|
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
First and for all : if we drive off the historical ground I am off the thread. No modern political implications here please.
Thanks for your help, let's have a heated, argumented and interesting historical discussion ! Quote:
It was indeed Speer in July 1943 reporting to Hitler. What he said pecisely was that 6 more raids like these would be enought to put Germany on its knee. But you took the quote without looking at the facts after the raid. No other zone bombings achieved the same results despite the enormous augmentation of avalaible planes. Speer's policy of industry dispersal enabled a military industrial output increased by 50% in 1943 DESPITE THE ZONE BOMBINGS !!! Then as you surely know, zone bombing was almost abandonned by end of 1943 toward troop support, transport disruption and oil facilities destruction. Because of bad results for zone bombing...... Quote:
note : edited to correct date mistake [ February 18, 2004, 20:48: Message edited by: Unknown_Enemy ] |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
You are way off base here. The main reason that the big raids were far and few between were two fold. The biggest hindrance was the internal battle between the American precision daylight bombing camp and the English night area bombing camp. It was also a problem of logistics. It takes a massive logistical effort to put 1000 bombers over a target in a coordinated raid of this scale. Of the early large scale raids, only the first had good results, and there was pressure to have the bombers bomb many competing targets.
The second reason was also a difference of opinion, the Americans wanted to target specific areas of the German war economy, while bomber command was under orders from Churchill to bomb the German people. "an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers upon the Nazi homeland." Is how Bomber Harris remembered it in his letters. Hamburg had been bombed over 100 times by July 43, when Harris issued the order for the raid in question. [quote] This is a letter, dated as early as 27 May 1943, and written by Harris to his six group commanders, setting out his future intentions. The first part can usefully be included here. __________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ MOST SECRET __________________________________________________ ____________________________ BOMBER COMMAND OPERATION ORDER NO. 173 Copy No: 23 Date: 27th May, 1943 __________________________________________________ _________________________________ INFORMATION The importance of H A M B U R G. the second largest city in Germany with a population of one and a half millions, is well known and needs no further emphasis. The total destruction of this city would achieve immeasurable results in reducing the industrial capacity of the enemy's war machine. This, together with the effect on German morale, which would be felt throughout the country, would play a very important part in shortening and in winning the war. 2. The 'Battle of Hamburg' cannot be won in a single night. It is estimated that at least 10,000 tons of bombs will have to be dropped to complete the process of elimination. To achieve the maximum effect of air bombardment, this city should be subjected to sustained attack. Forces to be Employed 3. Bomber Command forces will consist of all available heavies in operational squadrons until sufficient hours of darkness enable the medium bombers to take part. It is hoped that the night attacks will be preceded and/or followed by heavy daylight attacks by the United States VIIlth Bomber Command. INTENTION 4. To destroy HAMBURG. __________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ The Battle of Hamburg, The Firestorm Raid, Martin Middlebrook, pg. 95. [end quote] And as we all know, the Americans joined in. But then the Americans went down the path of deep penetration bombing, and the result was the suspension of daylight bombing beyond the range of escort fighters. After that the Americans played with the Big Week theory, and then switched to back to specific daylight precision targets. When Harris sent 770+ bombers against Dresden, the reason was not completely clear. But the results were stunning. The Americans followed up with two raid totaling about 500 planes. There have been many reasons given, terror bombing of civilians being the popular one, and retaliation for the bombing of Canterbury being another. Recently there has been evidence that the allies felt that there were research facilities of significant value there. I am inclined to think it was the latter; the 8th had better targets on the list than Dresden. The Encyclopedia Britannica of 1936 Lists the city as a center of higher education and research. It starts out by stating that the city was the seat of a number of well-known scientific associations. The educational institutions are numerous and of high order. It also mentions that the city was a transportation hub linking the rest of the nation to the Elbe river transportation system. Then the article mentions the extensive distilleries that were situated in the city. So take your pick. IMHO it was a combination off targets. The universities were probably doing work on advanced physics, there was most likely fuel production from the distilleries and it was also a transportation target. The lack of a specific justification for the bombing by the allies would suggest that the universities may have been high on the list. At Hamburg 50,000 people were killed, more or less. Of more value, over a million people were displaced and fled the city. Dresden lists 135,000 killed. The air war in Europe was a battle of opposing ideas, and probably of egos too. But when LeMay went to the Pacific, he switched to night time incendiary raids. He has stated that the Japanese cities were prime targets for fire raids, and that they had little or no ability to defend against his bombers at night. Japan lacked the radar guided artillery that ringed the major German cities. As a side note I would add that AAA downed more allied bombers than fighters did. 3 to 1 IIRC. And the allies already had proximity fused AAA shells by 1945. Had the Germans developed the technology, stream bombing might have been out of favor by the end of the war. |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Well and good but :
