Dunkirk

Discussions on WW2 and pre-WW2 related movies, games, military art and other fiction.
Gooner1
Member
Posts: 1722
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

Re: Dunkirk

Post by Gooner1 » 08 Jan 2018 12:09

Paul Lakowski wrote:Did show shattered moral of Brits and made me wonder if they really could have stood up to invasion.

My parents always insisted they could not.
With a name like Lakowski they were hardly typical Brits though.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 3731
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Dunkirk

Post by OpanaPointer » 08 Jan 2018 12:15

Yeah, that's a static number from, probably, 1939. I've pulled the war related questions for 1939-1941 out and put them online. http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/ The other public opinion polls were very close in their numbers according to a study done by Public Opinion Quarterly.

For veracity issues I've also included a pdf of those years to allow double checking.

While I was in grad school I did semester following US opinions on the war up to Dec. 7th, 1941. The fun part was comparing news and Op-Ed pieces in two university news papers, Purdue and Indiana University. They followed the national trend rather closely (Purdue was a bit more bellicose.)

FYI, Purdue was the conservative college, IU being more liberal.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1379
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: Dunkirk

Post by Paul Lakowski » 09 Jan 2018 02:48

Gooner1 wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote:Did show shattered moral of Brits and made me wonder if they really could have stood up to invasion.

My parents always insisted they could not.
With a name like Lakowski they were hardly typical Brits though.
she was , as were her brothers etc.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 2140
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: Dunkirk

Post by Sheldrake » 09 Jan 2018 12:12

Gooner1 wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote:Did show shattered moral of Brits and made me wonder if they really could have stood up to invasion.

My parents always insisted they could not.
With a name like Lakowski they were hardly typical Brits though.
That is uncalled for. Lakowski is hardly less British than the German Windsors and Mountbattens, the half American Winston Churchill, the Hugenot refugee families like the Courtaulds and Portals or even the Norman Chamberlains and Montgomerys.

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 1722
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

Re: Dunkirk

Post by Gooner1 » 09 Jan 2018 14:53

Sheldrake wrote: That is uncalled for. Lakowski is hardly less British than the German Windsors and Mountbattens, the half American Winston Churchill, the Hugenot refugee families like the Courtaulds and Portals or even the Norman Chamberlains and Montgomerys.
Meh, none of them were defeatists though.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 2140
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: Dunkirk

Post by Sheldrake » 09 Jan 2018 15:44

Gooner1 wrote:
Sheldrake wrote: That is uncalled for. Lakowski is hardly less British than the German Windsors and Mountbattens, the half American Winston Churchill, the Hugenot refugee families like the Courtaulds and Portals or even the Norman Chamberlains and Montgomerys.
Meh, none of them were defeatists though.
You mean like the impeccably English Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax, scions of the Dukes of Devon or Oswold Mosley the descendents of the Moseleys of Staffordshire?

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1379
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: Dunkirk

Post by Paul Lakowski » 09 Jan 2018 23:15

They were not defeatists - they were realists. My mother always insisted that any time the BBC announced losses, you could double the British losses and half the German losses. A lesson in Propaganda!

It was an important reminder during the frightening decades of the cold war.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 3731
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Dunkirk

Post by OpanaPointer » 09 Jan 2018 23:17

Paul Lakowski wrote:They were not defeatists - they were realists. My mother always insisted that any time the BBC announced losses, you could double the British losses and half the German losses. A lesson in Propaganda!

It was an important reminder during the frightening decades of the cold war.
And all four of those numbers were estimates at best. :wink:
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1379
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: Dunkirk

Post by Paul Lakowski » 10 Jan 2018 00:04

OpanaPointer wrote:Yeah, that's a static number from, probably, 1939. I've pulled the war related questions for 1939-1941 out and put them online. http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/ The other public opinion polls were very close in their numbers according to a study done by Public Opinion Quarterly.

For veracity issues I've also included a pdf of those years to allow double checking.

While I was in grad school I did semester following US opinions on the war up to Dec. 7th, 1941. The fun part was comparing news and Op-Ed pieces in two university news papers, Purdue and Indiana University. They followed the national trend rather closely (Purdue was a bit more bellicose.)

FYI, Purdue was the conservative college, IU being more liberal.

excellent post, thanks for the links. I skimmed the 1941 responses and was surprised only by a few things.

American joining the war prior to dec-7 1941 was consistently heavily against direct involvement in the war [3:1] but didn't completely reverse after pearl harbour....any figures for 1942?

Despite the refusal to join , most polled viewed it inevitable within the next year or so America would be involved -with Germany as the prime enemy.

consistently most polled - agreed with American warships escorting American convoys , but opinion was split over effects of ship sinking's. If they were warships America should act but if it was merchant ship...not so much.

The biggest surprise was German invasion of Russia. Every one seemed to like it! IE Russia should win. I remember my parents said they knew Hitler was 'done for' the moment he attacked Russia.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 3731
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Dunkirk

Post by OpanaPointer » 10 Jan 2018 00:51

I actually got Gallup to do their graphs on public opinion regarding the war, because as sure as Hell I'd screw it up. Unfortunately that meant I couldn't use the graphs outside the scope of my class. The trends were consistently toward involvement in the war, with the level of the involvement increasing.

The guys that did the graphs told me that 18 months was, for the time, rather short a time for this kind of thing but they were impressed with the obvious trends. Another 6-9 months and FDR could have easily gotten us into the war without the US being directly attacked. With FDR's "short of war" program that would have been shorter I believe.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1379
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: Dunkirk

Post by Paul Lakowski » 10 Jan 2018 03:22

True enough but it also shows that American involvement would have been limited to convoy duties until crises forced otherwise. So UK/commonwealth was on their own until then.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 3731
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Dunkirk

Post by OpanaPointer » 10 Jan 2018 15:08

Paul Lakowski wrote:True enough but it also shows that American involvement would have been limited to convoy duties until crises forced otherwise. So UK/commonwealth was on their own until then.
Oh, I quite agree. FDR was rarely one to get ahead of public opinion in any overt manner.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1379
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: Dunkirk

Post by Paul Lakowski » 10 Jan 2018 21:34

OpanaPointer wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote:True enough but it also shows that American involvement would have been limited to convoy duties until crises forced otherwise. So UK/commonwealth was on their own until then.
Oh, I quite agree. FDR was rarely one to get ahead of public opinion in any overt manner.
its an important distinction since many assume America would come to UK defence no matter how bad it got, the pole's show that trend only later towards the end of 1941. Prior to that they are decidedly against it.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 3731
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Dunkirk

Post by OpanaPointer » 11 Jan 2018 02:09

Paul Lakowski wrote:
OpanaPointer wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote:True enough but it also shows that American involvement would have been limited to convoy duties until crises forced otherwise. So UK/commonwealth was on their own until then.
Oh, I quite agree. FDR was rarely one to get ahead of public opinion in any overt manner.
its an important distinction since many assume America would come to UK defence no matter how bad it got, the pole's show that trend only later towards the end of 1941. Prior to that they are decidedly against it.
Yeah, the people were hoping that Lend-Lease and escorting would hold the inevitable off. As things deteriorated they became more realistic.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

aghart
Member
Posts: 139
Joined: 02 Jun 2011 19:39
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: Dunkirk

Post by aghart » 12 Jan 2018 22:18

I'm just grateful that the a major British action was made into a movie in the 21st century. I had accepted that only US actions had any chance of being made into a movie. You can pick faults in it of course, but maybe it's secret is that it is not dumbed down and is a thinking mans movie?

Return to “Movies, games & other fiction”