Darkest hour

[Calimero]

Just seen it and it's a beautiful piece of big screen cinema, the principle characters are uniformly well played. Where Dunkirk suffered from the distracting backgrounds taking away from the good performances this immersed you entirely, (if you don't know about tube stock ).

You can see why they fought Churchill because of his reputation and particularly the scenes with the King coming round to his side are brilliantly played. I'd be very surprised if Oldman and Mendelsohn don't get best actor and best supporting actor nominations at BAFTA or Oscar!

Well worth your time and a superb way to bring it to a close.

Wasn't that the point of Dunkirk, the vastness of the backgrounds highlighting how alone and isolated they were?

[Phil Bullock]

Anyone know how true to the documented facts it is?

 

I ask, because it covers one of the short periods that is used to define ‘britishness’, and it would be useful to know whether it is in ‘history will be kind to me, because I shall write it’ territory, or is a bit deeper (I’m aware that it is a moot point whether or not he actually said that).

 

Having read Mr Churchill's "World War 2" - yes all 12 volumes - 3 times then the only bit that didn't chime was the underground scene. Of course that tome was his version of events but triangulating the screen play with everything else in my sphere of knowledge it certainly worked for me.

 

Phil

[rockershovel]

I’ve now seen this, and found it absolutely absorbing.

 

Regarding “Britishness” and “a parable for our times”, I’m reminded of Dean Acheson’s less well-known aphorism, to the effect that “.. the qualities which can appear as their indomitable courage, can also appear as obstinacy and stupidity in another setting”.

 

My late parents were always clear about one thing; the nation could not, and would not have stood under Halifax or Chamberlain. Norway and Dunkirk made it quite clear that the Army did not have the ability to fight effectively and the politicians had no sufficient plan, or vision.

 

Churchill harnessed that quality, as no one else could; but it left the huge question, what would have happened, had Hitler not invaded Russia? Churchill was one of the very few politicians who was certain that the conflict was inevitable, and the only question was WHEN? Would it be soon enough to allow Britain to survive? The events of 1942 (Operation TORCH) and 1944 (Overlord) make it clear that the Germans could not stage an opposed invasion of the UK, they didn’t have the means; but an UNOPPOSED landing,somewhere between the events of Dunkirk and Pearl Harbour, before Japan’s entry and Germany’s quixotic declaration of war on the USA, would have been a different matter.

Edited January 19, 2018 by rockershovel

[PaulRhB]

Wasn't that the point of Dunkirk, the vastness of the backgrounds highlighting how alone and isolated they were?

That was the problem, rather than vastness you had modern container cranes! I know the acting is supposed to draw you in but there were just too many background distractions, that's why theatres use black backgrounds without distractions if they don't use sets. The claustrophobic sequences in the cockpits or boats were brilliant, much like the whole of Darkest Hour, but for me there were too many modern distractions in Dunkirk that broke the spell. Acting wise both are excellent films.

I thought Darkest Hour played both sides of Churchills persona and history very well. His opponents weren't overplayed as villains, you could understand their reasoning. Oldman has been noted for his 'big' acting style but I think it suited Churchill's 'big' character superbly. I'd never have said either him or Mendelsohn would be obvious choices for their roles but both were a virtually perfect fit.

I'd gone to see another film as I was a little wary of the subject in a film but as the timings worked out we saw this and it was the positive reaction on this thread that made it my second choice. I'm very glad I did

[62613]

I’ve now seen this, and found it absolutely absorbing.

 

The events of 1942 (Operation TORCH) and 1944 (Overlord) make it clear that the Germans could not stage an opposed invasion of the UK, they didn’t have the means; but an UNOPPOSED landing,somewhere between the events of Dunkirk and Pearl Harbour, before Japan’s entry and Germany’s quixotic declaration of war on the USA, would have been a different matter.

 

Allowing the B.E.F to escape from Dunkirk was Hitler's first major mistake in the war, especially given that Guderian's panzers were closer to that port than the British until about the 25th. Those 200,000 men formed the basis of the defence over the next few months. What everyone seems to forget is that the success of the blitzkrieg in France surprised virtually everyone, including most German generals. So much of a surprise was it that they had made no plans for an invasion, and indeed didn't produce a plan until August.

