PDA

View Full Version : The War.....



Bearcat99
09-26-2007, 06:55 PM
Tonight's episode in particular is very interesting.. I was so surprised by the implications of it in light of current politally correct trends in the U.S. that it took me a while to digest it. If you can catch it again when it comes on the second time.. the segment I am referring to is in the first hour and it deals with the D-Day invasion.

Bearcat99
09-26-2007, 06:55 PM
Tonight's episode in particular is very interesting.. I was so surprised by the implications of it in light of current politally correct trends in the U.S. that it took me a while to digest it. If you can catch it again when it comes on the second time.. the segment I am referring to is in the first hour and it deals with the D-Day invasion.

leitmotiv
09-26-2007, 07:22 PM
I'm stunned it isn't terrible. Best part, so far, has been the in-depth treatment of the poor Americans, military and civilian, left in the lurch in the Philippines. The fiasco there has been completely ignored by Americans for 62 years.

BoCfuss
09-26-2007, 07:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I'm stunned it isn't terrible. Best part, so far, has been the in-depth treatment of the poor Americans, military and civilian, left in the lurch in the Philippines. The fiasco there has been completely ignored by Americans for 62 years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was no way to rescue them, what would you suggest? If the Japanese even smelled of an rescue attempt they would have ALL died. Not flaming, I just think that this was part of a war where millions were dying, you have to pick and choose your battles. I can't comprehend it now either, but this war sucked all the way around because hitler was allowed to rise to power.

M_Gunz
09-26-2007, 07:44 PM
Hitler rose to power because things were impossible in Germany following WWI and made worse
when the French seized the Alsace-Lorraine region. How'd you like years with inflation at
3 to 5 MILLION percent? Talk about picking who lives and who dies....
That is why countries get built back up afterwards, why the USSR was given so much wheat, etc,
throughout decades and why the mideast is so unstable -- a Hungry Crowd is an Angry Crowd.

It's only a shame that while money poured into rebuilding industries elsewhere that none was
put into modernizing the older stuff here but trading grief elsewhere for here is stock in
trade and "helps to break the unions". So of course we do have a lot of angry people here
but since the most angry are poor and can't elect a Hitler they don't count though that hasn't
stopped the violence as anyone knows.

Waldo.Pepper
09-26-2007, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm stunned it isn't terrible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was about to praise your earlier condemnation of Mr. Burns previous work, and give you some credit for being right about this one too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I had liked all his previous docs - but I am finding myself surprisingly disappointed by this effort.

BoCfuss
09-26-2007, 09:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Hitler rose to power because things were impossible in Germany following WWI and made worse
when the French seized the Alsace-Lorraine region. How'd you like years with inflation at
3 to 5 MILLION percent? Talk about picking who lives and who dies....
That is why countries get built back up afterwards, why the USSR was given so much wheat, etc,
throughout decades and why the mideast is so unstable -- a Hungry Crowd is an Angry Crowd.

It's only a shame that while money poured into rebuilding industries elsewhere that none was
put into modernizing the older stuff here but trading grief elsewhere for here is stock in
trade and "helps to break the unions". So of course we do have a lot of angry people here
but since the most angry are poor and can't elect a Hitler they don't count though that hasn't
stopped the violence as anyone knows. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor = Angry. I guess the poor should keep waiting for some government to come save them. Its been working so well. The poor think they deserve something. They don't. I don't disagree with you. That doesn't change the fact that Hitler did what he did and that he was allowed to.

triad773
09-26-2007, 09:48 PM
Yeah I'd been taping it so I was in and out of the room periodically.

I'd have to say that it's surpassed my expectations.

I'll have to watch it again sometime soon. Lots of info.

I was impressed that Ken Burns managed to (mostly) not use lots of footage I'd seen many times before.

Like BC said, I think it will take some time to digest.

