can structure his failure (of course they didn’t trust him either).
Visually a very dark movie not unlike Batman (that is only similarity).
Wonder about an incident or two, but would think it was high on historical accuracy. If you like movies or shows like The King’s Speech, The Crown or Victoria it is for you.
Very good drama. A lot of information on the first 20 or so days of Churchill’s premiership. Basically a unity war government, but. Churchill was distrusted by his own parties but was the only acceptable choice to the opposition Labor and Liberals. So the action is whether the Tories can structure his failure (of course they didn’t trust him either).
Visually a very dark movie not unlike Batman (that is only similarity).
Wonder about an incident or two, but would think it was high on historical accuracy. If you like movies or shows like The King’s Speech, The Crown or Victoria it is for you.
Last edited:
Excellent movie. Made me want to do some more research on the George/Churchill relationship. I had thought they were always on good terms. The Kings Speech portrays Churchill as a mentor of sorts to both George and Edward. This movie portrayed the relationship as strained because of the abdication that didn't thaw until George saw the futility of negotiating with the Nazis.
He deserves the Oscar for that performance.
Agreed. What I didn’t know prior to this movie was supposedly Churchill took Edward’s side in that he had the right to marry Wallis Simpson and retain the throne.
What I need to know more about is where the Rudolph Hess situation/ mission fit in, it was a year later on May 10, 1941. Also more about those seeking accommodation with Nazi Germany. I believe this was the subject of “Remains of the Day”, a movie I have never seen.
Last edited:
I saw this while was back in NEbraska with my dad.
So a big point of the movie is that he saved England by not surrendering. So basically he England kept fighting and then eventually the US joined and the allies won.
So what if they had surrendered? If Pearl Harbor still happens we enter the war and still eventually end it with he bomb? If that's the case then did England's choice on surrender even matter? Would it have saved lives had they surrendered?
Of course it's all hindsight, but I'd like get an expert's take.
I wonder if I should have made a new thread in the hot topics for this...
So a big point of the movie is that he saved England by not surrendering. So basically he England kept fighting and then eventually the US joined and the allies won.
So what if they had surrendered? If Pearl Harbor still happens we enter the war and still eventually end it with he bomb? If that's the case then did England's choice on surrender even matter? Would it have saved lives had they surrendered?
Of course it's all hindsight, but I'd like get an expert's take.
I wonder if I should have made a new thread in the hot topics for this...
Last edited:
I read Gen. LeMay's book on the B-29 program "Superfortress" last year.I saw this while was back in NEbraska with my dad.
So a big point of the movie is that he saved England by not surrendering. So basically he England kept fighting and then eventually the US joined and the allies won.
So what if they had surrendered? If Pearl Harbor still happens we enter the war and still eventually end it with he bomb? If that's the case then did England's choice on surrender even matter? Would it have saved lives had they surrendered?
Of course it's all hindsight, but I'd like get an expert's take.
I wonder if I should have made a new thread in the hot topics for this...
The reason the B-29 and B-36 programs were initiated in 1940-41 was due to (pre) war planning and assumptions that the UK might be out of the war, or unusable for bomber bases. By the time the time the US entered the war, it was obvious that the UK bases were available and the B-29 continued (planned for the Pacific Theater where its greater range was needed) while the B-36 program was mothballed until the war was over. The B-17 & 24 were what we had and were adequate for the job in Europe.
FDR, repeatedly had the War Department (quaint term) draw up war plans and evaluate weapons systems and plans in light of what we saw happening in the various war theaters. Funny thing the Dec 5, 1941 leak of plans to the Chicago Tribune were pretty darn accurate with what finally happened.
Last edited:
Well the first question is what would have a summer of 1940 peace agreement meant for Britain? What would the terms look like. How would it compare with those imposed on Vichy France? Point being, would the UK government have had sufficient independence that it would be accepted by the people? There is a lot of evidence that among the "ruling class" there was a lot of interest in accommodation; but that actually threatened the ruling classes legitimacy. I would guess that any peace deal would have been less onerous than with France. However, it would appear that when you start asking questions, it would appear the British Empire would have ended even sooner; what about Iraq & Iran (divvied up between Germany and the USSR in the non-Aggression pact), Suez & Egypt - let alone India; where an Independence movement was underway. So would have a treaty even been feasible? Also, did the Nazis have the sea-lift capability to land and supply an army on the British Isles?I saw this while was back in NEbraska with my dad.
So a big point of the movie is that he saved England by not surrendering. So basically he England kept fighting and then eventually the US joined and the allies won.
So what if they had surrendered? If Pearl Harbor still happens we enter the war and still eventually end it with he bomb? If that's the case then did England's choice on surrender even matter? Would it have saved lives had they surrendered?ment
Of coturse it's all hindsight, but I'd like get an expert's take.
