From: ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <@ednolan>
Subject: Re: Churchill (2017)
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Churchill (2017)
Date: 21 Nov 2017 13:59:34 GMT
Organization: loft
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <f7ipq5Fn8lnU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ouuemj$s34$1@dont-email.me> <1nfscgk.r1be2ozuew2wN%nmassello@yahoo.com> <1rpa7kfv2kag6.1w8mtz6xac0f1.dlg@40tude.net> <ov15la$rov$1@dont-email.me>
X-Trace: individual.net +bEZTOc0rr1wVSDiIZHLtArZIx+ArlITRgCk8jZua5A0QDOLM8
X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QHWd1gk97RMS3nVI95M4eSY0YzM=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001)
Print Article
Forward Article
In article <ov15la$rov$1@dont-email.me>, hector<bobble@there.com> wrote:
>On 21/11/2017 7:13 AM, alvey wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:28:09 -0700, Neill Massello wrote:
>> 
>>> hector<bobble@there.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A movie about Winston Churchill in the few days leading up to the D-Day
>>>> landing at Normandy.  Perhaps unusual to many is that Churchill opposed
>>>> the operation and wanted something done to divert the Germans at the
>>>> same time, or not do the landing at all.  To me the story was ultimately
>>>> about the effect on Churchill of the Gallipoli landing of 1915 that is
>>>> the basis of ANZAC Day in Australia, April 25.  History blames him for
>>>> that tragedy, but he insists in this movie that the fault was with those
>>>> responsible for carrying it out.  He was haunted for the rest of his
>>>> life by it.  This is shown from the beginning of this movie, but the
>>>> Gallipoli reference is revealed later in the movie.
>>>> A historian who writes about truth in movies wrote this screenplay,
>>>> Alex von Tunzelmann, https://www.theguardian.com/film/series/reelhistory
>>>
>>> Churchill was an inspiring orator and a dreadful military strategist.
>> 
>> Indeed. And this is the first time I've ever read that the fat bastard was
>> "haunted" by the failure of his 'soft underbelly of Europe' folly.
>> 
>> 
>Isn't that a WWII reference instead?
>It seems unclear to what extent Churchill instigated what happened at 
>Gallipoli beyond just politically.  He wasn't in charge of much of 
>military activities surely.
>

He wanted a naval attack, which was in fact started, but broken off
at the point of success.  Now whether forcing the straights would have
had the strategic advantages he forecast is another matter.
-- 
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..