PDA

View Full Version : OT.. Impressed by 'The Thin Red Line'...



MB_Avro_UK
04-12-2006, 10:01 PM
Hi all,

I am not always impressed by Hollywood war films. But having viewed the 'Thin Red Line' in my opinion it is far superior to 'Saving Private Ryan'.

My opinion, but I think that Saving Private Ryan is good for the the first 30 minutes and then becomes a 1950s 'B' movie.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Adam906
04-12-2006, 10:18 PM
You mean you didn't like the flag waving thank-God-for-the-Americans ending, the historical inaccuracies and the sheer idiocy of a supposed Captian in the Rangers? Or for that matter the lack of humanity in the Germans, the complete suspension of belief needed to sit through the last half of the movie... Oh I could go on but obviously I'm talking to someone who just can't appreciate a good movie!

God, man! What is wrong with you? Thanks to this movie I now know that it was truly the Yanks (or 'Seppos' in Australian rhyming slang) that won the war and if it wasn't for them and them alone the Nazi's would have long ago walked across the face of the planet and I would be ending this with a Sieg Heil!

arcadeace
04-12-2006, 10:37 PM
well I'll have to draw my own opinion lol

thanks for bringing it up Avro, I'll keep it in mind and watch what others say

I really liked private ryan, I was riveted by the action and acting

ImpStarDuece
04-13-2006, 12:11 AM
As a coherent narrative, the 'Thin Red Line' dissapointed a lot of people, most of which were expecting another 'Saving Private Ryan' only set in the Pacific.

As a thematic and cinemagraphic piece it was outstanding. Malik didn't scream his message across like Spielberg did. Instead it quietly posed lots of questions. The duality of man and nature the conflict inherent in both, cycles of death and rebirth, the motivations of men at war. It emphasises that everyone has their own pont of view, that nothing in war, or life, is ever as simple or black and white as we would like it, or see it. The Japanese aren't portrayed as evil, but they are treated with a terseness that leads to the point of dehumanisation. Something similar could be said of the US soliders, each is treated more as a point of contact with the overarching story than a reference for the narrative.

tagTaken2
04-13-2006, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
As a coherent narrative, the 'Thin Red Line' dissapointed a lot of people, most of which were expecting another 'Saving Private Ryan' only set in the Pacific.


Damn straight.
It took two tries to get through this film. Once I sat down and watched it properly though, it's far superior and more memorable. Not that Ryan didn't have its moments. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

biggs222
04-13-2006, 12:25 AM
theres actually a 6 hour version of Thin red line that the director originally wanted to show but it was cut for obvious reasons... SPR is a very "rah rah" movie strip away the gory effects and u have, like someone posted a B movie...

for crying out loud they cant even get teh secret code right.. its FLASH answered by THUNDER not the other way around...morons.

Thin red line told a story with a deaper meaning.. albeit maybe too poetic. i find it much more sophisticated then SPR.

SPR made u hate the germans and love the americans.... thin red line made u hate war and the evils of man-kind.... Thin red line wins.

SeaFireLIV
04-13-2006, 02:09 AM
Sorry to sound like a barbarian, but Thin Red Line bored the heck out of me. It seemed to me to be trying to be too clever in an esotetirical kind of way. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

And I`m, the kinda guy who`s happy to watched subtitled french and Chinese/Japanese movies too!

TROOPER117
04-13-2006, 03:15 AM
Mmmm... Watch it again mate, its not a gung ho type war film. There is alot about human nature in there, from different personalities and their veiw of the operation. They all have their merits.
The attack on the bunker, is a sequence that is totaly gripping, and is shown in many military training centres as a demo sequence, (although, simplified for the film audience).
A quality film... If you look deeper.

HotelBushranger
04-13-2006, 03:26 AM
Last time I saw it, I was too young to understand it, and I don't even think I saw through the whole thing. I'll make sure I rent it out soon.

FASTVAN
04-13-2006, 03:45 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gifIt is a movie about the evils of war,yes, Better than Saving Private Ryan.In my opinion.More movies to watch, Das Boot, Band of Brothers series, ANZACS, And i think there is a new movie to be released soon called Kokoda.

panther3485
04-13-2006, 04:07 AM
I'm with SeaFireLIV on this,

I didn't like 'The Thin Red Line' either. Seafire's statement, "It seemed to me to be trying to be too clever in an esoteric kind of way" sums it up just about perfectly for me too.

Saving Private Ryan was less than totally satisfactory from my POV also. Some bits were quite 'cheesy' and seemed out of place for the tone set at the start of the film, plus there was some technical stuff I picked on. The good bits were very good, however.

It definitely did not make me want to 'love the Americans and hate the Germans', as somebody else has commented. [You could draw that inference if you wanted to, but I didn't want to!]


Best regards,
panther3485

Friendly_flyer
04-13-2006, 04:25 AM
"The thin red line" does have it's moments, though. The fighting in the long grass is among the best war scenes made. Appart from that, I do see SeaFires point.

As for "Saving Private Ryan", the opening scene has never been the same after seeing the "gun and water" show on Mythbusters.

Monson74
04-13-2006, 04:53 AM
I think TTRL is a great movie showing the many aspects of war, the officer (Nolte) mainly concerned with his own carreer, the sergant (Penn) who just wants to do the job & survive & the Witt-character - a traumatized thinker questioning the very nature of human conflict - each having their own agenda. I liked the spooky atmosphere & the tension - there weren't that many battle-scenes but they were well made & showed something about the characters that I think psychologically surpasses most war movies. It's a bit long but I'd rate it 4/5.

NS38th_Aristaus
04-13-2006, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by Adam906:
You mean you didn't like the flag waving thank-God-for-the-Americans ending, the historical inaccuracies and the sheer idiocy of a supposed Captian in the Rangers? Or for that matter the lack of humanity in the Germans, the complete suspension of belief needed to sit through the last half of the movie... Oh I could go on but obviously I'm talking to someone who just can't appreciate a good movie!

God, man! What is wrong with you? Thanks to this movie I now know that it was truly the Yanks (or 'Seppos' in Australian rhyming slang) that won the war and if it wasn't for them and them alone the Nazi's would have long ago walked across the face of the planet and I would be ending this with a Sieg Heil!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Someone has had a bad experience lol.

The Thin Red Line is nothing more then a waste of good film stock.
An Anti-War movie that has no bearing on fact, reality, or the feelings and beliefs of the WWII generation. Americans hated the Japanese with a passion that was only satisfied with the killing of the Japanese Soldier.
American Sailors would make knife handles and other things out of the bones of Kamikazi pilots when they could be found during cleanup and repairs. Skulls would be stripped of skin and displayed.
The hate didn't end after the war either as the U.S. occupation forces treated the average Japanese Citizen poorly.
Has anyone ever seen an item with "MADE IN OCCUPIED JAPAN" stamped in it? I have.

American Soldiers didn't sit around grassy fields contimplateing the evils of war, he cleaned his weapon and sharpend his bayonet.
The American Gov't made the ETO the priority, the American citizen made the PTO his.

Saveing Private Ryan is full of flaws with a very dry spell in the middle, but the start and finish are first rate for action.
As for flag waving I applaud it, I cannot understand ppl who don't take enough pride in their nation or military to wave their flag.
When I go to see a movie based on the American involvment in any war I expect to see American soldiers killing the enemy, I dont want to like the enemy soldier, that is the whole point of it. War, Death, Killing, and the destruction of enemy forces.

If our friends around the world don't like the American flag waveing in an American war picture then don't watch. Ask the film companies in your country to make a film showing your military throwing American forces back into the sea, or your armies pushing the Americans aside and leading the charge toward the enemy.
Then you too can wave your flag.

lowfighter
04-13-2006, 06:08 AM
Thin red line: the "going home" scene

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/adonisl/farewell.jpg

RCAF_Irish_403
04-13-2006, 06:08 AM
Tchnically, both films are great. Both Malik and Spielberg work the camera like masters. SPR's camera work is shakey and violent. It features lots of muted colors. TTRL is lush and gorgeous. the scene when the Army storms that Japanese camp is perfect as is the fight along the hill.

Both films borrow heavily from "Beach Red" (1967) ....check it out

blakduk
04-13-2006, 06:19 AM
SPR and TRL were very different movies.
SPR had the most awesome opening sequence i've seen and really captured the terror of a beach assault. Other than that, i think it was outdone by 'Band of Brothers'. There were too many liberties taken with historical accuracy that distracted me later. People who are not as burdened with a WW2 fascination as i am may not have noticed.
TRL was a much better portrayal of the experiences of a few troops in the Pacific- i really appreciated the depths of each character. Nolte's character comes across initially as a thug who is too ready to sacrifice his men for his own glory- it later seems that without his uncompromising drive they may not have won the battle. There was a lot more complexity about each character and why they acted as they did.
It was a bit superficial in regard to its portrayal of the Japanese- however i think this was in keeping with it being about the American troops experiences of the battle. They couldnt understand their language nor comprehend their actions.
As for the comments about all the Americans hated the enemy- be careful with generalisations. I've met many veterans of the allied forces, and a few Axis vets, and their attitudes vary enormously. Many stated they did what they had to do against the troops in battle more with their minds focused on survival. When the conflict ended and they saw the atrocities that had been committed against noncombatants and POW's, attitudes hardened considerably.
As for the flag-waving, dont fuss too much. The average plebian who gets a kick out of that stuff isnt too worried about what really happened- that they acknowledge WW2 happened at all is a victory for historians. Remember these events happened over 60years ago!
The USA did win the war in the Pacific- Australia saved itself from invasion and blockade, but without the USA's contribution we could not have won the Pacific campaign.
This doesnt diminish the heroism and sacrifice of the Aussie soldiers- it's simply the fact that we were too few and our industry too small to carry the war further over the Pacific.
I'm still hoping this movie Kokoda does their story justice.

TX-Zen
04-13-2006, 06:27 AM
I wouldn't consider SPR to be a simple flag waving patriotic rah rah movie, I think Spielburg was trying to capture the sense of patriatism and duty that was prevalent during that day and to remind or educate people unfamiliar with history about how the US viewed it's own soldiers. Raiders of the Lost Ark is another example of him trying to capture the spirit of the day, not necessarily making a political statement about the superiority of Americans, although some people will see both films that way and I can understand that, I just don't think thats his main point.

People in the US were very nationalistic during WW2 and our troops were regarded as hero's for what they contributed. It's natural to have a sense of superiority when viewing one's own history, this is no different from nation to nation and the US is no exception and so certainly some of that will come out in SPR. But as I said I don't think that was the direct intention of SPR, I think it was more of a tribute to what the soldiers did than a 'USA is new best' propaganda film.

For what it's worth I enjoyed the action sequences but was rather bored during the middle and less than impressed with the redemption concept of saving Ryan, but then thats another aspect of spielburg that I have never cared for--his sometimes naive ideology viewed from what appears to be his own youthful memories.

Nothing terribly wrong with that, but it gets kind of old after a few movies and thats what I didn't care for in SPR.


On the whole, SPR is not really a statement about the greatness of the USA over everyone else, but more of tribute for Americans to appreciate amongst ourselves and a reminder for our younger generations about what soldiers did back then.


Strangely for me, I didn't care for the TRL very much, but maybe I'll give it a second look. I was put off by what felt like an endless flood of analogy and maybe what I wanted at that moment was simple machine gun based action. I'm former US Army, so sometimes its hard for me to see the great moral dilema regarding war...as a civilian and rational person I have many opinions on the subject and don't take the subject lightly, but when you put on the uniform and take an oath to serve your country moral debate is not your primary concern...doing your job and not getting killed are. Things tend to simplify way way down as a soldier and you leave the great debates to others who aren't dodging enemy fire.

And maybe thats why I didn't care for the TRL, because I sat down and viewed it from a soldier's perspective instead of as a medium for moral debate as the director intended. Nice imagery, reasonable action and it had some parts I liked, but on the whole it was hard for me to identify with the characters gripping with their place in the chaos of war.

I am not one to worry very much about the morality warfare and having been in uniform I've taken the simpler view of it all. It has it's place like every human endeavor and while we should not engage in that behavior, history unfortunately demonstrates that is a favorite pastime of our species. I'd like to be more ideolistic like I was when I was younger, but practicality and simple realization of history has come from experience.


Just my .02 rupees.

Breeze147
04-13-2006, 06:35 AM
Why does this same B.S. about Saving Private Ryan keep coming up on this Forum. I am really, honestly, angry right now. And it seems as though it is always the Brits leading the charge against this movie. Do you meatheads actually watch this movie, or do you just sit back and pick apart a few inaccuarcies?

For God's sake! It's a movie! It's a story! About Americans! Written, directed and produced by Americans! Starring Americans! About a kid whose brother is KIA and he is entitled under U.S. law to go home. A small squad who has been through North Africa and Sicily is given the thankless task of finding one (1) airborne Private out of thousands scattered all over Normandy. And the central theme is: Why are we saving Private Ryan? Who in the hell is saving us?

Why do you Brits get your noses so bent out of shape over this? Make your own G.D. movie about your own guys. Why does America continually get raked over the coals simply because the Brits are stuck in a piss-poor geographic location? You got bombed? I cant't help that. You were fighting since 1939? I can't help that.

How many American Merchant Marines died while bringing supplies to you? Did you lose most of your Pacific Fleet to a JAP sneak attack? Most of the early history of WWII is riddled with stories of famous Brit defeats and surrenders.

