Me too...DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Even the BBC can go wrong. Terribly wrong
- Thread starter Chocks away!
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
schwarz, I don't care about your opinion on this matter. Germany lost the war and that's final. You can rant all day about how technologically advanced Germany was, how great the German soldier was, how amazing their military leaders were and you can also try to degrade the actions, political orientation and technology of the Allies but you will never, ever, ever change the fact that Germany lost and the Axis lost the war.
Who cares how it lost, it lost. The sole mention of bad descisions were a reason of Germany's loss is amazing. How do you think France lost? By good decisions and excellent luck on their part? Germany and the Axis began the fight on more people than they can handle, so they lost. End of story.
I can 'mock' a defeated enemy all I want. I can mock the destruction of a Nazi Germany and a creation of a democratic Germany. Which, yes, has become a powerful nation inside Europe, alongside Britain, Spain and France. And there's no question of why, or how it happened but just because there's reasons behind it happening there's no changing that it did happen and they lost. No matter how amazing they all were.
And there's obviously understanding of that from other people here. One included would be Adler who is he himself German. If you think I have anything against Germans, schwarz, you're in your own little world. But I will never take away the fact that Britain and her Allies won that war against Nazism. Just like Britain beat just about everyone else in the world at some point. Ha!
Who cares how it lost, it lost. The sole mention of bad descisions were a reason of Germany's loss is amazing. How do you think France lost? By good decisions and excellent luck on their part? Germany and the Axis began the fight on more people than they can handle, so they lost. End of story.
I can 'mock' a defeated enemy all I want. I can mock the destruction of a Nazi Germany and a creation of a democratic Germany. Which, yes, has become a powerful nation inside Europe, alongside Britain, Spain and France. And there's no question of why, or how it happened but just because there's reasons behind it happening there's no changing that it did happen and they lost. No matter how amazing they all were.
And there's obviously understanding of that from other people here. One included would be Adler who is he himself German. If you think I have anything against Germans, schwarz, you're in your own little world. But I will never take away the fact that Britain and her Allies won that war against Nazism. Just like Britain beat just about everyone else in the world at some point. Ha!
Well said pD. 
cheddar cheese
Major General
Agreed! 
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Bingo
Totally agree pD.
FLYBOY:
"The picture will always be painted with a slant by the victors to the point where it may seem their adversary was easily defeated, it's unfortunate but that's just the way it is, and it doesn't matter who they are, I believe that's just human nature. I think the job of a good historian or one who teaches or discusses this subject matter is to put in in perspective and articulate the abilities of all combatants."
Right, I agree with you there. The winner takes it all logic will prevail always.
My question would be, where are any of such documentaries to be located?
From the 50s and 60s? Interesting remark there. I thought that was precisely the era of the epitome in the non-sense portraying of WWII in the winner nations. The smell of the powder was still in the air during those days don´t you think FLYBOY?
Had the chance, a while ago, of watching part of a WWII movie either from the mid/late 50s or early 60s, featuring some hollywood stars of the era. My god, it was a caricature!
Sorry for not having the names of the actors, never been a hollywood fan -at all-. There was this part of the film when the main character of the story (US Army officer) was standing right outside the door of a field house in France -it was Normandy 1944- where a number of SS soldiers were hiding.
Well, there was a moment when for some reason the SS soldiers attempted to get out of the house using the main door, they should break through, right where this hero was standing with his machine gun.
The only thing left for the film makers to do was to show the hero G.I. yawning, lighting a cigarette with his left, firing his machine gun with his right at the main door, where the desperated SS men attempted to escape, and like a domino effect, absolutely all the SS in the house did not stop coming out until the very last of them were killed. Of course, the G.I. did not suffer the slightest of the scratches.
I know it is funny, but who knows, you might recall that particular movie.
Two allied veterans of Normandy which I had the pleasure of meeting once, told me the first time they engaged SS units in France, they were shocked to see "even the way they moved on the battlefield."
And they told me it was not the effect of previous brain-washing propaganda on some alleged "German superiority". Nope. It was more about the facts they witnessed on the field.
They were taking cover using thickets, when they saw a small group of SS no more than 50 meters away from them running to take position.
One of them told me he has never forgotten such image. It did not last more than 3 or 4 seconds before the SS dissapeared from their view. His words: "they ran with their equipment in a fashion non of us in the US Army did. They appeared brutally fast and wary of all elements surrounding them".