Bearcat99
09-26-2007, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Poor = Angry. I guess the poor should keep waiting for some government to come save them. Its been working so well. The poor think they deserve something. They don't. I don't disagree with you. That doesn't change the fact that Hitler did what he did and that he was allowed to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does poor=angry? No it doesn't... but poor and hungry can equal angry, very angry... can you say French Revolution just to name one instance.... When the poor are poor because of mistakes made by their government be they policy decisions resulting in a privileged few reaping most of the benefits at the expense of the many or outright mismanagement of a nations resources, natural , monetary or human or a direct policy of ethnic inequality.. poor can indeed equal angry..... and yes those poor people do deserve something. So many people tend to think that being poor is a crime or that poor people are poor because they are lazy... which isn't always the case... I cannot say what I would do if I had to sit and watch my children waste away.. because there was no food to be had..... Many of us in the U.S. take so much for granted... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

As for the war... it is so easy for us to sit here and armchair quarterback the history 60 years after the fact.... on all sides... but we can never redo it... and we can never put ourselves in the positions of the men who were there. Of course that doesn't justify what Germany did... but the facts are the facts... hard times and demagogues go together like sex and wetspots...

War is something that takes on a life of it's own once it begins.. wars that may start over an assassination, a need for expansion, to defend ones homeland or ones way of life, a response to an attack... or a fabricated threat... always wind up on all sides.. the "aggressor" or the "victim" being a fight to just survive.. to return to ones family in one piece.

triad773
09-26-2007, 11:25 PM
Yes being poor is not a crime. There are those who have been economically dispossessed in some way and may be a struggle to get back to something better. I know that's certainly the case where I have some inlaws in Galesburg, IL. Maytag pulled out all their mfg jobs and sent them to China. Realestate there is very cheap; but then there are few jobs to support that economy now.

Funny thing was that when jobs first started going to China, the Mexican manufacturers were feeling the same competition that originally were experienced by American factory workers. Many of those jobs went over to China. But now here's something to think about: as energy prices, and particularly oil go up, at what point does it make more sense to make your goods closer?

Sorry to drag things off topic a bit. Rant:Off.

leitmotiv
09-26-2007, 11:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BoCfuss:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I'm stunned it isn't terrible. Best part, so far, has been the in-depth treatment of the poor Americans, military and civilian, left in the lurch in the Philippines. The fiasco there has been completely ignored by Americans for 62 years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was no way to rescue them, what would you suggest? If the Japanese even smelled of an rescue attempt they would have ALL died. Not flaming, I just think that this was part of a war where millions were dying, you have to pick and choose your battles. I can't comprehend it now either, but this war sucked all the way around because hitler was allowed to rise to power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I propose nothing except that it was an unmitigated disaster which we have ignored since the war, and that it has been a very good thing to bring their story to attention rather than glorying in the period of victory which is the easest thing in the world. Far harder to contemplate thousands left to the mercies of sadists and criminals. We have to remember what happened and never let such a catastrophe happen again.

leitmotiv
09-26-2007, 11:58 PM
I think it is very refreshing Burns has not elected to play race politics as he has in other of his docs. I think he carefully chose his commentators this time, unlike Shelby Foote in the Civil War doc (a well known racist who publicly praised Nathan Bedford Forrest). I have no major criticisms, so far. I think he could have emphasized the huge America First non-intervention movement of the pre-war period. He should have emphasized how hard the Depression hit the U.S. He should have emphasized the appalling behavior of the Japanese since Nanking in 1937 which made the Americans perceive them as monsters (nicely explains why few were disturbed by the nuking of Japan). He could have shown the famous LIFE magazine story from around Dec 1941 which depicted the Japanese as sub-human, tree-dwelling, congenitally near-sighted apes. This would help explain why Americans were so surprised at the successes of the Japanese. But, considering the vastness of the canvas, I am impressed. I would have shown how the war affected at least one fantastically wealthy family on the East Coast for contrast with the rest of the country (Burns' fantastically wealthy sponsors probably would not have liked that).

ultraHun
09-27-2007, 12:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BoCfuss:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Hitler rose to power because things were impossible in Germany following WWI and made worse
when the French seized the Alsace-Lorraine region. How'd you like years with inflation at
3 to 5 MILLION percent? Talk about picking who lives and who dies....
That is why countries get built back up afterwards, why the USSR was given so much wheat, etc,
throughout decades and why the mideast is so unstable -- a Hungry Crowd is an Angry Crowd.