The war might have ended a month or more earlier if the sacred, sainted Monty hadn't farted around trying to capture Caen. By the way, what beach did the Brits land on? It wasn't Omaha!

Why are we not permitted to be justifiably proud of the accomplishments of our Armed Forces? Yes, I truly believe we bailed out both the Brits and the Reds and without the U.S. you both would have both been soundly defeated.

Just watch the frickin' movie. Enjoy it's superior acting, writing, direction and cinematography. Quit whining just because it doesn't glorify your nasty little nation of men with bad teeth and women with fat legs.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

p-11.cAce
04-13-2006, 06:38 AM
I started this discussion a few months ago and it went on for NINE PAGES http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1691089663/p/1
I still think TRL is one of the best films of any genre EVER.

panther3485
04-13-2006, 06:38 AM
Hi there, TX-Zen

Quote:

"Strangely for me, I didn't care for the TRL very much, but maybe I'll give it a second look. I was put off by what felt like an endless flood of analogy and maybe what I wanted at that moment was simple machine gun based action. I'm former US Army, so sometimes its hard for me to see the great moral dilema regarding war...as a civilian and rational person I have many opinions on the subject and don't take the subject lightly, but when you put on the uniform and take an oath to serve your country moral debate is not your primary concern...doing your job and not getting killed are. Things tend to simplify way way down as a soldier and you leave the great debates to others who aren't dodging enemy fire.

And maybe thats why I didn't care for the TRL, because I sat down and viewed it from a soldier's perspective instead of as a medium for moral debate as the director intended. Nice imagery, reasonable action and it had some parts I liked, but on the whole it was hard for me to identify with the characters gripping with their place in the chaos of war.

I am not one to worry very much about the morality warfare and having been in uniform I've taken the simpler view of it all. It has it's place like every human endeavor and while we should not engage in that behavior, history unfortunately demonstrates that is a favorite pastime of our species. I'd like to be more ideolistic like I was when I was younger, but practicality and simple realization of history has come from experience."


That's the way it is for me too, the common thread being my Army service background (nine years in the Australian army). It does tend to shape your ideas and attitudes somewhat.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

GBrutus
04-13-2006, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Breeze 147:

Why does this same B.S. about Saving Private Ryan keep coming up on this Forum. I am really, honestly, angry right now. And it seems as though it is always the Brits leading the charge against this movie. Do you meatheads actually watch this movie, or do you just sit back and pick apart a few inaccuarcies?

For God's sake! It's a movie! It's a story! About Americans! Written, directed and produced by Americans! Starring Americans! About a kid whose brother is KIA and he is entitled under U.S. law to go home. A small squad who has been through North Africa and Sicily is given the thankless task of finding one (1) airborne Private out of thousands scattered all over Normandy. And the central theme is: Why are we saving Private Ryan? Who in the hell is saving us?

Why do you Brits get your noses so bent out of shape over this? Make your own G.D. movie about your own guys. Why does America continually get raked over the coals simply because the Brits are stuck in a piss-poor geographic location? You got bombed? I cant't help that. You were fighting since 1939? I can't help that.

How many American Merchant Marines died while bringing supplies to you? Did you lose most of your Pacific Fleet to a JAP sneak attack? Most of the early history of WWII is riddled with stories of famous Brit defeats and surrenders.

The war might have ended a month or more earlier if the sacred, sainted Monty hadn't farted around trying to capture Caen. By the way, what beach did the Brits land on? It wasn't Omaha!

Why are we not permitted to be justifiably proud of the accomplishments of our Armed Forces? Yes, I truly believe we bailed out both the Brits and the Reds and without the U.S. you both would have both been soundly defeated.

Just watch the frickin' movie. Enjoy it's superior acting, writing, direction and cinematography. Quit whining just because it doesn't glorify your nasty little nation of men with bad teeth and women with fat legs.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!


Breeze147, May I suggest you step away from your keyboard and go and do some knitting or some other relaxing activity. You are obviously on a very short fuse.

mortoma
04-13-2006, 07:34 AM
I hated that TRL movie, sorry to rain or your parade.

Not enough action ( with a few exceptions ) and the movie makers endeavored to be much too philisophical and emotional for a war movie. That's just my opinion, I grew up in the sixties as a child so I was more used to more manly war movies.

ploughman
04-13-2006, 07:46 AM
Nice rant breeze. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

dadada1
04-13-2006, 07:47 AM
For me TRL tries to too hard elevate itself above most war films. At times its like watching visual poetry. With the aid of the over pretentious dailogue, in it's own way for me glamourises rather than attacks the morality of warfare by beeing too just beautiful. "Come and See" directed by Elim Klimov has to be the most honest war film I think I've ever seen. Its a pretty hard film to sit through and take, but you're not left in any doubt that war is a bad thing.

BrewsterPilot
04-13-2006, 08:03 AM
Breeze does it again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

NagaSadow84
04-13-2006, 08:08 AM
"When Trumpets Fade" was better than both.

HotelBushranger
04-13-2006, 08:13 AM
Ever heard of multiculturalism mate?

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
04-13-2006, 08:21 AM
Breeze, come on mate we have been down this road so many times before on this forum it amazes me that your still falling for this kind of bs.

For a start the brit guy with the bad teeth and the fat legged woman was actually complimenting the film.

If you had climed down from your horse of righteous indignation for five minits you would have noticed that he used an Australian slang word though (which might of been a clue).

Still it is quite a common mistake that folk from the US mistake folk from Australia as being from the east end of london ala mary poppins (umdiddlediddlediddleumdiddle aye anyone).

Mind you I hear they have a shortage of fat legged women and bad teeth in Oz also. So I guess it was easier to just rant at us poor uglified brits again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

I for one find you yanks about the most cuddley and loveable nation on the face of the planet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif but none of your women would sleep with me coz my teeth are bad and my legs are fat!

now give us a kiss have a beer and sit the hell down yah big bedala.

A.K.Davis
04-13-2006, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
You mean you didn't like the flag waving thank-God-for-the-Americans ending, the historical inaccuracies and the sheer idiocy of a supposed Captian in the Rangers? Or for that matter the lack of humanity in the Germans, the complete suspension of belief needed to sit through the last half of the movie... Oh I could go on but obviously I'm talking to someone who just can't appreciate a good movie!

God, man! What is wrong with you? Thanks to this movie I now know that it was truly the Yanks (or 'Seppos' in Australian rhyming slang) that won the war and if it wasn't for them and them alone the Nazi's would have long ago walked across the face of the planet and I would be ending this with a Sieg Heil!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Someone has had a bad experience lol.

The Thin Red Line is nothing more then a waste of good film stock.
An Anti-War movie that has no bearing on fact, reality, or the feelings and beliefs of the WWII generation. Americans hated the Japanese with a passion that was only satisfied with the killing of the Japanese Soldier.
American Sailors would make knife handles and other things out of the bones of Kamikazi pilots when they could be found during cleanup and repairs. Skulls would be stripped of skin and displayed.
The hate didn't end after the war either as the U.S. occupation forces treated the average Japanese Citizen poorly.
Has anyone ever seen an item with "MADE IN OCCUPIED JAPAN" stamped in it? I have.

American Soldiers didn't sit around grassy fields contimplateing the evils of war, he cleaned his weapon and sharpend his bayonet.
The American Gov't made the ETO the priority, the American citizen made the PTO his.

Saveing Private Ryan is full of flaws with a very dry spell in the middle, but the start and finish are first rate for action.
As for flag waving I applaud it, I cannot understand ppl who don't take enough pride in their nation or military to wave their flag.
When I go to see a movie based on the American involvment in any war I expect to see American soldiers killing the enemy, I dont want to like the enemy soldier, that is the whole point of it. War, Death, Killing, and the destruction of enemy forces.

If our friends around the world don't like the American flag waveing in an American war picture then don't watch. Ask the film companies in your country to make a film showing your military throwing American forces back into the sea, or your armies pushing the Americans aside and leading the charge toward the enemy.
Then you too can wave your flag. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

The movie The Thin Red Line was adopted from James Jones's novel of the same name. Mr. Jones served as an infantryman in an Army division in the SWP. The Thin Red Line draws heavily on his own experiences and the movie is largely faithful to the novel (there are some unfortunate exceptions).

He was there. You were not. I don't think you should presume to say what "the American soldier" was or was not. You are in absolutely no position to do so.

TRL principal cinematic failing was the way Malick used voice overs (although understandable as the novel is largely internal dialogue). They were instrusive and overwritten.

Most other criticisms come down to politics and ideology, or simple lack of attention spans.

BSS_Goat
04-13-2006, 08:27 AM
I think Brits are the cats meow.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
04-13-2006, 08:28 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif aww your just saying that to get my knickers off

BSS_Goat
04-13-2006, 08:30 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

GreyBeast
04-13-2006, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Breeze 147:

Make your own G.D. movie about your own guys.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

Whaa? I checked through all 2147 pages in the General Discussion forum but I couldn't find ONE movie in there...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Maraz_5SA
04-13-2006, 08:57 AM
I watched both movies. TTRL is surely a step higher than SPR.

Some great war scenes (the bunker attack, the overrunning of the Japanese camp) some great characters, good photography, I liked TTRL very much. SPR is a conventional Hollywood movie, TTRL is definitely another class.

Maraz

georgeo76
04-13-2006, 09:01 AM
I liked both movies, is there something wrong with me?

whiteladder
04-13-2006, 09:08 AM
Wow, I have this mental picture of Breeze sat in front of his keyboard mashin at it with a big purple vein throbbing in his forehead.

I would advise any Brits within 100 miles of him to come home straight away, I think he`s going to have a postal moment.

ploughman
04-13-2006, 09:16 AM
Oh Christ, he's not a posty is he. We're all knackered if he is.

whiteladder
04-13-2006, 09:32 AM
Maybe "Saving Private Ryan" is Breezes attack word. He leads a normal well balanced life until he gets a phone call late at night from his KGB handler "Saving Private Ryan" growls the agent, the phone goes dead Breezes eyes glaze over and and like Terminator anyone in a bowler hat becomes fair game.

Arrgh what have we unleashed!!!. the humanity.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
04-13-2006, 09:49 AM
Yanks (or 'Seppos' in Australian rhyming slang)

This is why there are no famous Australian poets

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

panther3485
04-13-2006, 10:06 AM
Hi there, Breeze147

I agree with you about 'Saving Private Ryan' being over-criticized sometimes. As you say, some critics seem to lose sight of the fact that it was a movie made by Americans about Americans. (Sounds simple, eh?) I see SPR as having flaws, but overall a pretty good film IMHO.


I know you were angry - and perhaps rightly so - but just one or two points:

Quote 1:
"How many American Merchant Marines died while bringing supplies to you? Did you lose most of your Pacific Fleet to a JAP sneak attack? Most of the early history of WWII is riddled with stories of famous Brit defeats and surrenders."

Britain didn't suffer a 'sneak attack' like the one on Pearl Harbor. She did, however, suffer a number of serious defeats and setbacks, as you have pointed out. From the fall of France in the summer of 1940 until at least 1942/43, Britain was desperately doing everything she could just to avoid being totally defeated and knocked out of the war!

[Apart from a few highlights such as the Battle of Britian and the successful defence of Malta, things didn't really show any true sign of turning better for the British until the second battle of El Alamein in November 1942. Even then, a most dangerous threat wasn't averted until after the turning of the Battle of the Atlantic in May/June 1943.]

Britain's principal achievement, then, was to remain a viable enemy of Nazi Germany despite all those setbacks and difficulties and to become the launching platform not only for a sustained day and night aerial bombing offensive but also for the final Western Allied assault against Hitler's 'Festung Europa'.

Yes, considerable help did come from the United States - mostly material help in the early years - which increased substantially after Pearl Harbour. And of course, direct US involvement after Pearl was instrumental in helping to decide the outcome in favour of the Allies - no doubt about that either! Don't ever think that American help wasn't appreciated because it most certainly was!


Quote 2:
"The war might have ended a month or more earlier if the sacred, sainted Monty hadn't farted around trying to capture Caen. By the way, what beach did the Brits land on? It wasn't Omaha!"

The British/Canadian/Polish attacks in the Caen sector, though very bloody and costly, did ultimately serve some worthwhile purpose. They pinned down the greater part of the German Panzers and some of their best divisions in an attritional slugging match, which actually helped to create the conditions necessary for the American breakout from the bridgehead and their rapid advance westwards, to produce the Falaise pocket and the collapse of German resistance in France.

But this had not been the original plan! The trouble was, Montgomery later insisted that it had been his original plan all along and he was lying. Monty was a very good General in many ways but he had a serious weakness and that was his own ego, which made him too proud to ever admit he was wrong about anything.

But if you want to look at what was arguably his biggest gaffe in the NW Europe campaign, then look beyond Normandy to Arnhem!

'By the way', the British and Canadian beaches at Normandy were 'Gold' (mostly British), 'Juno' (mostly Canadian) and 'Sword' (mostly British). As far as I know, no British troops as such landed at Omaha but I believe there were some British landing-craft crews involved there.


Quote 3:
"Why are we not permitted to be justifiably proud of the accomplishments of our Armed Forces? Yes, I truly believe we bailed out both the Brits and the Reds and without the U.S. you both would have both been soundly defeated.

