U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-06-2019, 12:00 PM
 
11,977 posts, read 17,487,251 times
Reputation: 6077

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
So you do not like facts. I notice the film never mentioned St.Lo, which was to be taken on D-Day+5, 11 June by US forces. But they didn't capture it until the 18 July. 37 days late. With little German armour in the US sector.
John-Bull:

I had this same discussion with your sidekick, Easthome. It is a movie. Not a documentary, not a historical marker, and not an official statement by the Pentagon.

It's a movie.

I failed to explain the obvious to him and am quite certain I would fare no better with you, given your penchant for unrestrained nationalism mixed with temper tantrums.

I am beginning to think you lot simply cannot discern between fiction and reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-06-2019, 12:18 PM
 
Location: London
4,360 posts, read 3,647,052 times
Reputation: 1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
John-Bull:
It is a movie.
The US being 37 days late in taking St.Lo was not a movie. They were late. I never made it up.

A point brought up was the US constantly sniping at Monty/British, when in fact they performed brilliantly, with Monty being the finest general of WW2. Accusations to the competence of the British flourish in many US accounts perpetuated at the present time and into the future by the US media, notably by a series of films, documentaries and books which are gradually air-brushing the British out of Allied history. This process has been going on for decades and began even as the war ended with Burma Victory, a film in which US paratroopers won the war against the Japanese in the Far East. Even the the film U-571 had the US Navy capturing a naval Enigma machine from a U-boat which was actually captured by the crew of HMS Petard. It appears that while our two nations stand shoulder-to-shoulder in times of trouble, the Americans do tend to hog the limelight when the histories come to be written then the warped films get made.

Every nation is fully entitled to sing the praises of its own heroes and claim the credit for its own victories. But to denigrate your allies while falsely elevating yourselves is unforgivable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 01:16 PM
 
438 posts, read 286,733 times
Reputation: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
Every nation is fully entitled to sing the praises of its own heroes and claim the credit for its own victories. But to denigrate your allies while falsely elevating yourselves is unforgivable.
That is the pot calling the kettle black.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 02:33 PM
 
11,977 posts, read 17,487,251 times
Reputation: 6077
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
The US being 37 days late in taking St.Lo was not a movie. They were late. I never made it up.

A point brought up was the US constantly sniping at Monty/British, when in fact they performed brilliantly, with Monty being the finest general of WW2. Accusations to the competence of the British flourish in many US accounts perpetuated at the present time and into the future by the US media, notably by a series of films, documentaries and books which are gradually air-brushing the British out of Allied history. This process has been going on for decades and began even as the war ended with Burma Victory, a film in which US paratroopers won the war against the Japanese in the Far East. Even the the film U-571 had the US Navy capturing a naval Enigma machine from a U-boat – which was actually captured by the crew of HMS Petard. It appears that while our two nations stand shoulder-to-shoulder in times of trouble, the Americans do tend to hog the limelight when the histories come to be written then the warped films get made.

Every nation is fully entitled to sing the praises of its own heroes and claim the credit for its own victories. But to denigrate your allies while falsely elevating yourselves is unforgivable.
LOL! Get the hell out of here!

That is what you do here on a daily basis, John-Bull. Denigrate your allies while lying your sorry tail off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 04:53 PM
 
Location: home...finally, home .
8,235 posts, read 18,505,219 times
Reputation: 17765
prior to Pearl Harbor there was significant opposition to America entering the war in Europe. There was the America First Committee who counted among their members Charles Lindbergh. After the attacks on American bases in the Pacific in December of 1941 the movement to stay out of the war evaporated.


I have heard that the attack on Pearl Harbor was not a surprise and was allowed because only a
direct attack could and did mobilize the American public for war. Roosevelt could not lead the Americans
into war so he lied them into it. Maybe for a noble cause , though.
__________________
******************


People may not recall what you said to them, but they will always remember how you made them feel .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 05:10 PM
 
Location: San Diego CA
4,847 posts, read 3,374,646 times
Reputation: 7738
Quote:
Originally Posted by nancy thereader View Post
prior to Pearl Harbor there was significant opposition to America entering the war in Europe. There was the America First Committee who counted among their members Charles Lindbergh. After the attacks on American bases in the Pacific in December of 1941 the movement to stay out of the war evaporated.


