Gotta love how a movie purposely uses specific historical events as the linchpin of their premise, but then when people point out the flaws of using those events, the response is "why are you so concerned about the specific historical event?"
Because the friggin' MOVIE brings it up!
If you're going to use D-Day, you have to use D-Day. So if D-Day fails, it means hundreds of thousands if not millions of American troops are still stuck in England, because they were coming in huge numbers to England from 1943 until the war ended in 1945. And that doesn't include the large numbers of Canadian troops also staged there, as well as all the British troops staged there, as well as all the aircraft, all the tanks, all the ships...because without all those vast numbers of Allied men and materiel, D-Day would never even have been ATTEMPTED. And if D-Day fails, it means all those men and their equipment would not have made it to the continent, because the only way even most of them could have made it over is if the invasion had been successful for at least a month. And which point huge numbers of American and Canadian troops were still shipping across the Atlantic to follow them. And that's without mentioning that the German Navy was NEVER the equal of the Royal Navy OR the U.S. Navy, and the Germans NEVER had a competent large-scale amphibious assault capability.
And if you think the British were going to launch D-Day on their own, especially in a scenario where Germany has defeated Russia, well, then, you must believe the first person to land on Normandy would have been Merlin on his unicorn.
Sorry to upset all you people whose interest in history goes about as far back as Princess Di's wedding, but setting the movie in POST-D-DAY 1944 is flat-out stupid. I could (MAYBE) buy 1940 or 1941, but mentioning D-Day is just too ignorant of the very history the movie is trying to trade off of.
reply
share
13 years ago
[deleted]
nick-1036
13 years ago
Most here are forgetting that the US believed that Hitler was very close to inventing and using an atomic bomb. If that was true and he beat us to it, and he used it on England, they would have surrendered to him immediately, and we might not have been far behind them. So it is very believable that Germany could have won the war and captured England despite being on multiple fronts and losing in Russia.
reply
share
DD-931
13 years ago
Excuse me, nick, but we're talking about this particular film, not any random alternative history concept. Have you even watched the trailer? There is no mention of an atomic bomb detonation (a pretty big thing to skip over), and if as you say Britain would surrender immediately, why does the film talk about a German invasion that is still on-going? The film is not about Britain surrendering, it is about Britain being conquered. Two different things.
reply
share
nick-1036
13 years ago
My point was, it's believable that Germany was close to occupying England, and that a lot of people were very afraid they were very close to that at the time. I was responding to the post that implied the Nazis were weak and never close to occupying England, therefore this film is a ridiculous fantasy. I disagree with that and the fear of the German a bomb is part of my opinion. I know it's not a factor in this story, thanks for pointing out the obvious, Captain Obvious.
reply
share