It's only a shame that while money poured into rebuilding industries elsewhere that none was
put into modernizing the older stuff here but trading grief elsewhere for here is stock in
trade and "helps to break the unions". So of course we do have a lot of angry people here
but since the most angry are poor and can't elect a Hitler they don't count though that hasn't
stopped the violence as anyone knows. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor = Angry. I guess the poor should keep waiting for some government to come save them. Its been working so well. The poor think they deserve something. They don't. I don't disagree with you. That doesn't change the fact that Hitler did what he did and that he was allowed to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagree. Wrong Story. Hitler's rise to power was not so much a story of "the angry poor". The poor did not particularly vote for Hitler, some of them did vote for Hitler, others voted as they did before, commie, socialist, or catholic party.

It's more the feeling of collective dehumilation, because of WWI and Versailles, and the fact that Germany's extreme right and left rampaged the the Republic of Weimar right from the start. And that all touched upon the somewhat better of, educated much more.

When the world economic crisis came it shattered the existing, more rigid social order of Germany, and thus following the ultimate nervous breakdown of Germany's civil society.

There was once a movie with Michael Douglas on a respectable middle-class man called "Falling Down". That's more like the story.

Whirlin_merlin
09-27-2007, 12:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:


Does poor=angry? No it doesn't... but poor and hungry can equal angry, very angry... can you say French Revolution just to name one instance.... When the poor are poor because of mistakes made by their government be they policy decisions resulting in a privileged few reaping most of the benefits at the expense of the many or outright mismanagement of a nations resources, natural , monetary or human or a direct policy of ethnic inequality.. poor can indeed equal angry..... and yes those poor people do deserve something. So many people tend to think that being poor is a crime or that poor people are poor because they are lazy... which isn't always the case... I cannot say what I would do if I had to sit and watch my children waste away.. because there was no food to be had..... Many of us in the U.S. take so much for granted... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

As for the war... it is so easy for us to sit here and armchair quarterback the history 60 years after the fact.... on all sides... but we can never redo it... and we can never put ourselves in the positions of the men who were there. Of course that doesn't justify what Germany did... but the facts are the facts... hard times and demagogues go together like sex and wetspots...

War is something that takes on a life of it's own once it begins.. wars that may start over an assassination, a need for expansion, to defend ones homeland or ones way of life, a response to an attack... or a fabricated threat... always wind up on all sides.. the "aggressor" or the "victim" being a fight to just survive.. to return to ones family in one piece. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly.

I don't believe I have ever agreed more with a post on these forums.

carguy_
09-27-2007, 04:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ultraHun:
Disagree. Wrong Story. Hitler's rise to power was not so much a story of "the angry poor". The poor did not particularly vote for Hitler, some of them did vote for Hitler, others voted as they did before, commie, socialist, or catholic party.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let`s not forget that Hitler was financed by Weimar`s elite.Hitler didn`t have as much of a support in masses that he had in elites` money and lots of it.

Blutarski2004
09-27-2007, 05:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I'm stunned it isn't terrible. Best part, so far, has been the in-depth treatment of the poor Americans, military and civilian, left in the lurch in the Philippines. The fiasco there has been completely ignored by Americans for 62 years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... This has certainly not been trumpeted, but it hasn't been ignored either. The Bataan death march is an iconic piece of American history, for example. A great deal of ill feeling was directed toward MacArthur in connection with his perceived abandonment of his army. I do agree that the civilian side has not received equal coverage.

Blutarski2004
09-27-2007, 05:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by triad773:
But now here's something to think about: as energy prices, and particularly oil go up, at what point does it make more sense to make your goods closer? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Transportation is not a dominant cost factor. Example: You can fit 10,000 hard disk drives in one shipping container. The unit shipping cost cannot be more than 0.50 to 1.00 dollar per unit.

IMO, the dominant factors are: (a) labor costs; (b) the greater efficiency of modern manufacturing facilities and infrastructure, which are of course built in locations where labor is cheap.

