How historicaly accurate is tjis film ? Is it only about "muh

>>3111884
Inb4 SJWs complain about all-white cast and claim that Britain/France/Germany had large non-white populations in the 1930s and 1940s.

>>3111890
Why are you trying to start shit with that post.

>>3111890
Right, but no one cares about sjw's

>>3111890
You're not answering the question anon

>>3111890
>SJWS, THEY'RE EVERYWHERE I HAVE TO KEEP ON POSTING ABOUT THEM

hi, Sargon, didn't expect to see you on this board

Yes they portray the French fighting but there's not a whole lot of fighting in the film.

>>3111884
It's actually really accurate, especially as far as the air combat goes.
Cast is not only correct composition of units involved but it's a sea of young faces, since most of them are conscripts and recruits
And the French are depicted as the forces dug in to keep the Germans from reaching the beach, and you see them a few times in the movie (usually being verbally harassed by the British soldiers)

>>3111884
Totally not marketing guys, nothing to see here

>>3111890
There's actually a black guy or two in the French forces, which is definitely possible (France was more liberal in that regard since the late 19th century; the guys are probably either descended from colonial immigrants or are ones themselves)

>>3111958
Yeah there are the same amount of black guys in the film as Germans.

>>3111890
Fuck off Sargon of acuck

>>3111958
Yup, the French weren't being massive racist douchebags in WW1, hence the Harlem Hellfighters

>>3111955
What are you on about

File: dunkirk.jpg (51KB, 922x637px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 922x637px

>>3111884
Didnt watch it, but it'll probably be British-centered revisionism, like most historical movies made by Americans
Don't expect them to talk about how the French rearguard protected the entire operation while British troops were sitting on the beach

You'll probably get the POV from one of the waiting British soldiers that's "so brave" because he's getting bombed every few hours, and zero mention of the intense fightings between the French rearguard and the advancing Germans just few kms away within the land...

File: anti-sjw.png (391KB, 1024x887px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1024x887px

>>3111903
>>3111904
>>3111912
>>3111925
>>3111962

"I don't like SJWs, but aren't you being just as bad?"

>>3111958
Yeah, noticeable numbers of French-Chadian soldiers fought in both World Wars if I remember right.

>>3112039
Kill yourself for already ruining the thread you reddit refugee.

>>3112036
>I haven't seen it but I bet its like this

kill yourself

If the French want sympathy in hollywood, maybe we should also show how 80% of French evacuees at dunkirk demanded to be returned to fight for Vichy France.

File: 1476868244746gd.png (60KB, 709x502px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 709x502px

>>3112039
>Yeah, noticeable numbers of French-Chadian soldiers fought in both World Wars if I remember right.

The amount of colonial troops in the French army during WW1 was negligible (pic related, less than 5%, as compared to over 40% for Britain)

In WW2 however, France used a lot of colonial troops in the Free French Forces

>>3112071
Very interesting, thanks.

>>3112071
The difference in ww1 is sort of explained by the UK having a much larger colonial empire, though.

Also, the indian army was 100% volunteers only.

>>3112068
>maybe we should also show how 80% of French evacuees at dunkirk demanded to be returned to fight for Vichy France.

But that's wrong, fucking retard
Most French troops evacuated at Dunkirk were sent back to France few days later, before the ceasefire with Germany was even signed
They were sent back to the frontline and most were imprisoned in Germany after the armistice was signed

>>3112068
No one realized Vichy France was that evil German puppet back then, it was the motherland and every French soldier wanted to help it in time of crisis.
De Gaulle and the Free French were barely even known

>>3112080
Much larger, yeah, bigger deserts and tundras

>>3112091
>most french troops

HAHAHHA


"More than 100,000 evacuated French troops were quickly and efficiently shuttled to camps in various parts of southwest England, where they were temporarily lodged before being repatriated. British ships ferried French troops to Brest, Cherbourg, and other ports in Normandy and Brittany, although only about half of the repatriated troops were deployed against the Germans before the surrender of France. For many French soldiers, the Dunkirk evacuation represented only a few weeks' delay before being killed or captured by the German army after their return to France. Of the French soldiers evacuated from France in June 1940, about 3,000 joined Charles de Gaulle's Free French army in Britain."