I wonder if I should have made a new thread in the hot topics for this...
Say peace was achieved, then what would have been the level of conflict between the US & Germany? We would not be worried about shipping being attacked. FDR and much of the US would have had deep ideological issues, but that wasn't sufficient to allow greater action against Germany. Germany's overall objective, invading and subjugating (and worse) the Soviet Union would have been easier without the conflict with the UK. Would the US have been brought into the war over that? Even more doubtful; consider Sen. Truman's comments on the German invasion of the USSR (we should support who ever is losing and shift it back and forth so hopefully neither win).
Are US anti-interventionists actually strengthened?
Then we get into the conflict in the Pacific with Japan. Japan take over northern Vietnam to further cut off China from supplies from the outside world. We still embargo sale of materials and oil from the US. So does Japan still see the need to attack the US to ensure it can secure oil supplies from Indonesia and Malaysia? Does the sidelined UK cooperate with Japan and draw a truce line with Japan?
I would see the US continuing the Manhattan Project; the Nazis were completely out of that game because their top scientists didn't think it feasible. Do they learn otherwise from the British? Stalin had the project wired (knew more than Truman), but that was several years later, but are they out of the war by then?
Problem is with this counter factual history, is one has to come to the conclusion that a peace deal could have been achieved that was acceptable to the UK. It probably would have taken an invasion of the UK to end the conflict in the west, at least temporarily. And that was never a step Hitler attempted; the only alleged (speculated) peace feeler was the Hess mission a year later, when it would have had zero chance of working.
Last edited:
I went back and reread the relevant sections.
The B-29 & B-36 programs were conceived in the summer of 1941 under Air War Plans Division - 1 when the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union was in full operation (starting June 22nd). The concern existed that UK bases may not be available and that the Soviets would fall by summer of 1943 (which threat was eliminated when the Soviets prevailed at Stalingrad in the summer of 1943).
When they updated the plans in summer of 1942 under Air war plans Division 1942 the UK bases were then believed to be fully available and the existing B-17 & B-24 adequate. So the B-29 was continued and B-36 delayed.
The AWPD-1 also took into account the secret ABC Agreement (America, Britain & Canada) that was reached at the end of March 1941 that Japan would be a second priority and that defeat of Germany would be the first priority. The ABC conference was held in Washington DC from late January 1941 to late March 1941.
Beginning in 1940 and by 1941, US preparations for war, both public and secret were in full swing. We had ramped up production and procurement, and instituted a peace time draft. But the political (due to lack of overwhelming support by the public) will to enter the war was lacking.
Generally at that time, the belief was that the Germans were looking east to secure oil supplies and had their eyes on Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and Iraq (and undoubtedly Iran). Romania and Iran were on the Soviet side of the Molotov - von Ribbentrop agreement. The Germans were fighting the British in North Africa and Egypt with the obvious objective of the Suez canal (through which oil flowed from Iran, Iraq and some of the gulf monarchies (Saudi oil wasn't developed until after WW-II).
One of the great ironies is that the US did not declare war on Germany after Pearl Harbor. Von Ribbentrop recommended Hitler view that as positive and to do nothing. Hitler instead declared war on December 11th, so Congress returned the favor the same day. This was an obvious strategic and politically stupid blunder on Hitler's part as it brought the US into the war against Germany, when FDR did not believe he could have politically received a war declaration from Congress (effectively the American people).
Last edited:
I saw this while was back in NEbraska with my dad.
So a big point of the movie is that he saved England by not surrendering. So basically he England kept fighting and then eventually the US joined and the allies won.
So what if they had surrendered? If Pearl Harbor still happens we enter the war and still eventually end it with he bomb? If that's the case then did England's choice on surrender even matter? Would it have saved lives had they surrendered?
Of course it's all hindsight, but I'd like get an expert's take.
I wonder if I should have made a new thread in the hot topics for this...
My question would be, if UK surrendered and US didn't enter Europe in any real capacity, what would Germany and Russia look like after they destroyed each other? By the time US entered the war, Russia had already stopped the German offensive and had pushed German forces west. Had Germany the troops to commit on the Eastern front, that would have been more of a bloodbath that it already was. Russia would have decimated that generation as would have Germany, to a great extent. Would Russia have become a superpower? Would Russia have become a superpower sooner, with more land and resources gained by, what I would expect, ultimately defeating Germany based on nothing but more bodies to win the war? Or had Russia exhausted their useful military to the point that pushing into Germany led to their demise?
Great replies guys...thanks. I really don't know enough about the subject to comment any more.
Spoiler alert:
It was America's fault.