Insuber
09-27-2007, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:

Does poor=angry? No it doesn't... but poor and hungry can equal angry, very angry... can you say French Revolution just to name one instance.... When the poor are poor because of mistakes made by their government be they policy decisions resulting in a privileged few reaping most of the benefits at the expense of the many or outright mismanagement of a nations resources, natural , monetary or human or a direct policy of ethnic inequality.. poor can indeed equal angry..... and yes those poor people do deserve something. So many people tend to think that being poor is a crime or that poor people are poor because they are lazy... which isn't always the case... I cannot say what I would do if I had to sit and watch my children waste away.. because there was no food to be had..... Many of us in the U.S. take so much for granted... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

As for the war... it is so easy for us to sit here and armchair quarterback the history 60 years after the fact.... on all sides... but we can never redo it... and we can never put ourselves in the positions of the men who were there. Of course that doesn't justify what Germany did... but the facts are the facts... hard times and demagogues go together like sex and wetspots...

War is something that takes on a life of it's own once it begins.. wars that may start over an assassination, a need for expansion, to defend ones homeland or ones way of life, a response to an attack... or a fabricated threat... always wind up on all sides.. the "aggressor" or the "victim" being a fight to just survive.. to return to ones family in one piece. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said Bearcat. Agree 100%. The term "justice" should also help. Poor people with no social justice can rapidly form an angry mob.

Regards,
Insuber

Sturm_Williger
09-27-2007, 06:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I was so surprised by the implications of it in light of current politally correct trends in the U.S. that it took me a while to digest it. ... the segment I am referring to is in the first hour and it deals with the D-Day invasion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a very intriguing statement - would you care to elaborate for those of us in other parts of the world with a big curiosity bump please ?

Insuber
09-27-2007, 06:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BoCfuss:

Poor = Angry. I guess the poor should keep waiting for some government to come save them. Its been working so well. The poor think they deserve something. They don't. I don't disagree with you. That doesn't change the fact that Hitler did what he did and that he was allowed to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Any over-simplification and straight application of idealised cathegories (the Poors) could lead to a serious loss of logics. Normally a correct use of words is enough to put things at their place.


In the above statement the "poors" are apparently unemployed people who don't look for a job. They deserve nothing, evidently. Put in the correct terms it's not even a sillogism, is a truism.

But a "poor" can be a farmer working 12 hours a day for a landlord to earn a misery, or a disabled war veteran, or a man spoiled by excessive taxes, or a retired guy whose pension is eaten up by inflation, or someone robbed by criminals, or hit by natural disasters ... you name it.

Anyone will agree that they deserve something: at least justice, a fair repartition of the produced benefits, and ideally an help from the community.


Regards,
Insuber

BOA_Allmenroder
09-27-2007, 06:35 AM
I too have been watching this series. I think the Burns 'style' of presenting has run its course. Just doesn't seem to grab me anymore.

As for content, it's certainly not an indepth, analytical piece, but it was not intended to be that. Some of the footage I've seen I've not seen before, or it's been blown up framewize to show some interesing stuff. On the other hand, some of the footage does not track with the narration: ie the footage is of one part of the war/battle/year, while the narration is talking about something else and the GROG in me has said 'hey, those pictures are not of that!'

However, what I've found most powerful is the interviews with the relatives of soldiers who were killed. To see their anguish and heartfelt sorrow, 60 some years after the loss of thier son, brother, father etc etc is quite moving.

It's not a US history of WW2, rather its the US 'human experience' in WW2.