I can affirm absolutely none of the TV documentaries I´ve seen so far qualifies roughly as "hardly acceptable".
I am, however, always willing to watch any documentary that might help learning!
"The picture will always be painted with a slant by the victors to the point where it may seem their adversary was easily defeated, it's unfortunate but that's just the way it is, and it doesn't matter who they are, I believe that's just human nature. I think the job of a good historian or one who teaches or discusses this subject matter is to put in in perspective and articulate the abilities of all combatants."
Right, I agree with you there. The winner takes it all logic will prevail always.
My question would be, where are any of such documentaries to be located?
From the 50s and 60s? Interesting remark there. I thought that was precisely the era of the epitome in the non-sense portraying of WWII in the winner nations. The smell of the powder was still in the air during those days don´t you think FLYBOY?
Had the chance, a while ago, of watching part of a WWII movie either from the mid/late 50s or early 60s, featuring some hollywood stars of the era. My god, it was a caricature!
Sorry for not having the names of the actors, never been a hollywood fan -at all-. There was this part of the film when the main character of the story (US Army officer) was standing right outside the door of a field house in France -it was Normandy 1944- where a number of SS soldiers were hiding.
Well, there was a moment when for some reason the SS soldiers attempted to get out of the house using the main door, they should break through, right where this hero was standing with his machine gun.
The only thing left for the film makers to do was to show the hero G.I. yawning, lighting a cigarette with his left, firing his machine gun with his right at the main door, where the desperated SS men attempted to escape, and like a domino effect, absolutely all the SS in the house did not stop coming out until the very last of them were killed. Of course, the G.I. did not suffer the slightest of the scratches.
I know it is funny, but who knows, you might recall that particular movie.
Two allied veterans of Normandy which I had the pleasure of meeting once, told me the first time they engaged SS units in France, they were shocked to see "even the way they moved on the battlefield."
And they told me it was not the effect of previous brain-washing propaganda on some alleged "German superiority". Nope. It was more about the facts they witnessed on the field.
They were taking cover using thickets, when they saw a small group of SS no more than 50 meters away from them running to take position.
One of them told me he has never forgotten such image. It did not last more than 3 or 4 seconds before the SS dissapeared from their view. His words: "they ran with their equipment in a fashion non of us in the US Army did. They appeared brutally fast and wary of all elements surrounding them".
I can affirm absolutely none of the TV documentaries I´ve seen so far qualifies roughly as "hardly acceptable".
I am, however, always willing to watch any documentary that might help learning!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Udet said:
And if you notice the 10, 15, 20th anniversary years of either the start or end of WW2 Hollywood inundated us with films of this nature - but to answer your question there are many expose documentaries aired even on the History Channel that have shown US military disasters such as the USS Indianapolis, Operation Tiger, the mauling of Taffy 1,2 and 3 during the Leyte Gulf operations and the Bataan Death March, all not exactly showing US forces storming up hills and destroying the enemy with ease. As a matter of fact this evening I was watching a program on the B-17, most of the subject matter centered on losses rather than those glorious bombing raids where nothing but huge contrails were seen across the sky, it showed the canarge of the bombers and the suffering of the crews - These and some of the more recently made documentaries I've seen have shown cases of neglect to outright incompetence within the US military. In addition, since the 60th anniversary of the D Day invasion, there have been dozens of documentaries made interviewing those who actually participated in the battle who paint a very different picture of those John Wayne and Audie Murphy movies made in the 1960s.....
I will agree that Hollywood has put its spin on its movies but a lot of the time there is a reason for that and it is money. How do you make money? By showing lots of blood and guts and the enemy getting utterly destroyed and the Hero good guy coming out unscathed until the end atleast.
There have been some really great movies though and a lot of them came out in the 60's and 70's.
There have been some really great movies though and a lot of them came out in the 60's and 70's.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
You're right Adler - it's about the money and what's going to sell...
I heard in the 1970s after the movie "Midway" was made there was talk about making a movie about Ploesti, becuase of the lack of B-24s at the time and some technical problems, the idea was scrapped - but at the same time the USAF refused technical assistance because the movie would show the public how the raid was bungled and the loss of life....