(a) Americans should be proud, because the contribution of the USA was vital to the winning of WW2. No-brainer!
(b) The other main Allied protagonists - The British Commonwealth and the Soviet Union - also deserve recognition and to feel proud, because their contribution was vital as well.
(c) All the other peoples who assisted on the Allied side - Poles, Czechs, Free French, partisans and resistance movements in the occupied territories, and others - are also entitled to feel proud.


Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
04-13-2006, 10:21 AM
Quote:

"quote:
Yanks (or 'Seppos' in Australian rhyming slang)

This is why there are no famous Australian poets"

I could enlighten you and you'd then see both the rhyme and the reason, but it's very uncomplimentary to our American buddies!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

panther3485

ploughman
04-13-2006, 10:32 AM
I reckon Balrog knows the ryhme and reason of that one mate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

FlatSpinMan
04-13-2006, 10:34 AM
I'm a NZer but I think Breeze has a fair point.
The comment about bad teeth and fat legs was unnecessary but apart from that his post was quite reasonable, I thought.
As panther said, America did make a massive, VITAL contribution to the war effort. The Red army was also massively instrumental in grinding down the Wehrmacht but again, a lot of that was done on US supplies. Britain and the Commonwealth could not have won by themselves. the fact that they kept on fighting is to their credit but it was American materiel and Russian blood that won the war for the Allies.

So why not let an American make a movie about American soldiers which shows them in a favourable light? Remember too, that SPR does also show some unfavourable scenes - US troops gunning down soldiers attempting to surrender being the example that comes to mind. The film also questions the logic of sacrificing men's lives to achieve an objective so I think it is unfair to say that it is a real "flag-waving" war flick.

Personally, I found TTRL to be kind of a drag. Looked nice, really liked the poster (with the long grass and the blue eyes etc) but found it to be kind of disconnected from its characters and quite preachy/trying to hard.

Just my two cents and equally as valid as anybody else's opinion.

GreyFox5
04-13-2006, 10:40 AM
I missed TRL since I was told that it was terrible. I should have seen it on my own, now I think I will rent it. However I have watched SPR many times and that’s all I have to say about that. I do think that Band of Brothers was made possible because of the success of SPR and a far better movie (mini series). I do recommend that reading Band of Brothers by Ambrose and also reading Capt. **** Winter’s book Beyond Band of Brothers: The war memoirs of Major **** Winters. It gives a lot more insight to who **** Winters was and how he led his men.

I didn't server in the military because others were there before me and there sacrifices allowed me to remain a civilian. I thank Vets for there service when I get the chance to talk with them.

For those who what more information about the American foot solder in WWII I found a paperback that will give you plenty of interview info and stats about the attitudes of these brave men who answered the call of duty. Whoever said in a previous post that the American Government gave the ETO priority and the PTO was the people's war that statement seems to hit the mark according to this book. Its not said straight out but its there between the lines.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0891418237/qid=1144944...ks&v=glance&n=283155 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0891418237/qid=1144944722/sr=1-43/ref=sr_1_43/102-9102188-2203303?s=books&v=glance&n=283155)

This same author John C. McManus also has a book out about American Airmen: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0891417796/ref=pd_bxgy...303?%5Fencoding=UTF8 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0891417796/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/102-9102188-2203303?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

Those men and women fought a world war from many countries; don't for one minute think Americans did it on there own. One day it may be us that may need help. I sure would welcome help no matter where it came from.

McManus's books are done from statistics and hundreds of interviews with the troops during the war. I would just as interested in reading the same information from the British, Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians, etc. but I don't know if anyone has written such text or if the men in these armies were asked the kind of questions the Americans were asked.

Maybe I'm getting off topic but there ya have it.

Salute!

ploughman
04-13-2006, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by FlatSpinMan:
I'm a NZer but I think Breeze has a fair point.
The comment about bad teeth and fat legs was unnecessary but apart from that his post was quite reasonable, I thought.

Quite reasonable? Social intercourse must be a bit more lively round yours than mine then mate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

panther3485
04-13-2006, 11:08 AM
Hiya, FlatSpinMan

You make some very good points also, but just a few additional thoughts here:

The Soviet Union's struggle against German forces is generally characterized in Western histories as being substantially enhanced by Lend Lease supplies at a desperate time.

Although Lend Lease supplies were helpful, they did not reach significant levels until after Stalingrad. The Soviets absorbed and survived the force of the Wehrmacht, and begun to drive it back, with their own blood, their own guts and - almost entirely - their own weapons, materiel and supplies. By the time they got truly useful quantities of Lend-Lease supplies, the Germans were already losing in the East.

The British & Commonwealth contribution was also vital (for different reasons) and should not be under-rated.

First, it forced the Axis to take account of what was going on elsewhere and divert resources, so they could never concentrate entirely on defeating the Soviet Union. A bad upset for their plans.

Second, it denied them possession and control of the Mediterranean/N. Africa/Middle East - which would have been a disaster for the Allied cause and allowed Hitler access to much needed oil and other resources.

Third, the resources of the USA were enormous but it would have been extremely difficult and costly, if not impossible, to bring those forces successfully to bear against an Axis occupied and dominated Europe/Med/N. Africa (for the purpose of re-taking Europe) - had Britain been defeated in 1940.

With the aforementioned exit of Britain from the war, the Germans would have had greater resources and sufficient time for a much better prospect of forcing a decision against the Soviet Union by the end of 1941. Hence, there could have been - effectively - an Axis victory and time to consolidate before the Americans were able to intervene in sufficient force.

And some would argue that under these circumstances, the USA may have chosen not to try to re-take Europe - at least not for some time.


Best regards,
panther3485

Bearcat99
04-13-2006, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Adam906:
You mean you didn't like the flag waving thank-God-for-the-Americans ending, the historical inaccuracies and the sheer idiocy of a supposed Captian in the Rangers? Or for that matter the lack of humanity in the Germans, the complete suspension of belief needed to sit through the last half of the movie... Oh I could go on but obviously I'm talking to someone who just can't appreciate a good movie!

God, man! What is wrong with you? Thanks to this movie I now know that it was truly the Yanks (or 'Seppos' in Australian rhyming slang) that won the war and if it wasn't for them and them alone the Nazi's would have long ago walked across the face of the planet and I would be ending this with a Sieg Heil!

What SPR were you watching where you got the impression that America beat the Nazis all by themselves? Considering the story line the ending was quite appropriate.. it was one man's story basically.... Prvt. Ryan.... who apparently lived a long and fruitful life after all that but never ever forgot the men who risked thier lives following orders to get him out of the war.... SPR had it's innacuracies and it's moments for sure ... as do most war movies.. but you make it sound like a Rambo movie or Pearl Harbor or something convoluted along those lines..... as far as film making goes.. and that just isnt the case... Lack of humanity in the Germans? What the one guy who begged for his life.. then lived to fight another day.... and did. Actually it was quite humane the way he killed the soldier in the fight in the upper room.... and he treated Oppum like the weak pu$$y he was.... For the life of me I cant understand why some of yopu guys are so insistent on taking anything that comes out of the US as some kind of flag waving BS and yet half the time your own contries dont make a friggin thing along the same lines. What good war movies have come out of your neck of the woods lately, telling your story? If there are any let me know because I am a war movie fan and I wouldnt mind seeing them.....

You bozos can lambaste the US all you want to but it is a fact that the US contribution to the war effort was critical and without it Germany might have won...... and that is not to take away from the contributions of anyone else... it was a combined effort to be sure.. and frankly if the Russians had not been kicking major butt in the East it also could have been very different.. even with the US contribution.. or of they had been on Germany's side... things coyuld have been different.. but dont sit here and act like the US was a non factor or a bit player.. because we werent.... and if US filmmakers want to make movies about it and wave that flag then suck it up and either watch or dont watch but no need to do what so many of you guys do EVERY SINGLE TIME something like this pops up in here. I cant wait for all the anyurisms when The Few comes out.... AS for TTRL.... I didnt like it... I hope Flags of our Fathers does a better job.

Breeze........ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Im feeling you for the most part... I would have and did say some things different.. but I understand where you are coming from. It gets old.

telsono
04-13-2006, 11:14 AM
Not on the merits or not of the movie. I always get slightly unnerved when I see the possible mis-use of a military cliche'.

"Thin Red Line" is a military cliche' just as "Lost Battalion". I know that the book that the movie was based upon was so titled, but the author should have probably used a different title. If you read military history there are two units that really earned the title "thin red line". The British infantry (British Guard and 52nd Foot) at Waterloo and the 93rd Sutherlands at Balaklava. These units are more apt to hold the name as they were single line of red uniformed infantry (lobsterbacks as we Colonials called them) that held off A superior force of enemy troops.

Red is not a color that I associate with the US Army. The US Marines on the other hand are associated with this color, and the stand at Bloody Ridge by the 1st Marine Division would be more appropriate to hold the title of "thin red line". Maybe the author had his reasons for using that title for his book, but it disregards historical precedents in its prior usage.

I mentioned "lost battalion" before, this term had been used many times in WWII, WWI, the Civil War and elsewhere. For example, the 36 (Texas) Division had two battalions that became "Lost" in WWII. An artillery battalion that was lost in Java in 1942 and an infantry battalion that was isolated in Italy. In either case that term was appropriate in its use.

ploughman
04-13-2006, 11:37 AM
The following appears on the inside leaf of the novel "A thin Red Line" by James Jones

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that,
an' Tommy 'ows yer soul?
But it's 'Thin red line of 'eroes'
when the drums begin to roll-
Kipling

There's only a thin red line between the sane and the mad.

Old mid-Western Saying.

GreyFox5
04-13-2006, 11:45 AM
Bearcat - I hope Flags of Our Fathers doesn't turn into a lousy movie. It was a great book - better than Flyboys IMHO. But I suppose thats another topic.

~S~

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
04-13-2006, 11:47 AM
Now hold on there folks lemme get this straight ONE ubi noob makes a bloody silly rant post about flag waving americans, another poster (who should know better) uses that post to declare that the world hates americans for helping us out and suddenly the whole none american membership of this forum is painted as a bunch of ungrateful ingrates.

It was one negative post that started this Sh1tstorm and it was another negative post that stirred it up.

Arent we all supposed to be a little bit smarter than this or is it just the time of year for another round of slam your allies.

Come on Bear cat youve seen how these things go

......Deep breath and lock the fugger. No?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Breeze147
04-13-2006, 11:55 AM
I think it's already run it's course.

That combo of caffeine, Zoloft and Depakote gets my motor running. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Bearcat99
04-13-2006, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by GreyFox5:
Bearcat - I hope Flags of Our Fathers doesn't turn into a lousy movie. It was a great book - better than Flyboys IMHO. But I suppose thats another topic.

~S~

I still havent gotten to Flyboys yet..... I just picked up FooF... I probably wont get to it till the summer.... I just hope it is more in the BoB vien than the Pearl Harbor vien... just tell the story..... dont add papo if there isnt any.

GBrutus
04-13-2006, 12:17 PM
You bozos can lambaste the US all you want to but it is a fact that the US contribution to the war effort was critical and without it Germany might have won...... and that is not to take away from the contributions of anyone else... it was a combined effort to be sure.. and frankly if the Russians had not been kicking major butt in the East it also could have been very different.. even with the US contribution.. or of they had been on Germany's side... things coyuld have been different.. but dont sit here and act like the US was a non factor or a bit player.. because we werent.... and if US filmmakers want to make movies about it and wave that flag then suck it up and either watch or dont watch but no need to do what so many of you guys do EVERY SINGLE TIME something like this pops up in here. I cant wait for all the anyurisms when The Few comes out.... AS for TTRL.... I didnt like it... I hope Flags of our Fathers does a better job.

Breeze........ Im feeling you for the most part... I would have and did say some things different.. but I understand where you are coming from. It gets old.

Hang on a minute, there was only one post that could be perceived as negative towards the US. And now we're all 'bozos'?

Bearcat99
04-13-2006, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:
Now hold on there folks lemme get this straight ONE ubi noob makes a bloody silly rant post about flag waving americans, another poster (who should know better) uses that post to declare that the world hates americans for helping us out and suddenly the whole none american membership of this forum is painted as a bunch of ungrateful ingrates.

It was one negative post that started this Sh1tstorm and it was another negative post that stirred it up.

Arent we all supposed to be a little bit smarter than this or is it just the time of year for another round of slam your allies.
Come on Bear cat youve seen how these things go
......Deep breath and lock the fugger. No?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Im not locking it.. not yet at least... and I dont think I said anything in response that was out of line.... so on that note Im going to let it drop.... you know I was right too...


Hang on a minute, there was only one post that could be perceived as negative towards the US. And now we're all 'bozos'?

and of course not every person feels that way... just a lot of folks do... and those are the bozos I am referring to .... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif of course. The ones who usually post the same type of stuff in threads like this.. sometimes under other names.... Why would I turn around and do the same thing that I am miffed about? Especially since knowing where I am I would get called on it..... Ok..... so maybe I shouldnt have put it in the plural....

SeaFireLIV
04-13-2006, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:
Now hold on there folks lemme get this straight ONE ubi noob makes a bloody silly rant post about flag waving americans, another poster (who should know better) uses that post to declare that the world hates americans for helping us out and suddenly the whole none american membership of this forum is painted as a bunch of ungrateful ingrates.

It was one negative post that started this Sh1tstorm and it was another negative post that stirred it up.

Arent we all supposed to be a little bit smarter than this or is it just the time of year for another round of slam your allies.

Come on Bear cat youve seen how these things go

......Deep breath and lock the fugger. No?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

I have to agree.