 

I'm not saying the Germans wouldn't have got ashore, after all, thy could pick time and place, but whether they could have sustained the invasion, is open to question, given that the Kriegsmarine had been decimated in the Norwegian campaign

[Metr0Land]

Allowing the B.E.F to escape from Dunkirk was Hitler's first major mistake in the war, especially given that Guderian's panzers were closer to that port than the British until about the 25th. Those 200,000 men formed the basis of the defence over the next few months. What everyone seems to forget is that the success of the blitzkrieg in France surprised virtually everyone, including most German generals. So much of a surprise was it that they had made no plans for an invasion, and indeed didn't produce a plan until August.

 

I'm not saying the Germans wouldn't have got ashore, after all, thy could pick time and place, but whether they could have sustained the invasion, is open to question, given that the Kriegsmarine had been decimated in the Norwegian campaign

Not sure it was Hitler's mistake? As you mentioned it happened so fast AIUI the oh-so-efficient Germans ran short of ammo due to stretched supply lines, giving the British just a few days respite to mount the Dunkirk evacuation.

 

There was a 'war game' reenacted at Sandhurst in early 70's with many of the actual participants taking place. Obv war-games don't prove what would have happened but the outcome of the 'game' was that the Germans would have got ashore, but ultimately the British would have husbanded enough resources to repel them, albeit Kent and East Sussex might well have been razed to the ground in the process

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)

[62613]

Not sure it was Hitler's mistake? As you mentioned it happened so fast AIUI the oh-so-efficient Germans ran short of ammo due to stretched supply lines, giving the British just a few days respite to mount the Dunkirk evacuation.

 

There was a 'war game' reenacted at Sandhurst in early 70's with many of the actual participants taking place. Obv war-games don't prove what would have happened but the outcome of the 'game' was that the Germans would have got ashore, but ultimately the British would have husbanded enough resources to repel them, albeit Kent and East Sussex might well have been razed to the ground in the process

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)

Yes, They did a book from it, which I have somewhere. No, Hitler issued a 'Halt' order to the panzers on the evening of 24th May, when the first twenty miles of the Aa Canal were held by a single British battalion. the numbers of British troops in Dunkirk were minimal, as the bulk of the B.E.F. was still in Belgium. As it was only 10 miles from the canal to Dunkirk, and the panzer divisions already had bridgeheads in place, it would have been dead easy for them to drive up and cut the B.E.F. off. I have three sources for this:-

 

        1) To Lose a Battle, By Alistair Horne

and  2) History of the Second World War and The Other Side of the Hill, both by Captain B.H. Liddell Hart

Edited January 19, 2018 by 62613

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Churchill harnessed that quality, as no one else could; but it left the huge question, what would have happened, had Hitler not invaded Russia? Churchill was one of the very few politicians who was certain that the conflict was inevitable, and the only question was WHEN? Would it be soon enough to allow Britain to survive? The events of 1942 (Operation TORCH) and 1944 (Overlord) make it clear that the Germans could not stage an opposed invasion of the UK, they didn’t have the means; but an UNOPPOSED landing,somewhere between the events of Dunkirk and Pearl Harbour, before Japan’s entry and Germany’s quixotic declaration of war on the USA, would have been a different matter.

...I'm not saying the Germans wouldn't have got ashore, after all, they could pick time and place, but whether they could have sustained the invasion, is open to question, given that the Kriegsmarine had been decimated in the Norwegian campaign

 Shipping the invading German army and maintaining its supply lines would have proved impossible in the face of a resolute defence. The appropriate tactic on the part of the Royal Navy would have been to regularly sail the heaviest units through the sea lanes used for invasion and supply at maximum speed. The wakes would have done for the river barges which the Germans had earmarked for transport, without need of firing a shot. Those RN ships inevitably crippled by mines, air attack or submarine torpedoes to be got into blockading positions where possible, obstructing navigable channel access to harbours and the like.