Bearcat99
09-27-2007, 06:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sturm_Williger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I was so surprised by the implications of it in light of current politally correct trends in the U.S. that it took me a while to digest it. ... the segment I am referring to is in the first hour and it deals with the D-Day invasion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a very intriguing statement - would you care to elaborate for those of us in other parts of the world with a big curiosity bump please ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well in light of the whole "seperation of church and state" furor that is sweeping the nation on so many fronts I was surprised to see that all across America on D-Day in schools, businesses... everywhere... people were called out to go and pray for the troops... and people responded... across all ethnic and economic lines. In the evening President Roosevelt got on the airwaves and prayed with the nation.... Today some clown from the ACLU would be screaming about separation of church and state and the airwaves would be filled with the raging debates back and forth about whether or not it was the governments responsibility to even call for such a thing. I hesitated to even mention it because I dont want this thread to turn into a debate about the issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think it is very refreshing Burns has not elected to play race politics as he has in other of his docs. I think he carefully chose his commentators this time, unlike Shelby Foote in the Civil War doc (a well known racist who publicly praised Nathan Bedford Forrest). I have no major criticisms, so far. I think he could have emphasized the huge America First non-intervention movement of the pre-war period. He should have emphasized how hard the Depression hit the U.S. He should have emphasized the appalling behavior of the Japanese since Nanking in 1937 which made the Americans perceive them as monsters (nicely explains why few were disturbed by the nuking of Japan). He could have shown the famous LIFE magazine story from around Dec 1941 which depicted the Japanese as sub-human, tree-dwelling, congenitally near-sighted apes. This would help explain why Americans were so surprised at the successes of the Japanese. But, considering the vastness of the canvas, I am impressed. I would have shown how the war affected at least one fantastically wealthy family on the East Coast for contrast with the rest of the country (Burns' fantastically wealthy sponsors probably would not have liked that). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he handled the race issue well... there was more he could have added.. but it was nice to see people of color not eliminated from the tale like on so many other occasions in things like this. You say that he didn't play race politics... yet you wonder why he didn't go into the racist attitudes towards the Japanese.. which he actually did.. in detail... I thought the way he handled the 442nd was great and I don't recall a more inclusive and diverse telling of the period ever.... You cannot tell any story of the history of the United States in any time period without addressing race. The issue of race is so intricately woven into the fabric of the tapestry that we are as to be impossible to remove from any kind of in depth historical discussion. Especially one dealing with the 20th century.

Worf101
09-27-2007, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BOA_Allmenroder:
I too have been watching this series. I think the Burns 'style' of presenting has run its course. Just doesn't seem to grab me anymore.

As for content, it's certainly not an indepth, analytical piece, but it was not intended to be that. Some of the footage I've seen I've not seen before, or it's been blown up framewize to show some interesing stuff. On the other hand, some of the footage does not track with the narration: ie the footage is of one part of the war/battle/year, while the narration is talking about something else and the GROG in me has said 'hey, those pictures are not of that!'

However, what I've found most powerful is the interviews with the relatives of soldiers who were killed. To see their anguish and heartfelt sorrow, 60 some years after the loss of thier son, brother, father etc etc is quite moving.

It's not a US history of WW2, rather its the US 'human experience' in WW2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
I loved his Baseball documentary and his Civil War doc. I own them both. This particular series has "left me flat". Perhaps because I feel I know more about the subject than Mr. Burns. I learned no new insights about Bataan or Guadacanal that I really didn't know before. He tries to avoid talking about the generals by concentrating on the little men, the dog faces but they, sorry to say, shed no new light for me.

The cobbled on interviews with hispanic soldiers seems rushed and clearly hastily done. Nope, I stopped watching after the second night. I DVR'd it, but personally I'd rather fly than watch.

Da Worfster

RK_Achilles
09-27-2007, 06:51 AM
I've been enjoying this documentary quite a bit. I too like the emphasis on the civilians and, in particular, the defense manufacuring boom. There actually has been alot about race in this, but in a good way. Like Japanese Americans fighting for us while thier families are behind barbed wire in internment camps in the US.

I think it has a good mix of civilian/military footage. I've especially enjoyed the bits about the P-47's destroying the retreating Germans. Some good guncam footage.

RK_Achilles
09-27-2007, 07:05 AM
Last year I watched "BBC History of World War II". After watching "The War", I have a question about the Americans(and others) battling at Monte Cassino. I don't want to start an argument or anything but the BBC documentary made it pretty clear that the American's became "obsessed" with taking Monte Cassino, like we could have just went around or something. But in the war it sounded like we needed to take it to press on. Obviously bombing it didn't turn out to be the best move. Just curious if anyone else noticed this and what they thought.

Plunkertx
09-27-2007, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Well in light of the whole "seperation of church and state" furor that is sweeping the nation on so many fronts I was surprised to see that all across America on D-Day in schools, businesses... everywhere... people were called out to go and pray for the troops... and people responded... across all ethnic and economic lines. In the evening President Roosevelt got on the airwaves and prayed with the nation.... Today some clown from the ACLU would be screaming about separation of church and state and the airwaves would be filled with the raging debates back and forth about whether or not it was the governments responsibility to even call for such a thing. I hesitated to even mention it because I dont want this thread to turn into a debate about the issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's EXACTLY what I noticed last night. It's great that I am not alone in this thought--and I think we are not, either.