>>3112109
Over 25% of the earth's population was under it, retard.

>>3112112
I don't see anywhere it being said that "80% of French evacuees at dunkirk demanded to be returned to fight for Vichy France", faggot

Your quote says that 50% were sent back to the frontline before the armistice, and that of the 50 remaining percents, 3,000 joined the newly created Free French army (aka deserted and exiled themselves for their homeland and families for an undetermined amount of time, something you'll never have the courage to even think of) while the other were rapatried afyer the armistice and interned in German camps (like every single French soldier that had taken part in the war at some point).

>>3112071
That's pretty good

>>3111884
It will probably be very anglo-centric. I bet they won't even show Hitler giving the order to stand down in order to extend an olive branch to Britain.

>>3112147
>80% of French evacuees at dunkirk demanded to be returned to fight for Vichy France

Because I'm referring to after the repatriation. Only 3000 actually decided to continue the fight against Germany, most demanded to join the Vichy regime, including many of the 50,000 sent back to Germany.

>something you'll never have the courage to even think of

We're having a discussion on a history forum, why are you trying to act hard?

>>3112068
Vichy France was neutral dumb bong

>>3112209
You're an utter imbecile who doesnt even understand the quote you posted
The 3,000 soldiers mentioned as having joined the Free French did so while in England, instead of being rapatriated
Basically, they deserted and joined the rogue organistation that was the Free French
Your citation gives absolutly no information of what the French soldiers who were rapatriated did afterward (except that they were imprisoned)

>>3112258
>The 3,000 soldiers mentioned as having joined the Free French did so while in England, instead of being rapatriated
>Basically, they deserted and joined the rogue organistation that was the Free French

Uhh, I never denied this. The quote was simply to disprove your claim that most were sent back To France.

Also, Free France wasn't a rogue organisation but the recognized allied government of France in London.

>>3112278
>The quote was simply to disprove your claim that most were sent back To France

It doesnt disprove shit, other than your wild claim that "80% joined Vichy"
The quote says that half of the French troops evacuated were sent back to the frontline before the armistice and that the other half (minus 3,000 who defected for De Gaulle) was rapatriated after it
Vichy isnt even mentioned in the citation

>>3112224

>this is what frogs actually believe

File: dunkirk.png (182KB, 450x312px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 450x312px

Britain's finest moment.

>>3112293
Being sent back to france doesn't mean they were imprisoned, as you seem to think. A large number of French PoWs went into the Vichy Army or Labour camps if they were a lot less lucky.

File: Kingdomofheaven.jpg (195KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1600x900px

related: What is /his/ opinion on this movie? I see it posted here a lot and i don't know if thats because it is extremely good with historical accuracy (except for the personal stories for dramatic purpose of course), or if its extremely bad

at least i didn't find anything that would be bad in that movie but i didn't see it for a long time

>>3112324
>Labour camps

Which equates to being imprisoned, genius
Germany made a massive dick move unprecedented in history by requiring after the armistice that every single French soldier that had taken part in the war would be interned (usually, only those captured during the conflict were kept as PoWs in camps after the end of the war, but this time, most were captured after the armistice)

>>3112071
>The amount of colonial troops in the French army during WW1 was negligible


It's even less, cause a lot of those north african troops were actual french (or at least european descent).

>>3112357
Oh yeah, I didn't mean labour camps as an alternative to being imprisoned.

Yeah, Germany did a lot of fucked up shit. They weren't punished nearly enough imho.

>>3112357

It was only going to be for the duration of the war. At the time of the armistice it was thought Britain would also capitulate within a few weeks, so they didn't really think it to be a huge concession. Britain got buttmad about the separate peace though, because it lowered their negotiating hand, and decided they would rather go with fortress Britain and bomb the french fleet, and saddle both france and germany with the upkeep of millions of interned soldiers as well as economic and food blockades.

>>3111955

>the only possible reason why people on a history forum would talk about a new historical film, is as part of a marketing campaign

>>3112036
>Didnt watch it, but
Likewise I didn't read your post.