 

Of course none of this takes account of the Germans having nerve gas available throughout the war, and never using it; even when in dire straits with Russians on the doorstep. As none of the Allies had the slightest knowledge of this weapon, use in action would have been devastating and also difficult to analyse and respond to, because the German army would have possession of the ground on which it was deployed. 

 

So why never used? The finest unintentional bluff of all time. The British Government declaration of war warned against the use of poison gas weapons, as the retaliation would be devastating beyond anything they could imagine. At that time Hitler was still open to reason, and his technical experts told hime that this meant the British had this wonder weapon too (I believe some of the original work which led to Tabun was by the UK Mond corporation). For which there was no antidiote at the time, so forget using that. What the UK had was 'improved Mustard Gas'. (That's what they told us on our school A level course visit to Porton Down, subject, the joys of nerve gas. Don't have nightmares kids...)

[rockershovel]

School coursework trips to Porton Down? Field Trips really MEANT something in those days, didn’t they?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Back then it was education with an edge. It was made pretty clear to the boys that they might be putting on a uniform at the nation's bidding, and you really all ought to be in the cadet forces in your spare time. Taking A level physics meant you got the necessary information about where the home defence geiger counters were stored and their use. Basics of power supply engineering also got a mention. In addition to PD, A level chemistry also got us two days at QM college London on explosives formulations, why they work, and their effective use, and promise never to use what you have learned unless told to by properly constituted authority. This course had moved to university reponsibility because some North London schoolmaster had - it was said - made a rather too effective demonstration of the fun that may be had with demolition charges, happily though without injury.

[eastglosmog]

Yes, They did a book from it, which I have somewhere.

Interestingly, CS Forester (of Hornblower fame) wrote a longish short story on the subject of if Hitler had invaded.  Published posthumously in 1971, but must have been written before 1966.  Came to the same conclusions as the Sandhurst war game did subsequently.

Edited January 19, 2018 by eastglosmog

[62613]

Interestingly, CS Forester (of Hornblower fame) wrote a longish short story on the subject of if Hitler had invaded.  Published posthumously in 1971, but must have been written before 1966.  Came to the same conclusions as the Sandhurst war game did subsequently.

I have that somewhere too

[jjb1970]

Yes, They did a book from it, which I have somewhere. No, Hitler issued a 'Halt' order to the panzers on the evening of 24th May, when the first twenty miles of the Aa Canal were held by a single British battalion. the numbers of British troops in Dunkirk were minimal, as the bulk of the B.E.F. was still in Belgium. As it was only 10 miles from the canal to Dunkirk, and the panzer divisions already had bridgeheads in place, it would have been dead easy for them to drive up and cut the B.E.F. off. I have three sources for this:-

 

        1) To Lose a Battle, By Alistair Horne

and  2) History of the Second World War and The Other Side of the Hill, both by Captain B.H. Liddell Hart

The German official history of the campaign (available in English as The Blitzkrieg Legend by Karl Heinz Frieser) addresses this question in detail and it is not as simple as the traditional arguments put forward by British writers such as Horne and Liddell Hart. One aspect which tends to be forgotten is that at the time the German Army had defeated one group of Anglo-French forces but most of France was still held by their opponents and they had another large French Army to defeat. Meaning their operations had to take place in the context that it was quite possible that the war in France could still have become bogged down in attritional warfare and France was not a defeated country. What is obvious in hindsight isn't necessarily obvious when events are still in the future.

[jjb1970]

I don't think anybody in the German command, including Manstein who originated the sickle cut plan, expected the Anglo-French forces to co-operate so perfectly and stick their head in the noose offered by the German's. And the stunning success of their campaign has tended to obscure the fact that their logistics system was under huge strain, co-operation between armies wasn't perfect and after championing the sickle cut plan Hitler got cold feet at the extent of the German armoured thrusts and the exposed flanks created.

[Nearholmer]

Glad you said that, because that is as I remember what I’ve read: outrun supply lines; possibility of exposing flanks; lack of meaningful intelligence, partly because bad weather interferes with aerial reconnaissance.

 

I deleted my own post making those points, because I’d begun to doubt my own memory!