I heard in the 1970s after the movie "Midway" was made there was talk about making a movie about Ploesti, becuase of the lack of B-24s at the time and some technical problems, the idea was scrapped - but at the same time the USAF refused technical assistance because the movie would show the public how the raid was bungled and the loss of life....
That is interesting I did not know that.
I am sure though based off of money reasons if you go and watch movies made in the Soviet Union they are no different than our hollywood movies and they too show know defeat or anything like that. It is all about what you fan base wants to see.
I am sure though based off of money reasons if you go and watch movies made in the Soviet Union they are no different than our hollywood movies and they too show know defeat or anything like that. It is all about what you fan base wants to see.
cheddar cheese
Major General
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
And in the late 80's - Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, Hamburger Hill...
Yes I really liked those also.
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
Has anyone seen The Desert Fox?
- A British film showing Rommel in a good light, pretty truthful and the look the famous actor gives a ranting Hitler is priceless.
PlanD:
There was a Documentary that had an American saying "The British did worse in victory than the Germans in defeat, except maybe holding the moral highground"
This is what I mean.
Began? Would you live under the Weimar Republic?
Do you think leaving Stalin alone would be good? unlike Churchill Hitler wasn't terrified of him.
I agree that it had to be stopped, but I also need to understand why, why it started , how it was defeated, how can it be avoided. If you see it from one side you'll come a cropper.
In it's quest for slavery?
Because of it's alliegences mostly, Waterloo wouldn't likely have been possible without Prussian help.
Luck is always involved too.
What I'm saying is that history is twisted, I am aprox 75% English, but I see it all ways.
Some of what I've said I deliberately don't mean, it's just showing another side.
FLYBOYJ:
John Wayne
Audie Murphy was a real hero though.
- A British film showing Rommel in a good light, pretty truthful and the look the famous actor gives a ranting Hitler is priceless.
PlanD:
There was a Documentary that had an American saying "The British did worse in victory than the Germans in defeat, except maybe holding the moral highground"
This is what I mean.
Began? Would you live under the Weimar Republic?
Do you think leaving Stalin alone would be good? unlike Churchill Hitler wasn't terrified of him.
I agree that it had to be stopped, but I also need to understand why, why it started , how it was defeated, how can it be avoided. If you see it from one side you'll come a cropper.
In it's quest for slavery?
Because of it's alliegences mostly, Waterloo wouldn't likely have been possible without Prussian help.
Luck is always involved too.
What I'm saying is that history is twisted, I am aprox 75% English, but I see it all ways.
Some of what I've said I deliberately don't mean, it's just showing another side.
FLYBOYJ:
John Wayne
Audie Murphy was a real hero though.
schwarzpanzer said:
The Weimar Republic never had a chance to do anything for its people for several reasons ranging from faults of its own and the Versaille Treaty.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
schwarzpanzer said:another side.
FLYBOYJ:
John Wayne
Murphy was a real hero - but let's face it, after awhile his movies got old - you could olny avoid bullets for so long...
John Wayne didn't do squat during WW2
But he played in the Longest Day and that was a good movie!
To be honest John Wayne never really got me going. He never really changed his facial expressions or his tone. It was all in that "Hey there pretty lady" voice and tone. The worst that got me was in Green Berets when there was a wounded soldier and there are bullets flying everywhere and John Wayne just simply says "Get this man a medic" when instead he should have shouted "Medic, Get a Fucking Medic NOW!!!!"
To be honest John Wayne never really got me going. He never really changed his facial expressions or his tone. It was all in that "Hey there pretty lady" voice and tone. The worst that got me was in Green Berets when there was a wounded soldier and there are bullets flying everywhere and John Wayne just simply says "Get this man a medic" when instead he should have shouted "Medic, Get a Fucking Medic NOW!!!!"
Britain suffered from World War II because of the ensuing economic struggle it had to maintain for decades. That quote sounds like Ambrose and he's right but he is talking straight after the war. And he's talking as a foreigner ...to the British we see it as a victory because that is what it was. We may have lost a lot of money but we kept our freedom and our democracy, we kept Britain. That's a victory.
I understand full well why the war started. I understand why the German people supported Hitler and I know I would have done the same. I also know why Germany did what it did. But even with all those reasons that I do know, Germany still began the struggle which became World War II. It started the fight on the world and the world fought back.
I could rant on all day about why World War II happened ...but you should just go buy a few books on the subject.