I have heard that the attack on Pearl Harbor was not a surprise and was allowed because only a
direct attack could and did mobilize the American public for war. Roosevelt could not lead the Americans
into war so he lied them into it. Maybe for a noble cause , though.


Yes that has floated around for years and was a staple argument against Roosevelt by several revisionist historians. It's been debunked by nearly all current WWII scholars. For this charge to have been true literally thousands of people from Roosevelt down to the ordinary marine, seaman and soldier on Oahu would have needed to be in on the plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 07:36 PM
 
Location: New York Area
15,847 posts, read 6,238,293 times
Reputation: 12307
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509 View Post
The New York Times protected the Soviet Union and they REFUSED to report the killing of 10 MILLION people in Ukraine by Stalin. See the section on Walter Duranty....half way down.
FDR played an equal role in both protecting the USSR with regard to people knowing about their slaughter of 10 million in Ukraine and protecting Nazi Germany from publicity about the "final solution." My own belief is that FDR was indifferent at best, enabling at worst to the Holocaust. Even when we entered the war we dawdled in Africa, refusing to bloody the Nazis. We allowed our international companies to continue supplying Germany with oil and refined product. The program of "economic warfare" was against the American people; gasoline and other rationing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 09:52 PM
 
633 posts, read 488,859 times
Reputation: 895
Quote:
Originally Posted by nancy thereader View Post
prior to Pearl Harbor there was significant opposition to America entering the war in Europe. There was the America First Committee who counted among their members Charles Lindbergh. After the attacks on American bases in the Pacific in December of 1941 the movement to stay out of the war evaporated.


I have heard that the attack on Pearl Harbor was not a surprise and was allowed because only a
direct attack could and did mobilize the American public for war. Roosevelt could not lead the Americans
into war so he lied them into it. Maybe for a noble cause , though.
Whereas if the forces at Pearl Harbor had been forewarned and beaten back the attack it would not have been considered an act of war?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2019, 02:38 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
11,584 posts, read 3,963,981 times
Reputation: 7172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
John-Bull:

I had this same discussion with your sidekick, Easthome. It is a movie. Not a documentary, not a historical marker, and not an official statement by the Pentagon.

It's a movie.

I failed to explain the obvious to him and am quite certain I would fare no better with you, given your penchant for unrestrained nationalism mixed with temper tantrums.

I am beginning to think you lot simply cannot discern between fiction and reality.
Nobody claimed it was anything but a movie, although we are still entitled to our opinion on such a movie, given that D-Day was planned and executed from Britain, and that much of the force and equipment was British and Canadian.

In terms of Montgomery, he managed to secure victory at El Alamein, a very important battle of which Churchill said "Now this is not the end; it is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning" and later stated "Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein, we never had a defeat."

Montgomerey was also intrumental in planning the largest seaborne assault ever carried out in respect of D-Day and played a very important role in relation to WW2, which was a much more succesful campaign than WW1 or many other wars that have been fought before and indeed since.

Churchill trusted Montgomery, and Churchill was not easily fooled, indeed he wrote extensively on warfare including four volumes on his forebearer The Duke of Marlborough (John Churchill), and later won a Nobel Prize for Literature for his writing over the years.

In terms of John Bull, that's nonsense, indeed you will not find a more sickly Apple Pie film playing to American audiences than 'Saving Private Ryan', which along with 'Band of Brothers', seems to imply the US did it all 'single handedly' and everyone else was either incompetent or cowardly, and Britain's role is often wrongfully malagined as a result. Although if Britons dare criticise Hollywood's narrative we are suddenly branded nationalist John Bull types.

Last edited by Brave New World; 05-07-2019 at 03:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2019, 02:50 AM
 
Location: London
4,360 posts, read 3,647,052 times
Reputation: 1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by nancy thereader View Post
I have heard that the attack on Pearl Harbor was not a surprise and was allowed because only a direct attack could and did mobilize the American public for war.
There was an easier way to get into a war than have your Pacific fleet largely wiped out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top