We all have memories that we remember photos and video of what was supposed a historic fact but when you see real photos of what happen it was different.
We all have memories that we remember photos and video of what was supposed a historic fact but when you see real photos of what happen it was different.
A real photo... This looks really organized... A casual walk on the beach... Where there is smoke... is there fire? What were the British losses at Dunkirk? Seriously... who is actually trying to rewrite history about Dunkirk?
Are you claiming there was no disastrous route of invasion forces, terrible losses and evacuation by any ship available? The invasion - evacuation facts are documented and available and any film version is simply exploitative theater. I don't think anyone is trying to rewrite Dunkirk landing history they're making a film.
Why didn't you show more of those pictures, instead of limiting to 2 rather benign pictures and then attempt your own rewrite of history, by belittling the loss of lives at Dunkirk.
I show the first picture in the media and the other from the actual front. I am not belittling the disaster which was Dunkirk but only showing what are memories and how they are manipulated by photos in the media. I in no way minimize what happen only what we believe happen by the media.
What I 'we' believe happened then and now are the same. 340,000 retreating allied troops were stranded on a beach too shallow to be rescued by naval ships that stood by off shore while public boats of all sizes shapes and models took the awaiting troops from the beach to the naval ships. The rescued amounted to near 3/4 of the British Army (allies). It took an amazing effort by civilian boats that made trip after trip from beach to naval ships. Dunkirk rescue took days while troops with no choice waited on the beach. I knew that then( within release of the event details) as I know it now. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/low/dates/stories/june/4/newsid_3500000/3500865.stm There was never any manipulated memories except in naysayers with an agenda.
You can't tell a story with any few pictures. It's hard to get accurate re-inactments. Wear is hell. That's a worn out phrase but it's true. A photographer can only capture a very small part of it, the it being where he's standing, sitting in a given scene. None have captured it all. The whole of it is in the minds of the participants around each one's small area, his part of the war. It is usually worse that can be captured on somebody's camera. And often the cameraman is bringing up the rear or with a second wave. Dunkirk was war, where somebody faced death and a few photos can not tell the story. Ever.
And hopefully you understand what I said. I am not denying anything you have said all I said what the media publish was not what happened way over dramatized then what was true
If I am understanding you correctly, you are stating the "MEDIA" is saying the movie Dunkirk is being overdramatized, compared to what actually happened. Is that what you are stating?