- it doesn't deny the fact that zone bombing as defined by the levelling of entire area was abandonned in Europe due to lack of results, as can be found in Liddell Hart's books, or Perret's Air War book. - I stand by my point : Hambourg was the most succeful raid, ALL following massive raids suffered from unsatisfactory results (and heavy casualties for some) - Dresden The war was finished. The question that history still ask is "why was this city bLasted out of existence while the war was won ?". Then the points I was contesting the most are : - "Civilians are ligitimate targets" In europe bombing of civilians targets to advance military purpose was abandonned toward transportation/factory bombing. I stand by my point and still wait for your sources. - "The allies knew that the Germans were on the verge of a fission bomb." Hollywood. Not reality. I stand by my point and still wait for your sources. - "The Allies were in no position to not press their advantage once they had gained it" Look at any WW2 author, you must be joking. I stand by my point and still wait for your sources. - "gutted manpower" I made my point clear. I stand by my point and still wait for your sources. - "The people of England had been at war a very long time and were worn down by the weight of it." Point taken about the newspaper controlled by the gouvernment. However, I stand by my point that there was no way the war could end without Hitler's head on a spike. Especially for the Brits. What's your arguments and sources ? |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
My conclusions are based on two areas of research. During the summer of 73 I was involved research work that involved the cataloging and photocopying of FDR’s personal papers that had been declassified during the previous year. (intern grunt work) My statements about British moral are based on the concerns the American diplomatic officers forwarded back to Washington. The repeated theme was a continuous concern for the Churchill camps ability to retain control of the government, reflecting the dissatisfaction with the conduct of the war. The low moral of the “common man” was often mentioned. And late in the war, the increasing number of labor strikes was seen as a warning sign, “indicating a rising popular movement in opposition of the war.”
The above quotes are as accurate as 30+ years of memory can make them. I have included the scanned text of an early letter that I retain a framed photo copy of. This theme was continuous for the duration of the war, with the exception that the estimates became almost bi-polar in late 44 early 45. No consensus being found among the American diplomats at that time. All of the documents are available at the FDR library, and a few of the vanilla ones are available on line. To its credit, the library resisted the cleansing of records that occurred during the mid to late nineties. Avoiding the scourge of missing indexed documents that now plagues the National Archives. --------------------[quote] London March 7, 1942. Dear Mr. President: I have been worried about the Prime Minister - both his political status and his own spirits. He did not take well the criticism he found on his return from Washington. The criticism was not directed at him personally but against certain policies and against various individuals. Unfortunately he bared his chest and assumed the blame for everything and everybody -politicians and soldiers alike. The natural effect of this was to turn the criticism against himself. He was forced, obviously reluctantly, to make changes, thus failing o get full credit. He has, however, quieted things for the present. His opponents have found that he has an Achilles Heel and will undoubtedly attack again. It is curious how, when criticism starts, a coalition government suffers from lack of party loyalty and support. Although the British are keeping a stiff upper lip, the surrender of their troops at Singapore has shattered confidence to she core - even in themselves but more particularly in their leaders. They don't intend to take it lying down and I am satisfied we will see the rebirth of greater determination. At the moment, however, they can't see the end to defeats. Unfortunately Singapore shook the Prime Minister himself to such an extent that he has not been able to stand up in this adversity with his old vigor. A number of astute people, both friends and opponents, feel it is only a question of a few months before his Government falls. I cannot accept this view. He has been very tired but is better in the Last day or two. I believe he will come back with renewed strength, particularly when the tone of the war improves. - 2 - The President March 7, 1942. There is no other man in sight to give the British the leadership Churchill does. Cripps wears the hair shirt and wants everyone else to do the same. The British are prepared to make any sacrifice to get on with the war but are not interested in sacrifice for its own sake. It has been proved that workmen need good food and entertainment to keep up production over long periods. In his present position, however, I believe that Cripps will do a lot of good in stiffening things up. Eden you know all about. Anderson is an uninspired, competent technician. Bevin has never really risen above labor union politics. And then we have Max| There is no one else on the horizon. Now that the political storm has blown over, the Ministers can give their full time to the war. There is no doubt the new team will on balance be a big improvement over the old. I