What`s going on. One poster lambasts the Brits for not doing anything (maybe ONE poster said something slightly critising the US soldier in context of WWII) and all of a sudden we have a deluge of long-winded (sorry, but they are) indignant rants.

Hey, America. We don`t hate you, chill out.

Please, thankyou.

good.

Friendly_flyer
04-13-2006, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:
Arent we all supposed to be a little bit smarter than this or is it just the time of year for another round of slam your allies.


Apparently this forums need to vent off a bit of cross-Atlantic tension every now and then. I guess the subject doesn’t matter much.

Ruy Horta
04-13-2006, 12:45 PM
It all boils down to taste.

I actually think that as a whole SPR is a much better film than TTRL, although the latter as some of the most beautiful scenes ever and brilliant acting by some actors (Jim Caviezel, Nick Nolte and Elias Koteas deserve a special mention).

I own both on DVD and have watched both on numerous occasions, but the latter although coming near to brilliance frustrates through by failing (badly) in some regards.

SPR may for some fall into cliché and even 1950-ies genre war movies, but IMHO that is exactly why it works as a classic.

The story is simple, do they make it yes or no and in what style.

What does TTRL finally convey?

Somehow in all that beauty it gets lost and it isn't able to bring it back together.

As far as I am concerned the movies climax ends as Jim Caviezel gets killed, the rest is down hill.

ploughman
04-13-2006, 12:48 PM
Unfortunately Americans and Brits are able to communicate because we share a common language. Which means I get to understand emotional tirades like Breeze posted, and then be called a bozo by a respected moderator (well, a little less respected than a few moments ago.)

Just imagine the fun we'd be having if the French spoke English and came on here in droves? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Texan...
04-13-2006, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by panther3485:
plus there was some technical stuff I picked on.

Best regards,
panther3485

What, you weren't impressed that they set an almost real Marder III (138) on fire with a Molotov Cocktail?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://www.sproe.com/images/screenshots/marder3-01-large.jpg
http://www.sproe.com/images/screenshots/marder3-02-large.jpg
http://www.sproe.com/images/screenshots/marder3-03-large.jpg
http://www.sproe.com/images/screenshots/marder3-04-large.jpg

A.K.Davis
04-13-2006, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by georgeo76:
I liked both movies, is there something wrong with me?

No, they are both excellent movies (war or otherwise).

A.K.Davis
04-13-2006, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
The following appears on the inside leaf of the novel "A thin Red Line" by James Jones

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that,
an' Tommy 'ows yer soul?
But it's 'Thin red line of 'eroes'
when the drums begin to roll-
Kipling

There's only a thin red line between the sane and the mad.

Old mid-Western Saying.

If only more people would read books before commenting on them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWSensei
04-13-2006, 01:15 PM
I found the first 20 minutes of Ryan gripping and the first to really show what combat can be like.

The rest of the movie was boring.

I found the The Thin Red Line to a pretenious, self-indulgent, over-bloated sense of self importance told by a director with little knowledge of military life and performed by actors with little clue.

Contrary to some I didn't find the movie deep and soul searching but extremely shallow and transparent while trying to be appear to be enlightning and intellectual. It was neither.

panther3485
04-13-2006, 01:18 PM
Texan...

I was actually quite impressed with the Marder. Not with the Tiger, though, or the 'P-51 tank busters' that had not a single weapon hardpoint to be seen on them! (Or did they do it all with .50's - oooops! $hit - here we go again!!!!)

I know, details...details...

Ruy Horta
04-13-2006, 01:45 PM
To be honest, the war movie that impresses me most of all:

Conspiracy
British cast, HBO production.

Simply, single location (in fact most of it in a single room).

No bullets, not a single hero.
Closest you come to action is someone getting sick.

Still, from the first minute to the last, I find it a classic, perhaps even the best one IMHO.

Another favorite of mine is The Hill, with Sean Connory.

Ruy Horta
04-13-2006, 01:46 PM
People shouldn't let details come in the way of a good movie, it spoils the fun. A film isn't a documentary and it isn't realism.

Xiolablu3
04-13-2006, 01:53 PM
Yes Thin Red Line is a great film, I loved it too.


James Caviezel as Private Witt, great actor.

Sean Penn played the non believer and profesional soldier so well, and he so wanted to believe in Private Witts world but just couldnt see it and was so sure it would end in tears for him. (and it did)

A great story of the perils and rewards of following your heart, rather than your head.


The New World is by the same director and is a good film (with Colin Farrel)

cow_9th
04-13-2006, 02:17 PM
Quit whining just because it doesn't glorify your nasty little nation of men with bad teeth and women with fat legs.

but it does glorify america .........

MB_Avro_UK
04-13-2006, 02:39 PM
Hi all,

I Originally Posted this thread and perhaps I should have been more careful with my wording.

It was my personal opinion that as a war film TRL was superior to SPR. I was in no way denigrating the sacrifices and achievements of US Forces in WW2!! My opinion was regarding cinematic quality.

My own country (UK) rarely makes war films and prefers to make soppy and shallow 'romantic' comedies usually involving a British buffoon character such as Hugh Grant http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif.

I think that it is not regarded as 'politically correct' to make war films here as it is possibly regarded as 'Imperiallistic'. Maybe others could comment on this.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

ploughman
04-13-2006, 02:56 PM
Hugh Grant films aren't an aspect of national will anymore than Steven Spielberg films represent US government thinking, they represent Steven Spielberg thinking. Hugh Grant films make money, someone noticed, so they made some more. And now, apart from James Bond, some fop haired twit is our most recognizable film export. War films are expensive to make and pains in the arse to get righ. Memphis Belle was a UK made film. David Puttnam, the director, was asked why he didn't make the film about a RAF bomber crew, his response was that it would've been commercial suicide. This might be narrow minded thinking but the film industry, liberal arty fartyness aside, is just that, an industry, and it's purpose is not to make films but to make money by making films.

You're certainly right also, that we have an aversion to making films that glorify our imperial past as this time but...Master and Commander was about the RN and was made by an American Studio and I understand did pretty good, and in the last twenty years both Tumbledown and Warriors (the TV Film about UK troops in the former-Yugoslavia, not the New York Gang fest) were not only made but were really good films.

What we need is some balls to the wall director like Guy Ritchie to get his hands on a decent script and get on with it.

arcadeace
04-13-2006, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Hugh Grant films aren't an aspect of national will anymore than Steven Spielberg films represent US government thinking, they represent Steven Spielberg thinking..

be nice if folks outside the US understood this more

hollwood in no way speaks for america. they speak for money, but also, idealism, and by and large it is not pro american. Many in Europe may not understand because they don't see the constant releases and their implications.

SUPERAEREO
04-13-2006, 03:33 PM
Mmm... I am Italian and have been living in UK for the last 15 years and I also rate The Thin Red Line a little higher than Saving Private Ryan.

Then again all tastes are personal.


S!

mandrill7
04-13-2006, 04:02 PM
Of course, Platoon is infinitely better than either SPR or TRL.

Xiolablu3
04-13-2006, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
Why does this same B.S. about Saving Private Ryan keep coming up on this Forum. I am really, honestly, angry right now. And it seems as though it is always the Brits leading the charge against this movie. Do you meatheads actually watch this movie, or do you just sit back and pick apart a few inaccuarcies?

For God's sake! It's a movie! It's a story! About Americans! Written, directed and produced by Americans! Starring Americans! About a kid whose brother is KIA and he is entitled under U.S. law to go home. A small squad who has been through North Africa and Sicily is given the thankless task of finding one (1) airborne Private out of thousands scattered all over Normandy. And the central theme is: Why are we saving Private Ryan? Who in the hell is saving us?

Why do you Brits get your noses so bent out of shape over this? Make your own G.D. movie about your own guys. Why does America continually get raked over the coals simply because the Brits are stuck in a piss-poor geographic location? You got bombed? I cant't help that. You were fighting since 1939? I can't help that.

How many American Merchant Marines died while bringing supplies to you? Did you lose most of your Pacific Fleet to a JAP sneak attack? Most of the early history of WWII is riddled with stories of famous Brit defeats and surrenders.

The war might have ended a month or more earlier if the sacred, sainted Monty hadn't farted around trying to capture Caen. By the way, what beach did the Brits land on? It wasn't Omaha!

Why are we not permitted to be justifiably proud of the accomplishments of our Armed Forces? Yes, I truly believe we bailed out both the Brits and the Reds and without the U.S. you both would have both been soundly defeated.

Just watch the frickin' movie. Enjoy it's superior acting, writing, direction and cinematography. Quit whining just because it doesn't glorify your nasty little nation of men with bad teeth and women with fat legs.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!


Oh my God, tell me this post is a joke, please. I mean there cant be people who truly think like this still alive can there??

The Yanks bailed out the Reds? Geez....Tell that to the 23 million Russians who died compared to your 500,000.

It is not an exaggeration to say that WW2 was decided at Stalingrad, when the Russians stemmed that attack the Germans were on the back foot for the rest of the war. USA were barely in the war at this time never mind 'bailing anyone out'

Not having a go at Yanks here, just a few with opinons like this. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif (I am proud to think that US,UK,Canada,Aus,NZ and so on, are such great allies)

You have totally the wrong idea of why Brits often slate Hollywood. Its because SOME US films take liberties with the facts, purely to entertain Americans. A lot of people in the world think that History is not something that should be portrayed incorrectly purely to 'entertain' and feel very strongly about this. Hollywood seems to be the main culprit.

Too clarify for you, take this example. One cant help thinking that if 'The Enemy At the GAtes' (A film made by Brits) was made in Holywood, the Russian sniper would be changed to an American 'enrolled' in the Russian army fighting for them, rather than the true story. (Just an example regarding what happened in the film U571. Oh and the forthcoming Tom Cruise BOB film http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

Ruy Horta
04-13-2006, 04:14 PM
hehe, now here's irony.

I love SPR, yet I am known generally as "biased" against the US of A...get that one?

IMHO SPR has everything a good war movie needs and then some.

That isn't saying that there aren't other good (better movies, see my previous posts).

Just wanted to mention the irony http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ciscobird
04-13-2006, 04:22 PM
...Men with bad teeth and women with fat legs.

No wonder why I have bad teeth and fat legs, I'm a fourth generation Bozo! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Hey, hey, if you all think about it, it's not "a country" that won a war, it's the humanity that did! We all overcame our differences to unit and defeat whatever it was that we fought against long time ago.

Lastly, MILLIONS of humans from countless countries made the ultimate scarifice, their lives, so we can sit here and lash out against each other!

The humanity!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

MB_Avro_UK
04-13-2006, 04:23 PM
Hey Ruy Horta !!

Nice post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

GBrutus
04-13-2006, 04:29 PM
I read in a newspaper a while back about plans to make a film about Dunkirk. Funnily enough, Hugh Grant was approached by the film company involved and asked to take a major part in it. Turns out that Hugh Grant's grandfather was there and was part of the rear guard defence that was essentially buying time for the rest of the army to evacuate. Anyway, a family meeting was held and I believe Hugh was asked (or told) not to appear in this film. I wonder why... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MB_Avro_UK
04-13-2006, 04:36 PM
Hi all,

Maybe this is not important or maybe it is.

The beach landing in SPR was based on fact although I have read somewhere that the US didn't get off the beach until nightfall (maybe I'm wrong). The rest of SPR is a fictional account of a lost brother.

TRL is based on a factual account of a US soldier as I understand. If this is the case regarding TRL it certainly is the best film.

(Apologies to the US for my bad teeth and my girl friend who has fat legs...breeze,I will never forget that comment and nor will my girlfriend http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif....and by the way, she does have fat legs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

peterm1
04-13-2006, 04:55 PM
Both films had their moments. But whereas some "serious" film makers make serious films, Speilberg makes "entertainment." I have found that his stuff should never be taken too seriously. Watch it, enjoy it but never look too deeply at it. Its a bit like the difference between eating a hamburger and eating a sit down meal in a restuarant. You can enjoy both, both will fill you up, but I know which one is more nutitious, complex and interesting when all is said and done. Look at Schindlers List, its a fine film in its way and I enjoyed it, but if you look at it critically you will end up liking it much less.

TTRL is a better movie critically, but SPR is gut renching and visceral in those first and last scenes and this captivates us. Apart from this its a 1950s John Wayne flag waving pot boiler with Tom Hanks in the lead instead of JW. I hate to rain on the parade of the our American friends (in particular) but if you read a few authoritative history books on the Normandy campaign (as I have done) the Germans out fought the allies (all allies) man to man and were a tough disciplined and professional fighting force almost to the very end. It was really only our superior logistics that won the day.

This is NOT to say that good men were not brave or that good men did not die, just that the US tactics recognised this essential fact and did not call for exposed frontal assaults on heavily emplaced machine gun nests (mid film) as depicted in this movie when it got silly. Sorry but its true. I like Speilberg in many ways and he has made some good entertainment but I do not think I will be taking history lessons from him.

Having said all of that TTRL got a little preachy and pseudo philosophical in parts and that pulled it down a bit too but of the two films, by my reckoning its certainly more faithful to history.

goshikisen
04-13-2006, 05:07 PM
TRL... I thought it was a great film. Not everybody perceives war in the same way and the film did a great job of conveying this.

I'm reminded of a lyric in a Richard Gaughan song (Irish folk singer) called "Think Again"... "In the second world war out of every 3 dead one was Russian". The idea that anybody "bailed" anybody out is ridiculous... it was an allied effort. Everybody contributed.