Bewolf
09-27-2007, 07:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Achilles5784:
Last year I watched "BBC History of World War II". After watching "The War", I have a question about the Americans(and others) battling at Monte Cassino. I don't want to start an argument or anything but the BBC documentary made it pretty clear that the American's became "obsessed" with taking Monte Cassino, like we could have just went around or something. But in the war it sounded like we needed to take it to press on. Obviously bombing it didn't turn out to be the best move. Just curious if anyone else noticed this and what they thought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I have no idea what the americans thought, but my grandfather was there, commanding a "Zug" of quad 20mm FlaK. And he described it as living hell. The bombing helped immensly, though. Terrible as it was, the ruins provided perfect cover and made defending it that long possible in the first place.

BOA_Allmenroder
09-27-2007, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Plunkertx:
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Well in light of the whole "seperation of church and state" furor that is sweeping the nation on so many fronts I was surprised to see that all across America on D-Day in schools, businesses... everywhere... people were called out to go and pray for the troops... and people responded... across all ethnic and economic lines. In the evening President Roosevelt got on the airwaves and prayed with the nation.... Today some clown from the ACLU would be screaming about separation of church and state and the airwaves would be filled with the raging debates back and forth about whether or not it was the governments responsibility to even call for such a thing. I hesitated to even mention it because I dont want this thread to turn into a debate about the issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's EXACTLY what I noticed last night. It's great that I am not alone in this thought--and I think we are not, either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And of course Roosevelt making what we would call today a 'prime time' prayer on radio probably wouldn't fly today.

I must be getting soft because, as I said, some of the home life vinettes got me. Like the kid (old gentleman now) who delivered newspapers saying something like all the windows had Blue Stars indicating someone in that household was serving, and then how the Stars would change to Gold (indicating that someone was now KIA) and how all the window shades would be pulled down for a period of time.

Quiet dignity I guess I would call it.

M_Gunz
09-27-2007, 07:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BoCfuss:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Hitler rose to power because things were impossible in Germany following WWI and made worse
when the French seized the Alsace-Lorraine region. How'd you like years with inflation at
3 to 5 MILLION percent? Talk about picking who lives and who dies....
That is why countries get built back up afterwards, why the USSR was given so much wheat, etc,
throughout decades and why the mideast is so unstable -- a Hungry Crowd is an Angry Crowd.

It's only a shame that while money poured into rebuilding industries elsewhere that none was
put into modernizing the older stuff here but trading grief elsewhere for here is stock in
trade and "helps to break the unions". So of course we do have a lot of angry people here
but since the most angry are poor and can't elect a Hitler they don't count though that hasn't
stopped the violence as anyone knows. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor = Angry. I guess the poor should keep waiting for some government to come save them. Its been working so well. The poor think they deserve something. They don't. I don't disagree with you. That doesn't change the fact that Hitler did what he did and that he was allowed to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe some day you should learn more history, and perhaps economics as well. Perhaps learn
about The Great Depression in the US to start and then find out how much worse it was in
Europe and then check out the truly insane state of affairs in Germany during the 20's.

Would your tune change if you saw the price of a loaf of bread go up over $5000? Well okay
you say, My job will pay $100,000 a week! Sure unless your job gets downsized along with
half of the jobs in town. Try paying a mortgage then. THAT happened in Germany.

When things get or are made bad enough then enough people will support actions that at any
other time they would protest loudly. They will believe what they are told if it seems to
promise a better life, an end to personal troubles. Everyone not a friend is the enemy and
source of your problems, blah-blah-blah, the witch hunts begin in earnest, speak against
The Leader and The Program is TREASON and soon enough you have your Facist State.

All that is needed is enough pressure and minorities to blame. It happened in Germany but at
least it can't happen here because who would support politicians that work that way?