find on my return even greater opportunity for usefulness and deeply appreciative this opportunity you are giving me. Sincerely, Averell The President, The White House, Washington, D. C. - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -[/q] My statements on German atomic research are based on the work of David Irving and his work with the wire tap transcripts from Captured German Atomic scientists. His books are not in general circulation largely because they expose the illegal activities of the British government during this time and the Germans during the war. The second book not going to press because of pressure brought upon the publisher. “IN 1993 David Irving completed work on an edition of the top-secret CSDIC interrogation transcripts on senior Nazi prisoners, and of the Farm Hall transcripts -- hidden-microphone recordings of the German atomic scientists in British captivity, the release of which he had campaigned for since 1967. German publisher Langen-Müller Verlag, of Munich, who had commissioned the book, decided not to publish (senior editor Rochus von Zabüsnig complained that it looked like "Nestbeschmützung", as some of the overheard remarks by Nazi prisoners like General Walter Bruns revealed unwelcome details of atrocities).” Above quoted without permission of the Observer. [But I doubt they will ever read this;)] “The puzzle as to why the German atomic bomb program stalled has several overlapping explanations. Some of the best German physicists were Jewish and had been driven into exile, where many worked on the American or British atomic bomb programs. Nazi ideology had only scorn for "Jewish physics" and thus undervalued what theoretical physicists could contribute to the war effort. And as saturation bombing ravaged German cities, the Nazi industrial machine increasingly lacked the ability to mount a vast bomb development project to compete with the American Manhattan Project. Still, it is clear that German physicists, for whatever reason, did fail to push hard enough to reach the goal. Some attribute that to surprising technical errors, like a grotesque overestimate of the amount of fissile material that was needed and a failure to realize that readily available graphite, if highly purified, could be used to moderate the atomic reaction instead of scarce, hard-to-get heavy water. Others blame arrogance and complacency on the part of German physicists who felt that if the job was hard for them, it would be impossible for the Allies. And some believe that there was a genuine reluctance to work on such an awesome weapon, either for moral reasons or for fear of failing and being blamed for a national defeat. Recordings made surreptitiously of Heisenberg and other German scientists held in captivity after the German surrender show that they were stunned by news that the United States had exploded an atomic bomb over Hiroshima and refused to believe that it had actually been done. Even in these early recordings, one can discern the beginnings of a search for the moral high ground, as one German physicist contrasts the American development of "this ghastly weapon of war" with more peaceful nuclear reactor research under Hitler.” This quote was from a historian named David Cassidy. IIRC All I retain is part of a news paper clipping. It would be from the Washington Post most likely, but could have also been from the NY Times. My opinion is that the Americans knew that the Germans had a head start, this is documented, and assumed that the German scientists were able to do the math on the Uranium bomb just as they had done. Remember, no test of that device was required. It was the detonation engineering that needed to be tested on the plutonium bomb, and this is why the Nevada test occurred. We also knew that the Germans were working with uranium refinement at the beginning of the war, our Germans stated as much and this is documented. So, we had to assume that the Germans were as far along as we were and would have feared that they were ahead. Add to that the fact that Hitler was desperate and probably insane, and you have to consider that he would use the bomb as soon as it was ready. David’s work can be down loaded as pdf files, just search his name. As a side note, the Germans over-estimated the amount of material needed for a uranium bomb. They were in possession of more than enough by wars end. Only mismanagement prevented them from being able to field a crude device. The US captured enough uranium from the Germans (Japanese?) after Germany’s surrender, and after a small test of wills with the Canadians over who could get to it first. This is documented. It is said that the material went into the third bomb, which was not used, and also said that the material was not weapons grade. The mystery of the third bomb and what happened to it has never been declassified. Its target list was temporarily declassified a few years ago. The listing of Nagasaki as one of the primary targets indicates that the bomb was ready for use at or about the time of the second bombs use. Nagasaki was not the primary target for the second weapon. |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Now to the gutted man power. I will point you to the stated strengths of the combatants during 44-45. Only the USSR and the US were still creating new divisions at an accelerated pace. Actual British man power curve was almost flat, although there was a marked increase in mechanized units. Her colonial contributions were still on an up curve, but the percentages are too small to carry much weight. Then take England’s losses, killed, wounded and captured as a percentage of male population from the conscriptable Category and you will see that it was the third largest known percentage. Italy may have actually been third, but their figures are skewed and not reliable. The US percentage is much less, and was enough of a problem that pacific casualties were being delayed and under reported by 1945.