Adam906
04-13-2006, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Oh my God, tell me this post is a joke, please. I mean there cant be people who truly think like this still alive can there??

The Yanks bailed out the Reds? Geez....Tell that to the 23 million Russians who died compared to your 500,000.

It is not an exaggeration to say that WW2 was decided at Stalingrad, when the Russians stemmed that attack the Germans were on the back foot for the rest of the war. USA were barely in the war at this time never mind 'bailing anyone out'

Not having a go at Yanks here, just a few with opinons like this. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif (I am proud to think that US,UK,Canada,Aus,NZ and so on, are such great allies)

You have totally the wrong idea of why Brits often slate Hollywood. Its because SOME US films take liberties with the facts, purely to entertain Americans. A lot of people in the world think that History is not something that should be portrayed incorrectly purely to 'entertain' and feel very strongly about this. Hollywood seems to be the main culprit.

Too clarify for you, take this example. One cant help thinking that if 'The Enemy At the GAtes' (A film made by Brits) was made in Holywood, the Russian sniper would be changed to an American 'enrolled' in the Russian army fighting for them, rather than the true story. (Just an example regarding what happened in the film U571. Oh and the forthcoming Tom Cruise BOB film http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

First off my apologies for my initial rant - bad day at the office, no excuse. Though I was trying to lace the original with sarcasm but there we go.. either I messed up or you lot missed it.

Anyway, I had a problem with SPR as it was:
1) billed, at least were I saw it, as an 'historical film'. Which is rubbish
2) IMO it belittles the contribution of America and makes a mockery of the overal concept of the movie because you have to suspend belief/historical fact to get to the themes of the movie (already mentioned). TRL and Tuskegee Airmen to name but two recent ones from America all managed to present their themes in a less 'Star-Trek' kind of way (ie at no point were we really asked to suspend belief for long periods of time or were the premise of the movie based on inaccuracies). Okay, any movie of this Genre is going to have flaws but TRL, TA, hell - even MASH (for the most part) managed to get their themes across without having the audience suspend belief or fact (given the time frame MASH was filmed in and its budget, of course you have to suspend certain amounts of belief but that comes with the territory on that one.) Even Memphis Belle did a better job than SPR in that regard!

IF TRL and TA could make their points without having to bring Hollywood fiction into the mix then why couldn't Spielberg? Even BoB managed to make it's point but at the end where the list of Commonwealth and American personnel KIA or MIA during the Battle are listed. BoB has every right to be a flag-waver of a movie but it's not. It tells a story, it has it's themes and it doesn't go overboard on the whole British thing.

Take away the special effects from SPR and you are left with a rather boring B-grade movie whose themes and underlying realities are compromised because Hollywood got in the way of them. I didn't like the movie - I thought there were much better subjects on which to focus. The special effects made the movie - nothing else. I sat and watched the movie - I didn't like it and I made my point. I watched the "frickin" movie - I didn't have to like and I don't have to like either Spielberg, SPR or American views on how they saved the world from Nazi oppresion.

On a final topic, I recently read they want to do a re-make of the Dambusters but are running in to trouble because the spineless PC group are all up in arms about the name '******.' That was the name of Gisbon's dog, that was the codeword to be used - deal with it. I don't agree with the term or the connotations, and I certainly would jump all over anyone who used it in its degratory, non-historical term. However if the truth-bashers out there get their way and the name is changed to Trigger then all we end up with is another SPR. People think America saved the war because movies like SPR are given top billing and a generation of people who aren't into the time period or lived through it take these movies as fact - especially when they are billed as Historically Accurate or Based on True Events.

If TA and TRL could present themes in an unbiased and more accurate way then they deserve a bigger share of the limelight. If movie makers are held accountable for the violence and language in modern society then surely they must be made accountable for the image of history.

Adam906
04-13-2006, 07:55 PM
And there we go - my post has had the word "n.i.g.e.r." removed.....

case in point.

P.S. I am not a racist and will re-state. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE WORD OR CONNOTATIONS. However, under the circumstances it is correct and if a generation of people grow up on these movies then those whose memory they serve to glorify and the themes they wish to present are all undone....

Texan...
04-13-2006, 08:31 PM
Pass the tea.

It's interesting to watch Brits go all hysterical and whatnot.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Tater-SW-
04-13-2006, 08:53 PM
I like elements of both films, and dislike element so both films. TTRL tries too hard NOT to be an action film and typical hollywood, SPR doesn't try hard enough, lol. BoB was far better than SPR, FWIW, even just taking a couple episodes and showing them back to back and calling it a movie.

tater

A.K.Davis
04-13-2006, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Maybe this is not important or maybe it is.

The beach landing in SPR was based on fact although I have read somewhere that the US didn't get off the beach until nightfall (maybe I'm wrong). The rest of SPR is a fictional account of a lost brother.

TRL is based on a factual account of a US soldier as I understand. If this is the case regarding TRL it certainly is the best film.

(Apologies to the US for my bad teeth and my girl friend who has fat legs...breeze,I will never forget that comment and nor will my girlfriend http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif....and by the way, she does have fat legs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

"The Thin Red Line" is based on a novel of the same name. The author, James Jones, was a veteran of the war in the Pacific, but The Thin Red Line is a work of fiction. It is the middle part of a trilogy beginning with From Here to Eternity (yeah, that's where they got that movie, too) and ending with Whistle.


"When compared to the fact that he might very well be dead by this time tomorrow, whether he was courageous or not today was pointless, empty. When compared to the fact that he might be dead tomorrow, everything was pointless. Life was pointless. Whether he looked at a tree or not was pointless. It just didn't make any difference. It was pointless to the tree, it was pointless to every man in his outfit, pointless to everybody in the whole world. Who cared? It was not pointless only to him; and when he was dead, when he ceased to exist, it would be pointless to him too. More important: Not only would it be pointless, it would have been pointless, all along."

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

A.K.Davis
04-13-2006, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Adam906:
And there we go - my post has had the word "n.i.g.e.r." removed.....

case in point.

P.S. I am not a racist and will re-state. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE WORD OR CONNOTATIONS. However, under the circumstances it is correct and if a generation of people grow up on these movies then those whose memory they serve to glorify and the themes they wish to present are all undone....

N-I-G-E-R is a country in Africa, and a river, last time I checked, lol.

Adam906
04-13-2006, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
Pass the tea.

It's interesting to watch Brits go all hysterical and whatnot.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

It's sad to think that American's don't realise there are more than just themselves and the British in the world.... I'm Australian and damn proud of it. I drink beer - not tea. I don't have fat legs and have a full compliment of teeth...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

BfHeFwMe
04-13-2006, 09:55 PM
Sean 'Peacenik' Penn as a combat leader, that right there blew the whole kit and kibutle. Nick 'Sniffer' Nolte as a commander, ROFLMAO.

Saw the TV version a few years after release, can't remember what the weather was like, but should have gone for a walk or did something useful.

Makes me chuckle to see the "historians" debate another frivelous movie. It's purely entertainment, if your looking for some kind of message or insight into war via movie, I pitty you foo. There's only one right way to do it, get a book, non-fiction, penned directly by a veteran, or someone with access to the machine like former US Army historian and veteran writer S L A Marshall. But be warned, it's often technical and dry reading.

panther3485
04-14-2006, 01:48 AM
Hi there, Ruy Horta

Quote: "People shouldn't let details come in the way of a good movie, it spoils the fun. A film isn't a documentary and it isn't realism.

For me, it depends entirely on what kind of movie I'm watching.

If it's a movie with a historical setting and claiming to represent real events - as opposed to fiction - then I expect to see those historical events told/portrayed with something approaching honesty, objectivity and balance (to the best of available knowledge and taking into account the limitations of the medium). In other words, I expect a reasonable level of historical accuracy .

In such movies, I also expect reasonable efforts to be made to ensure that things like clothing/uniforms, weapons, vehicles, aircraft, buildings, settings and props in general are as authentic as possible (again, taking into account what's feasible under the circumstances). In other words, I expect a reasonable effort to be made.

In the case of 'Saving Private Ryan', this was primarily, AFAIK, a work of fiction set against the historical backdrop of the Normandy campaign. Overall, I thought the limited amount of 'history' we were shown was fair enough and that the technical side (uniforms, weapons, vehicles, buildings etc) was for the most part quite well done. Since the movie was essentially fictional, I would not apply overly high expectations to it in any case. The 'details' I've mentioned to another member here did not really spoil my enjoyment of the film too much, but as I'm inclined to be on the lookout for these sorts of things I did notice them!

However, in the cases mentioned before (such as those war movies that claim to be accounts of real events), I am considerably more critical. For these films, problems with historical and technical accuracy (depending on their perceived seriousness and avoidability) will mar my enjoyment to a greater or lesser degree and my rating of the film will be heavily dependent on these factors.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, with stories that are entirely fictional or fantasy subjects, it's a case of 'switch off' completely, lay back and enjoy'!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

Aaron_GT
04-14-2006, 02:52 AM
The main complaint against SPR from a British perspective is that the landing craft crew for the 2nd Rangers are shown as USN whereas they were actually RN. I know it annoyed some RN veterans of the landings at the time. That seems to be about it from a British perspective.

panther3485
04-14-2006, 03:06 AM
Yeah, Aaron

I mentioned British landing craft crews at Omaha on another thread. Some were used at Utah as well. Not generally known, I think!


Best regards,
panther3485

partic_3
04-14-2006, 03:26 AM
Interesting that in this great Brits vs Yanks thing (I'm Australian, but not particularly proud of it as it is just where I happened to be born) no-one has mentioned the fact, well IMHO the fact, that the US got involved in WW2 to bankrupt their great enemy, Britain (which they did), and to drag themselves out of the depression. Anyone who believes the any country has ever behaved the way they did "for the good of mankind" is dreamin'!

HotelBushranger
04-14-2006, 03:31 AM
I agree 100% with your post Xiolablu3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And Breeze, no the British didn't land at Omaha. They landed at Sword and Gold. And the Canadians at Juno. Just in case you didn't know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

panther3485
04-14-2006, 04:09 AM
partic_3

I wasn't born in Australia (came here as a kid), but I'm still very proud to be Australian.

As for the rest of it:

(a) I don't believe Britain should be regarded as a 'great enemy' of the United States at any time in the 20th century and certainly not WW2. Some rivalry to be top players on the World Stage, perhaps, but not 'enemies' since late 1700's/early 1800's.

(b) Direct US involvement in WW2 resulted from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the fact that the Americans also found themselves at war with Germany. Are you really trying to say this was some sort of anti-British conspiracy? Churchill and many other British leaders were praying for the USA to be more involved!

(c) Drag themselves out of the depression? Nonsense, they had already done that very capably by the late 1930's.

(d) The USA emerged from WW2 economically stronger and more powerful than before while Britain was economically broken and had lost (or was soon to lose) her grip on what was left of her 'Empire'. But this was probably inevitable anyway. Empires rise. Empires fall.

(e) Of course the Americans wanted the World to be better for them too, not just for Europe or Asia. The rise of Nazi/Fascist style dictatorships would eventually also pose a security threat for the USA. Better to help liberate Europe and the Pacific region when they did, rather than let the Axis win and have to fight them later anyway, when they would be much stronger after having consolidated their conquests!

(f) Of course it wasn't all about ideals. But neither can you say that notions of liberty and the good of humanity had nothing to do with it. I'm sure many Americans who enlisted to fight overseas were motivated by these very ideals.


Overall, I find your excessive cynicism disturbing. If I were an American, I would most likely also find your statements offensive. I'm trusting that there are not too many of my fellow Australians who nurture such views.


panther3485

Ruy Horta
04-14-2006, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:

(a) I don't believe Britain should be regarded as a 'great enemy' of the United States at any time in the 20th century and certainly not WW2. Some rivalry to be top players on the World Stage, perhaps, but not 'enemies' since late 1700's/early 1800's.

(c) Drag themselves out of the depression? Nonsense, they had already done that very capably by the late 1930's.

(d) The USA emerged from WW2 economically stronger and more powerful than before while Britain was economically broken and had lost (or was soon to lose) her grip on what was left of her 'Empire'. But this was probably inevitable anyway. Empires rise. Empires fall.


Well that rivalry was very much alive in the 1850-ies at the time of the Crimean war, so that shifts your timeline by almost half a century.

The european war threat and subsequent orders for military equipment certainly did impact their ability to expand and be ready when the US itself became involved. Without these early orders, the economy would have lagged at least a year if not two.

It may be cynical, but one only needs to look at the three major European colonial powers to understand the magnitude of the shift in capital from Europe to the US.

Before Lend Lease, everything was bought in hard currency.

If WW1 represented the first capital shift, WW2 represented the final great capital shift from europe to the US (incl. the Marshall plan).

There certainly was a US strategy that involved replacing the British as the major world power.

Lets be honest if ideals had been the common denominator, US troops would have landed in france in late 1939 and early 1940, war having been declared against Germany on September 2 1939.

But WW1 was quite profitable and why should you let idealism stand in the way of profit, you can always protect your assets if thing get rough (as in WW1).

Some may regard this as America bashing, but I don't see it that way. I have nothing against americans (silly concept to start with). I respect many americans of today and in history.

But the US (like most if not ALL countries) acts out of national interest, even if it shares out food or builds houses - especially when it wages war.