M_Gunz
09-27-2007, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Well in light of the whole "seperation of church and state" furor that is sweeping the nation on so many fronts I was surprised to see that all across America on D-Day in schools, businesses... everywhere... people were called out to go and pray for the troops... and people responded... across all ethnic and economic lines. In the evening President Roosevelt got on the airwaves and prayed with the nation.... Today some clown from the ACLU would be screaming about separation of church and state and the airwaves would be filled with the raging debates back and forth about whether or not it was the governments responsibility to even call for such a thing. I hesitated to even mention it because I dont want this thread to turn into a debate about the issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have had calls for prayers for our troops and if anyone objected they didn't get much coverage.
Even atheists know when to STFU. What you CAN'T DO is have the government SAY the prayer on air
in a "repeat after me" fashion, at least unless it's so watered-down it's a joke.

We had moments of silence or silent prayer in public school over events in Vietnam back in my
day. Compared to then this country is so far to the right you'd need a telescope to see it.

So what some ******* screams? MY money still says In GOD We Trust!

M_Gunz
09-27-2007, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I think he handled the race issue well... there was more he could have added.. but it was nice to see people of color not eliminated from the tale like on so many other occasions in things like this. You say that he didn't play race politics... yet you wonder why he didn't go into the racist attitudes towards the Japanese.. which he actually did.. in detail... I thought the way he handled the 442nd was great and I don't recall a more inclusive and diverse telling of the period ever.... You cannot tell any story of the history of the United States in any time period without addressing race. The issue of race is so intricately woven into the fabric of the tapestry that we are as to be impossible to remove from any kind of in depth historical discussion. Especially one dealing with the 20th century. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Between the other post and yours I get the feeling that the man has had a growing experience.
Almost makes me hope for the future...........

Bearcat99
09-27-2007, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Almost makes me hope for the future........... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed....

Sturm_Williger
09-27-2007, 08:11 AM
Thanks for the answer Bearcat http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leitmotiv
09-27-2007, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sturm_Williger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I was so surprised by the implications of it in light of current politally correct trends in the U.S. that it took me a while to digest it. ... the segment I am referring to is in the first hour and it deals with the D-Day invasion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a very intriguing statement - would you care to elaborate for those of us in other parts of the world with a big curiosity bump please ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well in light of the whole "seperation of church and state" furor that is sweeping the nation on so many fronts I was surprised to see that all across America on D-Day in schools, businesses... everywhere... people were called out to go and pray for the troops... and people responded... across all ethnic and economic lines. In the evening President Roosevelt got on the airwaves and prayed with the nation.... Today some clown from the ACLU would be screaming about separation of church and state and the airwaves would be filled with the raging debates back and forth about whether or not it was the governments responsibility to even call for such a thing. I hesitated to even mention it because I dont want this thread to turn into a debate about the issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think it is very refreshing Burns has not elected to play race politics as he has in other of his docs. I think he carefully chose his commentators this time, unlike Shelby Foote in the Civil War doc (a well known racist who publicly praised Nathan Bedford Forrest). I have no major criticisms, so far. I think he could have emphasized the huge America First non-intervention movement of the pre-war period. He should have emphasized how hard the Depression hit the U.S. He should have emphasized the appalling behavior of the Japanese since Nanking in 1937 which made the Americans perceive them as monsters (nicely explains why few were disturbed by the nuking of Japan). He could have shown the famous LIFE magazine story from around Dec 1941 which depicted the Japanese as sub-human, tree-dwelling, congenitally near-sighted apes. This would help explain why Americans were so surprised at the successes of the Japanese. But, considering the vastness of the canvas, I am impressed. I would have shown how the war affected at least one fantastically wealthy family on the East Coast for contrast with the rest of the country (Burns' fantastically wealthy sponsors probably would not have liked that). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he handled the race issue well... there was more he could have added.. but it was nice to see people of color not eliminated from the tale like on so many other occasions in things like this. You say that he didn't play race politics... yet you wonder why he didn't go into the racist attitudes towards the Japanese.. which he actually did.. in detail... I thought the way he handled the 442nd was great and I don't recall a more inclusive and diverse telling of the period ever.... You cannot tell any story of the history of the United States in any time period without addressing race. The issue of race is so intricately woven into the fabric of the tapestry that we are as to be impossible to remove from any kind of in depth historical discussion. Especially one dealing with the 20th century. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was pleased he did not play favorites as he did in the jazz doc where he trivialized and ignored the white jazz musicians in an attempt to curry favor with the black viewers. I thought Ellington, a consummate musician and great artist, would have really disliked seeing a stupid white guy playing politics with art. I don't think he even touched the degree of self-delusion some Americans were under regarding the Japanese, as evinced in that LIFE article. The first reports out of Pearl Harbor were of German fighters and bombers doing the damage. Some could not believe Japanese were capable of hammering the U.S. even though they had completely defeated the Russians in 1904-5 and the Germans at Tsingtao in 1914.