Britain wasn't in a quest for slavery when it began a rise to power. In fact, the rise of power came from it's defeat of Spain in the English Channel in the 16th Century. Before that England had been battling in Europe and the Mid-East against the other great super-powers of the day.
England did not need to defeat Napoleon to secure English survival. Napoleon could have rolled over Europe without the aid of English forces that took time to land ashore to defeat him. And we must not forget that England defeated Napoleon in 1803-1805 also. Or is that forgotten these days?
Don't even bother about the British Empire, you don't know enough. And the simple fact the Britain was a product of it's age should be enough to stop you trying to assault Britain, but I know it won't. You obviously seem to forget that the primary slave traders were Spanish, not British. And Britain was the first full nation to abolish the slave trade. Then it abolished it throughout it's Empire. Then it used the Royal Navy to stop it throughout the globe.
I couldn't care if you were 100% English. You are not looking at the full picture. You are trying to look solely at the opponent picture while assaulting England. It seems to be the modern thing to do these days ...Britain is evil. We were the true evil Empire. Even if we were ...we damn earned the right to be it ...but we weren't ...it's just so easy to attack the nation that ruled the most. That's why people find it so easy to attack America now. Because it's the most powerful single nation on the planet ...it's to blame for everything. EVERYTHING!
I understand full well why the war started. I understand why the German people supported Hitler and I know I would have done the same. I also know why Germany did what it did. But even with all those reasons that I do know, Germany still began the struggle which became World War II. It started the fight on the world and the world fought back.
I could rant on all day about why World War II happened ...but you should just go buy a few books on the subject.
Britain wasn't in a quest for slavery when it began a rise to power. In fact, the rise of power came from it's defeat of Spain in the English Channel in the 16th Century. Before that England had been battling in Europe and the Mid-East against the other great super-powers of the day.
England did not need to defeat Napoleon to secure English survival. Napoleon could have rolled over Europe without the aid of English forces that took time to land ashore to defeat him. And we must not forget that England defeated Napoleon in 1803-1805 also. Or is that forgotten these days?
Don't even bother about the British Empire, you don't know enough. And the simple fact the Britain was a product of it's age should be enough to stop you trying to assault Britain, but I know it won't. You obviously seem to forget that the primary slave traders were Spanish, not British. And Britain was the first full nation to abolish the slave trade. Then it abolished it throughout it's Empire. Then it used the Royal Navy to stop it throughout the globe.
I couldn't care if you were 100% English. You are not looking at the full picture. You are trying to look solely at the opponent picture while assaulting England. It seems to be the modern thing to do these days ...Britain is evil. We were the true evil Empire. Even if we were ...we damn earned the right to be it ...but we weren't ...it's just so easy to attack the nation that ruled the most. That's why people find it so easy to attack America now. Because it's the most powerful single nation on the planet ...it's to blame for everything. EVERYTHING!
plan_D said:
Agreed 100% well said!
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
planD - right on.
schwarz,
Hind sight is always different and not always better but it is always there and usualy more criticle.
Ploesti had two problems that denied success much heavier AAA than was expected and a wrong turn. That's war. People don't reaize it but at Midway the Japanese had a 30 minuet delay launching the scout from the Tone (the one whose sector the US was) and another scout whose radio didn't work. Without those 2 oops we would have lost or at best a draw. Thats war. It can be twisted any number of ways.
The press is the press they rip anything slightly controversial because it sells and they go after the govt inc the military because its big and can't fight back effectively.
Last, its all yea right after a war - then comes the teardown, it sells by being positive their patriotic and you can critisize anything as long as you can make it interesting.
wmaxt
schwarz,
Hind sight is always different and not always better but it is always there and usualy more criticle.
Ploesti had two problems that denied success much heavier AAA than was expected and a wrong turn. That's war. People don't reaize it but at Midway the Japanese had a 30 minuet delay launching the scout from the Tone (the one whose sector the US was) and another scout whose radio didn't work. Without those 2 oops we would have lost or at best a draw. Thats war. It can be twisted any number of ways.
The press is the press they rip anything slightly controversial because it sells and they go after the govt inc the military because its big and can't fight back effectively.
Last, its all yea right after a war - then comes the teardown, it sells by being positive their patriotic and you can critisize anything as long as you can make it interesting.
wmaxt