One figure of note is the armored strength of Germany at the time of surrender. The Panzerwaffen listed 2023 tanks, 738 assault guns (self-propelled artillery), and 159 Flak Panzers. This is almost exactly the strength of the armored armies that invaded Russia. This is from the book “SS: The secret Archives Western Front” that I am reading now. No secrets in it, but hundreds of previously unpublished photos. It’s by Ian Baxter. The other figures you can look up on your own. Just look at the growth rates for late 44 into 45 and you will see the trend. Then look at the demobilization rates, they will give you a picture of the true state of the victors countries. Of the victors, only the USSR maintained a troop strength that was even close to the figures of 45. Even the US gutted its forces, and it had by far the strongest economy. But such is the down side of popular democracy. |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
At work now, I'll answer tonight.
But I will point immediately that David Irving is a known Holocaust denier, who has no troubles arranging history to further his ideas. I will definitely take all his work with extreme caution, and a strong personal distaste. I would prefer other historical sources, please. |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Thermo:
Your letters, although interesting, are describing well known internal struggles for power within the British government in the beginning of 1942. This was during one of Britain’s darkest hours and the British, both their leaders and the people, once again rose magnificently to the challenge. What I fail to see is how this in the remotest way could be significant to your post regarding 44-45. Quote:
[ February 20, 2004, 08:12: Message edited by: primitive ] |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Let's steer this back to WWII movies. I think I've seen almost all that Hollywood produced during my lifetime. I grew up on them almost as much as I did the old 50's sci-fi flicks. So I was wandering if anyone knows if or when Battle of the Bulge will ever come out on dvd. This is about the Last of the big war movies I still don't have in my collection. That, and The Enemy Below.
|
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
AAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH,
Just (and I mean just, was on national TV about 4 hours ago) saw that movie (Battle of the Bulge) The F*cking movie isn't even historical acurate, some nice action but really terrible. Tiger tanks, NOOOOOOOO WAY. SS Colonel Kesler , It was Kampfgruppe pfeifer (or something) AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH But I enjoyed it............ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Intimidator |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Quote:
|
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Quote:
|
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
A good Warmovie for me is : historical acurate (is a 99% must, I can understand 1% writers creativity)
Such as The Longest Day or A Bridge to far, that are good movies. I even like the films about Patton and mc Arthur. And offcourse (not a movie butr a TV serie) Band of Brothers, absolutly perfect and historical acurate. And now comes the worst part of cheap WWII movies, And I don´t think the most Americans know this BUT The germans are speaking DUTCH instead of GERMAN in a lot of movies. I know the both Languages are a like but please when you are making a movie It isn´t that hard to hire the correct translater !!!! And believe me even your precious Panzerlied is partly DUTCH.......... Intimidator |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Quote:
|
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
I recently watched a Bridge To Far and was wondering if there was ever a German Version of that movie. From what I could tell the Germans kicked the brits asses.
|
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
You are right, the Brits are getting kicked out of Arnheim in that movie and in realtity offcourse.