So to mention a current topic "Iraqi Freedom" .... no, that last bit I don't buy.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

If that is cynicism, than I am a cynic.

panther3485
04-14-2006, 04:57 AM
Quote:
"Well that rivalry was very much alive in the 1850-ies at the time of the Crimean war, so that shifts your timeline by almost half a century."

Ruy, I'm not saying they weren't rivals - just that the time of being full-on
enemies was pretty much gone after the early 1800's (by which I meant the first decade or two of the 19th century). It didn't flip off like a switch - the change was a gradual and subtle one, but certainly both countries had plenty of other fish to fry by the mid 19th century (1850's and 1860's). And, most importantly, they were nothing more than rivals by the 20th century, which was my main point, I think.

Do you get the difference between (1) 'enemies' and (2) 'rivals'? Can you accept a period of transition from position (1) to position (2)? Can you accept that this transition was complete well before the 20th Century?

Most of the rest of your points do not seem to be substantially in conflict with my position.

But a few parts of your response seem to imply things I never really said, if you read my post carefully enough - i.e. don't read too much into it!

My comments are intended to cover the period up to WW2 only, so please do not try to drag me into current politics or international affairs. I'm not buying that.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

BSS_Goat
04-14-2006, 05:37 AM
Well, if I was a chick, I would only have sex with Limeys.

BSS_Goat
04-14-2006, 06:39 AM
I'm serious, every one of ya'll.

leitmotiv
04-14-2006, 06:40 AM
I'm a Yank and I'll vouch for the superiority of Englishwomen any day (nearly married one---she bloody well nearly killed me---lididos which ought to be limited by international treaties, gad). To return to THIN RED LINE vs. PRIVATE RYAN, I believe both of them are ridiculous, putting it mildly. Malik's DAYS OF HEAVEN is probably my favorite film. I read THIN before the film came out anticipating a great cinematic experience. The novel is a gritty, unsentimental story about an American Army company in the latter part of the Guadalcanal battle. The story is entirely about how a company behaves in certain circumstances in war. It is not a meditation on the nature of being. Malik blew off the novel completely. James Jones would have gagged at what Malik did to his book. The film is pretentious and extraordinarily silly. The company commander who gets sacked is a Jewish attorney who can't bear losing his men. He is a sympathetic character but a flop in war. Jones clearly illustrates to the reader that they needed a leader who could make tactical decisions which would get them through the campaign victorious and with as many alive as possible. Why Malik changed this character around defies comprehension. Why he engaged in the ridiculous reveries on nature and the place of man in the universe is utterly beyond me. I have a great deal of tolerance for this, but Malik is no Tolstoy, and the film was a huge dud round to me. As for RYAN, more silly buggers. I grew up with the men who fought in Normandy telling me about the war, and the silliest scene in war film history (aside from THIN, which took the cake) was when that egregious, overrated twit Spielberg inserted that ludicrous scene where the squad Votes (!) to decide what to do with an SS Waffen who had shot up Americans. He would have been shot, of course. This scene was so utterly fantastic it belonged in an American WWII-era allegory about the difference between the Allies and the fascists. The rest of the film was so sanctimonious and ponderous I could barely watch it. Pure Stephen Ambrose bunk (film was based on his ideas about the U.S. in WWII---mostly sheer twaddle). I lament Americans can't do a war film as unrelentingly realistic and unsentimental as WINTER WAR or say SINK THE "BISMARCK". Last good film I saw about Americans in war was a TV film titled THE LOST BATTALION or an HBO film about the Hurtgen fighting.

DoubleTap2005A
04-14-2006, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
Thin red line told a story with a deaper meaning.. .

Then someone please tell me what that was, because I guess I kinda missed it, as did the people in theater who either laughed during some of the "dramatic" scenes, or walked out before it was over.

Sorry, I could not bear to read this entire thread so I am jumping over and throwing my two cents in.

I am not going to tell anyone which film they should or not should not like. Like what you want, BUT my take of TRL was beautiful cinematography and lush scenery; muddled plot, confused narration and morally vapid. It seemed very much to be an attempt to attach the Vietnam war film template onto World War II, which is like trying to put the skin from a Gladiator onto a B-17. Don't quite fit, ya' all. Sorry.

SPR had its flaws, but overall it was good film which managed to depict the horror of war, the disgust with which men fighting it could experience even as they knew it was worth fighting, but still show that THERE ARE THINGS WORTH FIGHTING, KILLING AND DYING FOR.

TRL was pretty nihlistic rather than realistic and that's my issue. War is hell, war is ugly and people die...ALOT. But, what people are fighting for MATTERS. We should all be clued into that nowadays, but I'll leave that discussion for another time.

I am annoyed that, yes, some people, apparently non-Americans here, get so testy over Americans celebrating our fighting history and the sacrifices we made. Yes, SPR was a testament to that, and so freaking what? We're not allowed to make a film showing our guys fighting? The film did in no way suggest that Yanks won the war single-handedly. That's just some or your prejudices coming out. I just picked up a copy of Battle of Britain, and guess what? I am not gonna post some grievance like, "Oh, Jeez! The Battle of Britain!? When will those Brits get over themselves and their silly flag-waving?" You know why? Because you deserve to wave your flag, and celebrate what you did, for the rest of recorded history, not just the thousand years Churchill talked about. Which leads me to my other beef.

Another thing that annoys me is Americans that DO claim that we won the war for the Brits and Russians. I think we were an integral part of the war, mind you, but let's get something straight; We stayed out for quite a long while others were fighting and dying. If it wasn't for the Brits holding fast when they were freakin' alone, and up against it, the war may have very well been lost there and then. At the very least, it would have cost us so much more dearly.

No, the Brits were not on Omaha, but they were on other beaches that day, and they were in North Africa and Greece and fighting for their lives on in the sea and in the air, so don't freaking forget it. And they were there before long before we fired a shot.

Same thing for the Russians. Stalin was as big a bastard as Adolph, but if it wasn't for the Russians engaging large portions of Nazi forces, we would have been in trouble to say the least.

Bottom line, it was an ALLIED effort, and instead of tearing at each other, perhaps we should just celebrate all those who fought and died so we could be free enough to backbite one another on a stupid message board.

I know its in vogue nowadays to second guess all those who actually fought back then, and to ask "Well, was it really worth it, really?" That was the central point I got out of The Thin Red Line, and I utterly reject the elitist vapid silliness of it. Its easy to ask 60+ years hence, when that particular war, and threat, are over. Its alot harder to ask when its staring you in the face.

Rant officially over... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

BSS_Goat
04-14-2006, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
Thin red line told a story with a deaper meaning.. .


I didn't write that! (I can spell deep)
I thought TRL was a bunch of cliche BS.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gifI was talking about having sex with the limeys.

Aaron_GT
04-14-2006, 08:18 AM
Lets be honest if ideals had been the common denominator, US troops would have landed in france in late 1939 and early 1940, war having been declared against Germany on September 2 1939.

The USA was not ready either politically or militarily to do this in 1939. If you look at the size of the US Army and Air Corps at the time it becomes very apparent. FDR instituted a policy of creeping involvement from this period, up to December 1941.

The French (and to some extent the British) were in a position to do something in 1939, but were over cautious, and then hampered by poor tactics in May 1940. There was a great fear of another slogging match like WW1, and the lightning speed of the attack on Poland gave the German forces a reputation that was true of tactics, but not of equipment - i.e. the sense of German armour equipment superiority was enhanced when the main asset were the tactics, freely adopted from British visionary Liddel-Hart.

Xiolablu3
04-14-2006, 08:38 AM
I think they are both good films - in different ways.

The Thin Red line is much more than just a war film, exploring human nature, different attitudes to war. The guys going in just wanting a SPR stylee, effects heavy action film will be disappointed.

SPR is really the war film that people are expecting to see when told 'you will now see a WW2 movie'. Action heavy, effects heavy, very visual.

I think an example of the middle ground between these 2 films would be Platoon. Thats an action heavy film but with a big message behind it. (The 2 battling sergeants are actually his soul, wondering which is the correct path)

DoubleTap2005A
04-14-2006, 09:33 AM
I think an example of the middle ground between these 2 films would be Platoon. Thats an action heavy film but with a big message behind it. (The 2 battling sergeants are actually his soul, wondering which is the correct path)

I don't disagree with you analysis of Platoon in this case, because I wrote a paper in college on that 2 sergeants and their pull on Sheen's character. However, but I think SPR had similar issues, or at least ones as deep, which were missed.

If you recall, there is a scene where the group capture a German and they are faced with the question: Kill him or not?

There are reasons for both. He is the enemy, he killed one of their own, he can't be taken with them, etc. The reasons on the other side are rules of war, basic humanity, pity, etc. Despite what someone else posted here, the German does not appear inhuman or unfeeling, but rather pathetic, frightened and even sympathetic.

One of the most crucial things to happen in the film is the Captain's decision to let the German go, with the promise he will march into Allied custody. The decision threatens to split his squad, but he makes it, explaining that with every man he kills, he feels farther from home, and getting back home is what he is fighting for.

(THAT sentiment alone is very true to life. The soldiers fought for each other, but they were also fighting to end the war so they could go back home. Not a very rah-rah statement, right?)

Well, the Captain’s decision has very serious consequences, particularly for him, and raises a very serious question; What was the moral thing to do in a all out fight for survival in a war with such high stakes? Was letting someone go who at the time is your mortal enemy any moral than making sure he cannot harm you, your comrades or further assist his side? Was the clerk’s sympathy for the German a strength because of its humanity, or was it a weakness and folly in the context in which they found themselves?

There is a entire analogy for war, and the moral dilemmas that come with it, contained within SPR which was unfortunately dismissed by too many because anything smacking of patriotism or the idea of honor is considered campy.

Xiolablu3
04-14-2006, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
Was the clerk’s sympathy for the German a strength because of its humanity, or was it a weakness and folly in the context in which they found themselves?



Excellent point mate, I really didnt think about it too much at the time, but you are right.

panther3485
04-14-2006, 11:00 AM
Hi there, DoubleTap2005A

Your whole post was great but in particular this struck a chord with me:

Quote:
"Another thing that annoys me is Americans that DO claim that we won the war for the Brits and Russians. I think we were an integral part of the war, mind you, but let's get something straight; We stayed out for quite a long while others were fighting and dying. If it wasn't for the Brits holding fast when they were freakin' alone, and up against it, the war may have very well been lost there and then. At the very least, it would have cost us so much more dearly.

No, the Brits were not on Omaha, but they were on other beaches that day, and they were in North Africa and Greece and fighting for their lives on in the sea and in the air, so don't freaking forget it. And they were there before long before we fired a shot.

Same thing for the Russians. Stalin was as big a bastard as Adolph, but if it wasn't for the Russians engaging large portions of Nazi forces, we would have been in trouble to say the least.

Bottom line, it was an ALLIED effort, and instead of tearing at each other, perhaps we should just celebrate all those who fought and died so we could be free enough to backbite one another on a stupid message board."


Couldn't agree more, mate!

Not ignoring the contributions and sacrifices of other Allied participants (which were also valuable and significant in their own right), the three major Allied partners -in order of their involvement - were:

Great Britain and its Commonwealth
The Soviet Union
The United States of America

What always pi$$es me off is when you see somebody posting to say that one or another of these partners was significantly more important or less important than another, when it came to winning WW2.

In its own different way, each of these three major partners was vital to Allied victory. Yes, VITAL . You hit the nail square on the head when you said it was an ALLIED effort. If any one of these three partners had been knocked out early or not participated at all, the result would have been a probable Axis victory or, at the very very least, a much harder and bloodier time for the remaining two, if they chose to continue the struggle.


Congratulations on writing one of the best posts I've seen for a long time.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

Ruy Horta
04-14-2006, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
But a few parts of your response seem to imply things I never really said, if you read my post carefully enough - i.e. don't read too much into it!

My comments are intended to cover the period up to WW2 only, so please do not try to drag me into current politics or international affairs. I'm not buying that.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

Panther,

Since you are probably one of the most level headed contributors on this forum I wouldn't have expected anything else!

I often start a post in answer only to drift away with my thoughs, subsequently introducing a shift in the argument.

A reference to modern times is a risk that I like taking, often to my own detriment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But here's to you and your level headed approach!!


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The USA was not ready either politically or militarily to do this in 1939. If you look at the size of the US Army and Air Corps at the time it becomes very apparent. FDR instituted a policy of creeping involvement from this period, up to December 1941.

You are right, both ways. But only one really matters and that is the military side, since the political side actually enhances my original point.

If ideals were the real issue, freedom etc, than regardless of military strength, the nation would have declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland.

If the political will and ideals had been there, even a token force would have made a huge moral difference.

Are you really saying that preparing even a single US Army division for overseas duty in Europe was impossible during the winter of 39/40?

Of course in the Real World, one cannot blame americans for wishing to stay out of another european war, profit the most as long as they could and make certain that things would not turn against their primary interests.

By a similar twist of logic, the Anglo-French never declared war on the Soviet Union ... again, ideals would have demanded such a declaration.

Breeze147
04-14-2006, 01:31 PM
Ooooh, my!!!! I never dreamed my caffeine-addled rant would set this off. 99 times out of 100 I get completely ignored on this Forum. The quote about the bad teeth and fat legs comes from a friend of mine who used to work in the London branch office of his firm 3 months out of the year. He used to always say the men have bad teeth and the women have ugly legs. I changed ugly to fat. He was joking and I just put it in there because I thought it would be a good insult.