[Liam]

I'd like to see this when I have the chance but with mock GCSEs approaching and the fact that I'm currently quite a distance from a cinema means it'll have to wait until a few weeks time. But if it's anything like Dunkirk then I'm sure it's brilliant, but Dunkirk used little dialogue (which made the opening scene quite eerie) and from the trailer it appears Darkest Hour features plenty of dialogue.

 

Sounds very interesting though, and Gary Oldman looks a great Churchill. But I don't know which I'll prefer, Darkest Hour or Dunkirk?

[durham light infantry]

I think everybody is forgetting the battle of Arras on the 21st of May. Rommel had outpaced his own logistic support and was left severely exposed. 2 battalions of the RTR and 2 of the Durham Light Infantry attacked his right flank, killed his 2ic (who was stood next to him) and dispersed his infantry support. It was a gallant and heroic effort, most of the British were killed, but it rattled Rommel and Hitler who gave the halt order 4 days later.

 

Mike

[Andy Y]

An excellent watch but I did go into "mad railway enthusiast starts moaning about details" mode as soon as I saw a Dakota appear in 1940.

[Phil Bullock]

With you on that one too Andy .... as bad as The Crown on Netflix which features a squadron of Lancasters doing a flypast in 1940  - and every time you see the Royal Train its hauled by 92214.....

 

But these lack of attention to detail don't spoil either of them for me....

 

Phil

[4630]

An excellent watch but I did go into "mad railway enthusiast starts moaning about details" mode as soon as I saw a Dakota appear in 1940.

 

 

Like wise, Andy.

 

I got a loud "Shhhhhhh" from Mrs 4630 when I commented that it didn't look to me as though Churchill was on the District Line.

Edited January 22, 2018 by 4630

[chris p bacon]

 2 battalions of the RTR 

 

 

Were they in a Blue or a Red uniform ?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

An excellent watch but I did go into "mad railway enthusiast starts moaning about details" mode as soon as I saw a Dakota appear in 1940.

Squint at it a bit and tell yourself it's a DC2 or DC3? Despite the extensive UK competition here must have been some operating in the UK pre WWII?

[DavidB-AU]

Squint at it a bit and tell yourself it's a DC2 or DC3? Despite the extensive UK competition here must have been some operating in the UK pre WWII?

In May 1940 the RAF had 7 DC-2s, all taken up from civilian service in India and operating out of Lahore. The RAF didn't get a DC-3 until August 1940 and that was captured from the Italians. The three other pre-war DC-3s operated by the RAF were in US civilian service until 1941.

 

Cheers

David

[45156]

I may be swimmimg against the tide here, but I actually wasn't blown away by this one - I thought that Gary Oldman's performance was nothing short of masterful.  I enjoyed it, but having read some of the reviews, perhaps I was expecting a bit more.  Still, it only cost £3.99 with my VUE Monday discount code.

[Legend]

I’ve now seen this, and found it absolutely absorbing.

Regarding “Britishness” and “a parable for our times”, I’m reminded of Dean Acheson’s less well-known aphorism, to the effect that “.. the qualities which can appear as their indomitable courage, can also appear as obstinacy and stupidity in another setting”.

My late parents were always clear about one thing; the nation could not, and would not have stood under Halifax or Chamberlain. Norway and Dunkirk made it quite clear that the Army did not have the ability to fight effectively and the politicians had no sufficient plan, or vision.

Churchill harnessed that quality, as no one else could; but it left the huge question, what would have happened, had Hitler not invaded Russia? Churchill was one of the very few politicians who was certain that the conflict was inevitable, and the only question was WHEN? Would it be soon enough to allow Britain to survive? The events of 1942 (Operation TORCH) and 1944 (Overlord) make it clear that the Germans could not stage an opposed invasion of the UK, they didn’t have the means; but an UNOPPOSED landing,somewhere between the events of Dunkirk and Pearl Harbour, before Japan’s entry and Germany’s quixotic declaration of war on the USA, would have been a different matter.

Yes Britain was certainly up against it at this time. As I understand it the only reason that the invasion did not happen was because the Luftwaffe did not have mastery of the skies which again underlines the importance of the Battle Of Britain . It really was the few that stood between us and Nazi Germany