And the city of Nymegen (20 km below Arnheim, Nymegen was liberated by the American 82nd Airborne during Market garden, so it was not a total failure) became a warzone for the Last 6 months of the war. Intimidator BTW. I was borne in Nymegen and life in Arnheim now (some 500 metre's from THE BRIDGE, it is still standing) |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Quote:
|
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Just picked up The Longest Day at Wal-Mart for $5.50. I've been meaning to get this movie, but for some reason, hadn't picked it up yet. I tell you, you wait long enough, and just about any movie you can think of will wind up in their $5.50 bin.
|
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
The Battle of Algiers is in a local theatre until the end of the week. Its not historical, but is something of a war movie. Historical fiction, really. Im going to try to see it on Friday. Or maybe tonight, if my power is out from the storm.
|
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
What was the movie about the Russian Tank crew in Afghan called ?
That was a great movie.... The Beast I think... |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Quote:
|
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
yeah, well, remind me not to get high on transmission fluid when i might need it to drive back home.
|
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
sorry to bring up an old thread, but i just love WW2 debates and one thing in this thread couldn't be overlooked. The germans DID try and develop the nuclear bomb. And from what I read over the years, were very succesful, although I can't recall the sources off the top of my head. However, I do know that british commandos succesfully kept hard water out of the hands of the germans through raids on the ships transporting it.
It is late, and currently the only sources I could find aren't what you would call official historical sources. But anyway here are two of what I found http://www.ehistory.com/world/amit/d...m?amit_id=1502 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...v/kurzman.html The next thing I want to touch on is the statement made about strategically bombing cities which have a citizen population. This type of boombing has a huge effect, and I guarantee no country would refrain from it should there be a world war 3. For current examples, think of the current terror strikes going on around the world. The most recent example being in spain. An attack placed at the right moment influenced a country's election, which resulted in the withdrawal of that country from the war in Iraq.(please try and leave your feelings about that conflict out of this, everyone has their opinions and noone will be able to convince the other of their point of view) Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is an attack against the population of a country is one of the most powerful attacks a country has at its disposal. It is also the most brutal. It cripples the economy, instills fear in the population, and hampers the war effort. If this wasn't the case, than a bunch of cave dwellers that know how to make a bomb wouldn't be threatening the most powerful country in the world right now.(and many others) Another thing, many attrocities were committed by all sides during the war. The worse part about war is that no one is completely innocent. The simple fact of being at war forces a country to do things that it doesn't want to do. sorry for bringing up an old thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif [ March 22, 2004, 07:58: Message edited by: newbie123 ] |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Quote:
Prime minister Aznar was ousted because he was perceived to manipulate the bombing to his own ends. Two days after the bombing, one of the most used slogan from the demonstrations was "Our dead deserve the truth". In the meantime the gouvernment was still adamantly saying "it's ETA and nothing else", despite growing evidences pointing to radical islamists. |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Agree with UE.
And don't forget 911, I didn't look to, me the Last couple of years, that the Americans are withdrawing their troops from Sauidi Arabia and Kuwait (one of the Al Qaida demands). In the contrary, since 911 there are even more troops in the middle east. So my opinion is that bombing cities has 'usualy' the oposite effect. |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Quote:
Prime minister Aznar was ousted because he was perceived to manipulate the bombing to his own ends. Two days after the bombing, one of the most used slogan from the demonstrations was "Our dead deserve the truth". In the meantime the gouvernment was still adamantly saying "it's ETA and nothing else", despite growing evidences pointing to radical islamists. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here because honestly the only things I heard about this event were from US mass media. And like the media in any country, they are completely unbiased http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif . Propaganda sucks. However, can you argue that targeting civilian populations is not an effective startegy from the other things I said? |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Quote:
Now, 9/11 is mentioned occaisionally, but the will to fight seems to be diminishing. People here seem to think we have a better chance just sitting around trying to defend an attack, which may work at first but will ultimately fail because all it takes is for one man to get through to create chaos. And The U.S.'s joke of INS service will let that person through sooner than you think. There may be even more troops in the middle east, but what are they doing? While Bush had the right idea of taking out the terrorist networks, he went about it the entirely wrong way. Its like using a broadsword to remove a cancer. It'll create a bigger mess before it gets the job done.( despite not agreeing with bush on everythign, I will still vote for him. IMO if Gore(or Kerry) was in office during 9/11, we would be in a lot worse position. Of course, that is all speculation and personal opinion. Worse thing about american politics, you can only choose the lesser of 2 evils) That being said, sorry. I didn't want to go to current conflicts and politics because the "debates" usually become nothing more than name-calling contests and in the end it just creates a divide between people. I was just trying to prove that a small group of people willing to brutally attackt the population of countries can wage a somewhat succesful war against a country that would obliterate them in conventional war. |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
I don't think bombing civilian populations is an effective strategy overall, because it makes all sorts of people despise the perpetrators, eventually, and for good reason. One may not only want to overcome one's present enemy, but also to not end up being hated as an indescriminate killer of many innocents, which can lead to endless problems eventually. Moreover, hopefully one wants to actually avoid becoming a mass-murdering monster, as a goal in itself.