I shouldn't have denigrated the Soviets. But I was thinking of flying missions in P-40's and P-47's in the game for the VVS when I typed that. I still believe the UK would have been up ****z creek without a paddle if not for Lend Lease.

Of course I know where the British and Canadians landed. That was a shot to say you got the easy (easier) beaches while we had Omaha and Pointe du Hoc.

Well, I could go on but I just want people to know that IMHO, SPR is a wonderful, dramatic film about a small band of GI's in a thankless, desperate situation. It was a fine piece of cinematic art. I never once thought that it was a political statement or flag waving. I thought of it as film about guys who had been through so much together and now they had to give it all to save someone they didn't really care about.

I didn't know people were so particular about historical accuracy. So, P-51's did some ground pounding. How do you know that the Jusgs and the Lightnings weren't all tied up that day? Heck, if you wanted to talk historical accuracy, then it must be true that King John singlehandedly won the Crusades and a bunch of guys in tights ran around Sherwood Forest and saved England while he was gone. That's the impression I get.

To finish, I enjoyed this little afternoon tea. Much better than the usual "the Dora is uber" discussions.

MB_Avro_UK
04-14-2006, 03:09 PM
Nice post Breeze http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Never insult a nation's women...it's all we've got http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

If I remember correctly...Americans lost 2,000 troops on Omaha beach,far more than other Normandy landings. Why was this? Were they unlucky?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

norman888
04-14-2006, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:


An Anti-War movie that has no bearing on fact, reality, or the feelings and beliefs of the WWII generation.

Dead on! It felt like a Vietnamesque anti-war WW2 film! Too poetic for me also, I could barely stay awake.
We are talking about WAR movies aren't we-NOT touchy feely flics.

Xiolablu3
04-14-2006, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Nice post Breeze http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Never insult a nation's women...it's all we've got http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

If I remember correctly...Americans lost 2,000 troops on Omaha beach,far more than other Normandy landings. Why was this? Were they unlucky?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Where as most divisions guarding the other beaches were not of good quality, the Americans unluckyly ran up against battle hardened divisions in the area for a rest.

Also they refused the specialist 'swimming tanks' and 'funnies' which they had been offered as armour support.

A.K.Davis
04-14-2006, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Nice post Breeze http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Never insult a nation's women...it's all we've got http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

If I remember correctly...Americans lost 2,000 troops on Omaha beach,far more than other Normandy landings. Why was this? Were they unlucky?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Uhh...the reasons why casualties on Omaha were so high are well known and have nothing to do with nationality.

Jaras
04-14-2006, 05:04 PM
I liked both SPR and TRL, but my all-time fav. war movie is Apocalypse Now (Redux), I like it ten times more then Platoon.

MB_Avro_UK
04-14-2006, 05:27 PM
hi all,

I'll watch TRL again now. Report back in a couple of hours or so...

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

panther3485
04-14-2006, 08:47 PM
Hi there, Breeze147

Yes, you did start a bit of a thing there, eh? But it's mostly been good healthy stuff.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As for Lend Lease aid to Britain, yes it did help them a lot, but not during what most would regard as Britain's 'darkest hour'.

Britain arguably came closest to defeat between mid 1940 and, perhaps, early 1941. The Battle of Britain is generally regarded as the height of the crisis, and the turning point. At this stage, the USA wasn't giving too much for Britain's chances of survival.

At the end of 1940, after Britain had clearly demonstrated she was capable of withstanding the Nazi onslaught, Churchill approached the USA for more substantial help. This commenced with a 'destroyers for bases deal' and extended to the Lend Lease act of March 1941. Lend-Lease allowed Britain to order war materials on credit. Ownership of the supplies remained nominally with the USA, until they were paid for. Lend-Lease arrangements were eventually extended to China and the USSR. Britain herself contributed weapons and supplies to the Soviets.

It was from late 1941 that Lend Lease aid began to properly 'gear up' and start to play its part and, undeniably, it most certainly did substantially help the British war effort. But the British were definitely going to pay for it!


On to Normandy...

Yes, the Americans did get Omaha, where the Day 1 casualties were the highest of the five main beaches. They also got Utah, where the Day 1 casualties were the lowest. So, the Americans finished up with the hardest main beach and the easiest main beach, with the British and Canadians getting the three 'in between' beaches.


And 'Robin Hood'...

I believe, by the way, that it was King Richard ('The Lion Heart') who is supposed to have been away at the Crusades when 'Robin Hood and his merry men' were running around Sherwood Forest. According to the usual plot, it was Prince John who aspired to the throne in Richard's absence - or so the story generally goes!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Trouble is, Robin Hood is almost entirely legend (at least, as presented in popular films etc), so there is really not much requirement and little expectation for 'historical accuracy' as such. It's just a nice romantic story!


In some ways at least, Saving Private Ryan also strives to gain our sympathy with a romantic storyline and I believe it is generally successful in this regard. I also find it quite a good film, despite its flaws (no movie is perfect!) I guess one important difference here (when compared with the 12th or 13th Century) is that WW2 is much more recent - still within living memory as we write.

We also have a community full of ardent aircraft enthusiasts (or, in my case, tank enthusiasts) who often have quite detailed knowledge of their subjects! Some of these people (especially those who, like myself, also build scale models) are nit-pickers by nature anyway! I say that, because I am one of the worst myself! [ Guilty as charged, your honor! ]

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

Lucius_Esox
04-14-2006, 11:45 PM
I thought they were both good films, albeit both totally different.

In the D day aniversary year I took a trip over to Normandy and stayed a few days looking around.

Walked along Omaha beach. I think the scenes from the film were done in Ireland. I can only say that hearing vets who watched that opening sequence were very "disturbed" I'm not suprised. The film makes it look very much like the same place,, freaky!

TRL was a poets type of film, sure there was a few of them in the peoples war that was the 2WW. Beautifully shot, from a dreamers/contemplative perspective.

Not sure how either of them would compare to any experiences "I" would have in any war were I unfortunate enough to become involved in one. Hope I never find out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

They are just films after all. Films that get seen by a lot of people normally cost a lot of cash to make. Whoever has the most of that makes em and can put whatever twist in is deemed appropiate to achieve the films aims.

Simplistic I know.

Two words for a film about WW2 I would like to see made....... Hurtgen Forest!

fordfan25
04-14-2006, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Adam906:
You mean you didn't like the flag waving thank-God-for-the-Americans ending, the historical inaccuracies and the sheer idiocy of a supposed Captian in the Rangers? Or for that matter the lack of humanity in the Germans, the complete suspension of belief needed to sit through the last half of the movie... Oh I could go on but obviously I'm talking to someone who just can't appreciate a good movie!

God, man! What is wrong with you? Thanks to this movie I now know that it was truly the Yanks (or 'Seppos' in Australian rhyming slang) that won the war and if it wasn't for them and them alone the Nazi's would have long ago walked across the face of the planet and I would be ending this with a Sieg Heil! my my arnt we high and mighty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif . yes god forbid that hollywood wich is in the USA should make a movie that appeals to people who live in the USA. and god forbid that any heros in said movie should be "yanks". And God forbid thay should make something other than a documentry and make the movie appeal to the very largist portion of movie going public in some crazy sceam to actualy turn a profit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Adam906
04-15-2006, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
my my arnt we high and mighty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif . yes god forbid that hollywood wich is in the USA should make a movie that appeals to people who live in the USA. and god forbid that any heros in said movie should be "yanks". And God forbid thay should make something other than a documentry and make the movie appeal to the very largist portion of movie going public in some crazy sceam to actualy turn a profit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Go find my other post in the topic


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Ruy Horta
04-15-2006, 06:21 AM
Must say that I am really surprised in a positive sense, that this thread hasn't become just another flame war.

Plenty of fuel has been spilled, but no real ignition. Has the comunity changed over the last couple of years, or is it something else?

Well, thanks for allowing the discussion to continue.

To bring back the topic of war movies.

In the end I seldom find a movie that is simply great from A to Z, although I am the kind of guy who can love a movie for a single scene.

There are plenty of (war)movies that stand apart because of a single scene, yet fail to deliver as a whole. Perhaps failure isn't the right word, these movies are simply mediocre aprt from a couple of high lights.

Also we all seek different things, for me a movie should make me think. Like any piece of art it's actually not about what was intended by the artist, but how his work is perceived again and again and over time.

At Christmas I got the remastered version of "The Big Red One", with Lee Marvin. I'd been bugging poeple for quite a while, hinting what I tiught of as a classic.

Unfortunately the memory was much better than the actual film, the added scenes were perhaps wisely left on the cutting room floor when the movie was originally released. Bottomline, I couldn't even watch it to the end.

Still there are some classic scenes in that movie, but IMHO time has proven it to be more mediocre than great.

OTOH I got myself a copy of the 1946 (?) movie "Twelve o'Clock High!" it was the exact opposite. I was pretty impressed by the humanity of this classic movie.

An Apocalypse now is a strange case. Is it good, or does it confuse you into thinking it is great?

Still not sure about that, but at least I am thinking about it.

panther3485
04-15-2006, 06:51 AM
Hi there, Ruy Horta

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Very thoughtful and interesting post, mate.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I see considerable depth to your character!


Best regards,
panther3485

NS38th_Aristaus
04-15-2006, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi there, DoubleTap2005A

Your whole post was great but in particular this struck a chord with me:

Quote:
"Another thing that annoys me is Americans that DO claim that we won the war for the Brits and Russians. I think we were an integral part of the war, mind you, but let's get something straight; We stayed out for quite a long while others were fighting and dying. If it wasn't for the Brits holding fast when they were freakin' alone, and up against it, the war may have very well been lost there and then. At the very least, it would have cost us so much more dearly.

No, the Brits were not on Omaha, but they were on other beaches that day, and they were in North Africa and Greece and fighting for their lives on in the sea and in the air, so don't freaking forget it. And they were there before long before we fired a shot.

Same thing for the Russians. Stalin was as big a bastard as Adolph, but if it wasn't for the Russians engaging large portions of Nazi forces, we would have been in trouble to say the least.

Bottom line, it was an ALLIED effort, and instead of tearing at each other, perhaps we should just celebrate all those who fought and died so we could be free enough to backbite one another on a stupid message board."


Couldn't agree more, mate!


Not ignoring the contributions and sacrifices of other Allied participants (which were also valuable and significant in their own right), the three major Allied partners -in order of their involvement - were:

Great Britain and its Commonwealth
The Soviet Union
The United States of America

What always pi$$es me off is when you see somebody posting to say that one or another of these partners was significantly more important or less important than another, when it came to winning WW2.

In its own different way, each of these three major partners was vital to Allied victory. Yes, VITAL . You hit the nail square on the head when you said it was an ALLIED effort. If any one of these three partners had been knocked out early or not participated at all, the result would have been a probable Axis victory or, at the very very least, a much harder and bloodier time for the remaining two, if they chose to continue the struggle.


Congratulations on writing one of the best posts I've seen for a long time.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

First: As I have stated before, it was not the obligation of the United States to fight a European War, or come to the aid of any European Nation. Be thankfull we chose to stick our nose into Europe's buisness.

Second: In truth the war was not started by Germany but by Great Brition and France, these two nations alone bear responsibalty for that. They started the war on the pretext of comeing to the aid of Poland.
Can you imagine what the outcome would have been had G.B. and France kept their word? French and British troops entering western Germany while the bulk of the Wermacht was fighting in Poland. Needless to say it is a good bet that would have been the end of german aggresion, at least for a long while and it would have prevented Italy from its aggression (in Europe any way) and more then likely Germany's ally the Soviet Union would not have invaded Poland fm the East, with Germany backing dwn, which they would have.
It was Germany's ability to get away with aggresion that incouraged Italy and the Soviet Union to follow through with theirs.
Now lets look at the fact that G.B. and France sat around and did notheing while Germany and the Soviet Union devided up Poland. When Germany did strike to the West France folded up like a deck of old cards, and was willing to sue for peace at all costs. France with still half of it's nation unoccupied and it's army still bearing arms became an ally of Nazi Germany.
By this time Brition knew it had stepped into it and despretly needed help. Churchill knew this, which is why he tried to get F.D.R. to enter the war. W.C. tried every old British trick in the book to get the U.S. into the war, even going so far as ordering the British Fleet to drive the Bismark toward the East coast of the U.S. in hopes American Naval forces would become involved (which a U.S. coastguard cutter almost did.). The Isolationist in the U.S. kept F.D.R. from rolling over and lapping at the feet of W.C.
W.C. knew that the British Empire could not win against Germany, and without American involvment in the form of food and weapons G.B. would have starved to death with the U-Boat's blockading the island.
What was the point of G.B. and France declareing war on Germany? Obviously it was not to come to the aid of Poland, and since Germany had no interest in going to war with Brition and France it was not in self defence.