Blutarski2004
09-27-2007, 02:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Achilles5784:
Last year I watched "BBC History of World War II". After watching "The War", I have a question about the Americans(and others) battling at Monte Cassino. I don't want to start an argument or anything but the BBC documentary made it pretty clear that the American's became "obsessed" with taking Monte Cassino, like we could have just went around or something. But in the war it sounded like we needed to take it to press on. Obviously bombing it didn't turn out to be the best move. Just curious if anyone else noticed this and what they thought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I don't think tht obsession had anything to do with it. Monte Cassino overlooked and dominated the point where the major highway and rail line to Rome crossed te Rapido River. Artillery observation from that position made it impossible for the Allies to cross the river and continue their advance. The entire German front in that area was based upon a line of steep mountains and ridges that was fronted by the moat of the Rapido. The German line was also supported by about 800 pcs of artillery IIRC.

The position was essentially flankless. The Allies essentially had nowhere else to go but through the German defensive line. There was a reason why the Germans referred to the Italian peninsula as the largest Allied "prison camp" in Europe.

leitmotiv
09-27-2007, 02:40 PM
BLUTARSKI is right. MC was the stopper in the bottle. Anzio was the operation to outflank MC by sea invasion and the general who was in command "screwed the pooch." The Germans were in a win-win situation at MC. They held they high ground, and when the Allies obliterated the monastery, they had untakeable terrain.

BoCfuss
09-27-2007, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BoCfuss:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Hitler rose to power because things were impossible in Germany following WWI and made worse
when the French seized the Alsace-Lorraine region. How'd you like years with inflation at
3 to 5 MILLION percent? Talk about picking who lives and who dies....
That is why countries get built back up afterwards, why the USSR was given so much wheat, etc,
throughout decades and why the mideast is so unstable -- a Hungry Crowd is an Angry Crowd.

It's only a shame that while money poured into rebuilding industries elsewhere that none was
put into modernizing the older stuff here but trading grief elsewhere for here is stock in
trade and "helps to break the unions". So of course we do have a lot of angry people here
but since the most angry are poor and can't elect a Hitler they don't count though that hasn't
stopped the violence as anyone knows. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor = Angry. I guess the poor should keep waiting for some government to come save them. Its been working so well. The poor think they deserve something. They don't. I don't disagree with you. That doesn't change the fact that Hitler did what he did and that he was allowed to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe some day you should learn more history, and perhaps economics as well. Perhaps learn
about The Great Depression in the US to start and then find out how much worse it was in
Europe and then check out the truly insane state of affairs in Germany during the 20's.

Would your tune change if you saw the price of a loaf of bread go up over $5000? Well okay
you say, My job will pay $100,000 a week! Sure unless your job gets downsized along with
half of the jobs in town. Try paying a mortgage then. THAT happened in Germany.

When things get or are made bad enough then enough people will support actions that at any
other time they would protest loudly. They will believe what they are told if it seems to
promise a better life, an end to personal troubles. Everyone not a friend is the enemy and
source of your problems, blah-blah-blah, the witch hunts begin in earnest, speak against
The Leader and The Program is TREASON and soon enough you have your Facist State.

All that is needed is enough pressure and minorities to blame. It happened in Germany but at
least it can't happen here because who would support politicians that work that way? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please don't think that I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I was born into poverty. The real point I was trying to make was that NO ONE should wait or even think that any government will give you something or help you with anything. I really believe that people are kind and willing to help others. Not governments. They are a complete waist of resources, on every level. Bigger the government bigger the waste. When people really are in need, it is their friends that come to the rescue. Uncle Sam is no friend of mine. The "poor" deserve nothing and until "they" figure that out, nothing will change. The unlucky and poor don't just need book learning, they need some social change and education as well, I think this gets lost by those whom they elect to "help" them.