Defeating someone you are fighting because they are terrible, by means of becoming just as terrible, is in perhaps the most important way, a terrible defeat. Kind of like protecting our freedom by first throwing it away (see Patriot Act). PvK [ March 22, 2004, 18:31: Message edited by: PvK ] |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Let me just say that I'm not condoning the strategy at all. I despise anyone who attacks innocent people, on the massive scale and the personal scale. I'm just trying to make the argument that to say its not an effective strategy is not smart.
|
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
This is an old topic for us newb, debatet several times over the years. I don't think anybody has ever tried to debate that targeting civilians is not effective or smart strategy. What there is dissidesence over, is the necessity and usefulness of the bombing of Dresden and the second nuke over Nagasaki. Both actions without any military value or any sort of propaganda value (IMHO).
|
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
It will certainly have effects, and they might seem to be positive at first, but in the long run I think they tend to be very negative, even from the perspective of someone like Hitler. If the Nazis hadn't bombed civilians, I don't think German cities likely would have been bombed so terribly, for example.
If Al Qaeda hadn't launched 9/11, I don't think the US would have invaded Afghanistan and perhaps not Iraq again, etc. PvK |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Quote:
[ March 22, 2004, 19:00: Message edited by: newbie123 ] |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
I've got 2 Wrongs here :
Error 1 - PvK, Great Brittain started the bombing campaign, it was a accident but they bombed Berlin first. After that the nazi's bombed Londen. And the the hell opened for all the european cities..... Error 2 - Newbie 123, I don´t see the point why we should not hear from you anymore. It´s an discussion, and that´s what I like. To discus different opinions. See ya, |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
I agree with PvK on the Patriot Act thing (shudder), but regarding newbie's post about the reaction of the President to 9/11, I think people place too much on one person. Presidents have a whole host of advisors and analysts to simply tell them what the best course of action would be, so regardless of who is in office, I think the response would have been appropriate (although in varying levels of intensity, to be sure).
As for the invasions (especially of Iraq), the current (Bush) administration has said that these plans were discussed back in the previous Clinton administration, and the Clinton folks said they inherited it from the first Bush administration as a contingency after the first Gulf war. I'd probably worry more about Congress, which has many members who have been there for decades and decades, and who also have the tenure and authority to pass what they want through...one of the reasons so much seems to be happening also is that both executive and legislative branches are heavily aligned, facilitating things for everyone. And for anyone reading into that, no, I'm not praising or denouncing either of the precious parties. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I -try- not to delve into politics... it's such a departure from my ideal of 'representation' nowadays it's not even funny. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif In WWII news and movies, I don't know how historically accurate it was (I'm not the war mavens that you guys are), but I really liked Enemy at the Gates. Band of Brothers is on my list of things to see, so it'll be cool as I read someone here had mentioned it was dead-on historically accurate. Probably my more shocking discoveries of WWII was what happened to Berlin -after- the Red Army hit it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1939174.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,38...102275,00.html zen |
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Quote:
|
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Is it an historical error or an visual error.
|
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Band of Brother is as accurate as the men who were there were willing to tell the truth on.
The 10th Armord Division under the command of Patton fought and held Bastogne before the 101st ever arrived. That fact was never mentioned. In fact the Tigers have never been given fair credit for what they did. I angers me greatly because my Grand Father was in the 10th Armord Division and won two silver stars and a couple purple hearts. http://www.tigerdivision.com/ Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: OT:splendid WWII movie you\'ll never see:(
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.