How big was the role of Dutch resistance in ww2?

They may have actually been in a limited sense part of the resistance. It takes serious balls to organize clandestinely from the onset of occupation, but when the allies are gonna be rolling in any month now then there's a very big incentive to grabbing a rifle and joining up.

...

My national pride wishes it was otherwise but the role of the Dutch resistance wasn't that big. Real sabotage actions were few and far between, and per capita less effective then the French. Only real effective sabotage that I can think of is disrupting V2 launches now and then, and provinding limited support when the Allies invaded the southern part of the Netherlands. For the rest the Dutch resistance hid some jews here and there and operated a radio station. There were also some guys who fled to Britain to join the British armed forces, but I'm not sure you can count those among the resistance.

>mfw Germany overran all of the Netherlands in 7 days but it took the Union Army four years just to take Virginia, which is virtually the same size

Talk about shitty comparisons...

Okay fine, the Union Army didn't exactly have dive bombers, Blitzkrieg, or remotely competent field army commanders apart from the drunk and the ginger. But still, they had their asses stomped by an enemy they outmatched in virtually every way so many times that they wrote a whole song bitching about it and eventually sperged out and burned down Atlanta.

youtube.com/watch?v=gidJk4gdlts

>Western european """resistance"""
you mean collaborators
pic related - what a real resistance looks like

Reminder that nearly all AK personnel were arrested and executed either by the Nazis or the Soviets and that's why there is very little recognition for them.

this, quad confirm

all occupied western nations are guilty as sin, basicly nazis themselfs

>real resistance
>didn't even infiltrate mainstream politics and put one of your own on the Supreme Court 60 years AFTER disbanding

Amateurs, the lot of you

>when even those who hate your guys have to admit how good your cinematography and how cutting edge the filmmaking was

>when your racist propaganda is so damn good that your enemies are assblasted to the point of producing a name-for-name ripoff 101 years later

>Make a movie so racist, even the 20s were calling to ban it
>It's so good that people in 2017 have to begrudgingly acknowledge its excellence
Can anyone get any more BTFO?
That film vanished, so I'm guessing it sucked. Didn't the director rape someone?

>That film vanished, so I'm guessing it sucked.

It made barely $16 million (albeit the budget was only half of that), which is a considered a box office failure for major distributors (Fox). Of course, it was praised and nearly got Oscar nominations in an attempt to make up for its low revenues (12 Years a Slave was heavily pushed for Best Picture for the same reason).

>Didn't the director rape someone?

He was accused of it, but acquitted on all counts. I wouldn't hold it against him.

>He was accused of it, but acquitted on all counts
Ah, okay. Still, any sort of rape charge makes for a bad position.
I don't really see the point in remaking BoaN from a Black perspective. It's not like the original is a beloved classic for anyone. It was always, and still is, reviled from a content standpoint.

>I don't really see the point in remaking BoaN from a Black perspective.
>"Griffith's film relied heavily on racist propaganda to evoke fear and desperation as a tool to solidify white supremacy as the lifeblood of American sustenance. Not only did this film motivate the massive resurgence of the terror group the Ku Klux Klan and the carnage exacted against people of African descent, it served as the foundation of the film industry we know today. I've reclaimed this title and re-purposed it as a tool to challenge racism and white supremacy in America, to inspire a riotous disposition toward any and all injustice in this country (and abroad) and to promote the kind of honest confrontation that will galvanize our society toward healing and sustained systemic change."

I'd say the directors biggest mistake was choosing Nat Turner's rebellion as the basis of the film. Outside of the Black Power and self-hating white liberal circles, Turner's actions are absolutely reviled, and rightfully so. That rebellion did more to validate proslavery arguments that blacks were violent and had to be kept under a boot than any speech John C. Calhoun ever gave. A better choice to portray the black characters in a sympathetic light might have been the Battle of the Negro Fort, the German Coast Rebellion (actually the largest slave uprising in U.S. history), John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry, or a fictitious one inspired by Nat Turner but omits the atrocities.

>It's not like the original is a beloved classic for anyone.

It was used as a Klan recruiting tool well into the 1970s. Safe to say it's still a beloved classic for them, but no one else.

>Hunchback

That was probably the one deformity Charles II didn't have.

Their main base of operation was in the Dutch mountains

>Dutch mountains

You're a funny guy.

Didn't the Hapsburgs actually control the Netherlands during Charles II's reign?

Too bad Tony Jay’s dead. I could totally envision him playing Nazi Frollo.