Third: We cannot rightly call the Soviet Union an ally to the West before, during, or after the war. The Soviet Union was an ally of Nazi Germany, and throughly enjoyed it's role as an aggresor in the form of Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.
It was only the treachery of A.H. that brought the Soviet Union into a war with Germany.
After the U.S. entered the war and to some degree before the Soviet Union was only an ally in so far as it would accept aid from the West, other then that we did not see Soviet troops fighting the Japanese in China, or sending troops through the Middle East to North Africa, because it was not in their interest, and because they were not truley an ally.
After the German halt at Moscow, and the near surrender of Stalin during that period the Soviet Union set it's sights on Western Europe and was in a race to reach Berlin before the Western Allies.
Soviet troops did not spill their blood to help save England, France, Poland, or Democracy. They spilled thier blood in defence of their nation from a former ally gone bad, and to take their place as the dominent power in Europe.
What was the point of the Western allies defeating Nazi Germany and then letting the threat of the Soviet Union to hang over Europe for the next 45 years?
In conclusion G.B. and France started a war they could not finish, and for their own selfish reasons, not haveing been attacked by Germany had no reason to do so. The Soviet Union was fighting a war forced on them by a decetfull ally.
Did the U.S. win the war own it's own? Of course not but could G.B. have won the war without us? NO!
Could the Soviet Union pull off a victory against a Germany with no threat of invasion fm the West? Maybe, but doubtfull.
What ever the outcome between Germany and the Soviet Union the victor would have been bleed white and would not have posed much of a threat to the U.S. in the future that the Soviet Union did during the cold war.
Great Brition was not this poor victim of a big brut Germany trying to dominate Europe, they were a victim of their own faults.

panther3485
04-15-2006, 07:19 AM
Hi there, NS38th_Aristaus

Thanks for your input.

As I've already committed myself to a certain position (by stating that DoubleTap2005A's post was one of the best I'd seen for a long time) and as I've reinforced my stance on this subject with further comments of my own, there is of course no need for me to respond to your post as such. I'm sure you can already guess what I would think of it!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


However, if anyone else wants to comment on what you've said, they have my blessing!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Best regards and keep smiling,
panther3485

A.K.Davis
04-15-2006, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:
Third: We cannot rightly call the Soviet Union an ally to the West before, during, or after the war. The Soviet Union was an ally of Nazi Germany, and throughly enjoyed it's role as an aggresor in the form of Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.
It was only the treachery of A.H. that brought the Soviet Union into a war with Germany.
After the U.S. entered the war and to some degree before the Soviet Union was only an ally in so far as it would accept aid from the West, other then that we did not see Soviet troops fighting the Japanese in China, or sending troops through the Middle East to North Africa, because it was not in their interest, and because they were not truley an ally.
After the German halt at Moscow, and the near surrender of Stalin during that period the Soviet Union set it's sights on Western Europe and was in a race to reach Berlin before the Western Allies.
Soviet troops did not spill their blood to help save England, France, Poland, or Democracy. They spilled thier blood in defence of their nation from a former ally gone bad, and to take their place as the dominent power in Europe.
What was the point of the Western allies defeating Nazi Germany and then letting the threat of the Soviet Union to hang over Europe for the next 45 years?
In conclusion G.B. and France started a war they could not finish, and for their own selfish reasons, not haveing been attacked by Germany had no reason to do so. The Soviet Union was fighting a war forced on them by a decetfull ally.

The Soviet Union had already decided to go to war with Germany. Barbarossa simply preimpted this decision.

thefruitbat
04-15-2006, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:
Great Brition was not this poor victim of a big brut Germany trying to dominate Europe, they were a victim of their own faults.

please could you explain this to me further, particularly with refrences to the 30's history not fantasy. I'm particuarly interested in your opinions on; reoccupation of the rhine valley, annexation of the sudetenland espescially with reference to that warmonger chamberlain, der anschluss with austria, occupation of the rest of slovakia, bohemia and moravia, and then the invasion of poland, and how these fit in with your view that germany wasnt trying to dominate europe, as i belive vaguely outlined in 1924, some years earlier in a particularly boring read Mein kamfp.

with the utmost respect

fruitbat

NS38th_Aristaus
04-15-2006, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:
Third: We cannot rightly call the Soviet Union an ally to the West before, during, or after the war. The Soviet Union was an ally of Nazi Germany, and throughly enjoyed it's role as an aggresor in the form of Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.
It was only the treachery of A.H. that brought the Soviet Union into a war with Germany.
After the U.S. entered the war and to some degree before the Soviet Union was only an ally in so far as it would accept aid from the West, other then that we did not see Soviet troops fighting the Japanese in China, or sending troops through the Middle East to North Africa, because it was not in their interest, and because they were not truley an ally.
After the German halt at Moscow, and the near surrender of Stalin during that period the Soviet Union set it's sights on Western Europe and was in a race to reach Berlin before the Western Allies.
Soviet troops did not spill their blood to help save England, France, Poland, or Democracy. They spilled thier blood in defence of their nation from a former ally gone bad, and to take their place as the dominent power in Europe.
What was the point of the Western allies defeating Nazi Germany and then letting the threat of the Soviet Union to hang over Europe for the next 45 years?
In conclusion G.B. and France started a war they could not finish, and for their own selfish reasons, not haveing been attacked by Germany had no reason to do so. The Soviet Union was fighting a war forced on them by a decetfull ally.

The Soviet Union had already decided to go to war with Germany. Barbarossa simply preimpted this decision. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right about that, the Soviet Union viewed their treaty with Germany as a way to buy time. How much time did the Soviet Union need to prepare for war? YEARS!
Nazi Germany never would have given that much time, so the point is mute.

NS38th_Aristaus
04-15-2006, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:
Great Brition was not this poor victim of a big brut Germany trying to dominate Europe, they were a victim of their own faults.

please could you explain this to me further, particularly with refrences to the 30's history not fantasy. I'm particuarly interested in your opinions on; reoccupation of the rhine valley, annexation of the sudetenland espescially with reference to that warmonger chamberlain, der anschluss with austria, occupation of the rest of slovakia, bohemia and moravia, and then the invasion of poland, and how these fit in with your view that germany wasnt trying to dominate europe, as i belive vaguely outlined in 1924, some years earlier in a particularly boring read Mein kamfp.

with the utmost respect

fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for the Rhineland the Germans where mearly reoccupying what they lost after the first war. Here is a small quote:
The British government agreed with the act in principle, "The Germans are after all only going into their own back garden" Lord Lothian.

The Sudetenland was an area occupied by large german populations and as we all know the Nazi's considered them as apart of the German Nation. This aggression was of course to the East in the direction of the Soveit Union.
With regards to how the Western European Allies regarded the importance of a Czech Nation:

The Western powers urged the Czechs to comply with Germany believing that they could prevent a general war by appeasing Hitler. Neville Chamberlain met with Adolf Hitler in Berchtesgaden, on September 15, and agreed to the cession of the Sudetenland, as did Edouard Daladier and Georges Bonnet three days later. The Czechs themselves were not included in these discussions. Chamberlain met Hitler in Godesberg on September 22 to confirm the agreements. The discussions here fell through, however, as Hitler made new demands that Chamberlain was not able to defend in parliament.
Imagine that, Brition and France giving away a part of a soverign nation to another and not even including said nation in the decision.

As for Poland, by this time G.B. and France started to realize that they had a major power other then themselves on the Continent of Europe. That would mean that they no longer controled or influenced the future of Europe. Something had to be done, but what?
They did not think thier rash rush to war through very well.

As for Austria what can I say? Hitler was Austrian and as the leader of Germany wanted to bring his countrymen into the German fold. Not much different in the way England brought other nations on and close to thier island into their fold.
Hitler wanted Brition as an ally and considered the English and German races linked in history. A.H. never intended to wage war on Brition.
In Mein Kamfp Hitlers eyes were to the East and for more reasons then one.

thefruitbat
04-15-2006, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:

You are right about that, the Soviet Union viewed their treaty with Germany as a way to buy time. How much time did the Soviet Union need to prepare for war? YEARS!
Nazi Germany never would have given that much time, so the point is mute.

Nazi germany did give them the time they needed. Or less you live in a diiferent dimension, i believe the germans attacked the ussr on june 22nd 1941. The treaty was signed august 23rd 1939. By my book, thats roughly 2 years, during which time the red army nearly doubled in size, from 1,800,000 to 3,000,000, and included the development of among other things the t-34 tank. It is widely accepted that the soviets turned the tide at stalingrad before landlease made a noticable effect, and they beat the germans in the field on there own merit.
How you possibly come to your conclusion, i have no idea.

fruitbat

NS38th_Aristaus
04-15-2006, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:

You are right about that, the Soviet Union viewed their treaty with Germany as a way to buy time. How much time did the Soviet Union need to prepare for war? YEARS!
Nazi Germany never would have given that much time, so the point is mute.

Nazi germany did give them the time they needed. Or less you live in a diiferent dimension, i believe the germans attacked the ussr on june 22nd 1941. The treaty was signed august 23rd 1939. By my book, thats roughly 2 years, during which time the red army nearly doubled in size, from 1,800,000 to 3,000,000, and included the development of among other things the t-34 tank. It is widely accepted that the soviets turned the tide at stalingrad before landlease made a noticable effect, and they beat the germans in the field on there own merit.
How you possibly come to your conclusion, i have no idea.

fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Soviet Army was totaly unprepared for war and ran headlong back to Moscow. It was not the Soviet Army that stopped them, but the Winter conditions.
The Soviets did not start their counter attack until November of 42 and did not achieve vic until Feb of 43. Lend lease was in high gear long before that. Rember F.D.R. was funneling supplies to Europe before the U.S. entered the war.
1. On 11th March 1941, Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act. The legislation gave President Franklin D. Roosevelt the powers to sell, transfer, exchange, lend equipment to any country to help it defend itself against the Axis powers.
A sum of $50 billion was appropriated by Congress for Lend-Lease. The money went to 38 different countries with Britain receiving over $31 billion.

2. The United States Government was now straining neutrality in Britians favor and Mr. Churchill was continually pressing them to further efforts. He asked, among other things, for the loan of fifty or sixty destroyers, and this scheme was discussed between London and Washington.

3. Lend-Lease started for the Soviet Union in March of 42 and about $11 billion in war material was sent to the Soviet Union under that program. Additional assistance came from U.S. Russian War Relief (a private, nonprofit organization) and the Red Cross. About seventy percent of the aid reached the Soviet Union via the Persian Gulf through Iran; the remainder went across the Pacific to Vladivostok and across the North Atlantic to Murmansk.

thefruitbat
04-15-2006, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:
Great Brition was not this poor victim of a big brut Germany trying to dominate Europe, they were a victim of their own faults.

please could you explain this to me further, particularly with refrences to the 30's history not fantasy. I'm particuarly interested in your opinions on; reoccupation of the rhine valley, annexation of the sudetenland espescially with reference to that warmonger chamberlain, der anschluss with austria, occupation of the rest of slovakia, bohemia and moravia, and then the invasion of poland, and how these fit in with your view that germany wasnt trying to dominate europe, as i belive vaguely outlined in 1924, some years earlier in a particularly boring read Mein kamfp.

with the utmost respect

fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for the Rhineland the Germans where mearly reoccupying what they lost after the first war. Here is a small quote:
The British government agreed with the act in principle, "The Germans are after all only going into their own back garden" Lord Lothian.

The Sudetenland was an area occupied by large german populations and as we all know the Nazi's considered them as apart of the German Nation. This aggression was of course to the East in the direction of the Soveit Union.
With regards to how the Western European Allies regarded the importance of a Czech Nation:

The Western powers urged the Czechs to comply with Germany believing that they could prevent a general war by appeasing Hitler. Neville Chamberlain met with Adolf Hitler in Berchtesgaden, on September 15, and agreed to the cession of the Sudetenland, as did Edouard Daladier and Georges Bonnet three days later. The Czechs themselves were not included in these discussions. Chamberlain met Hitler in Godesberg on September 22 to confirm the agreements. The discussions here fell through, however, as Hitler made new demands that Chamberlain was not able to defend in parliament.
Imagine that, Brition and France giving away a part of a soverign nation to another and not even including said nation in the decision.

As for Poland, by this time G.B. and France started to realize that they had a major power other then themselves on the Continent of Europe. That would mean that they no longer controled or influenced the future of Europe. Something had to be done, but what?
They did not think thier rash rush to war through very well.

As for Austria what can I say? Hitler was Austrian and as the leader of Germany wanted to bring his countrymen into the German fold. Not much different in the way England brought other nations on and close to thier island into their fold.
Hitler wanted Brition as an ally and considered the English and German races linked in history. A.H. never intended to wage war on Brition.
In Mein Kamfp Hitlers eyes were to the East and for more reasons then one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok then, as to the occupation of the rhineland, yes i have read that quote, i also understand it in the context of the time, Britain could not fight a war readily at this time, and many people thought that the treaty of versaillwe was unduly harsh. It was all about appeasement as you know already. But the whole point of appeasement was to avoid a war.
To the sudentenland. I admit that this was not a particuly impressive part of british diplomatic history, But if you seriouly think that the british and the french were the bad guys in this debacle, that is incredulous. you quote the meetings of the 15th and 22nd, but suprisingly forgot to mention the directive hitler signed on the 30th may for a war to begin no later than oct 1st agsinst czechoslovakia. Hitler had already made his mind up, and was already building up troops near the borders.
Imagine why briton and france gave away part of a soverign nation to another, why to try and stop a major conflict. I imagine they belived it was for the greater good, unfortunatley history proved them wrong.
Consistantly it was nazi germany that was making expansionist moves, with the posssible execption of ussr, not any other parties. And yes you are right, hitler did not want to fight the british, but thankfully the british finally stopped appeaseing hitler and accepted the inevitable, that the would have to fight the nazis. poland was the final realisation of this.
Again you are right, the nazis expansion was mainly eastern. I dont see how that makes it ok though, as i expect thought the millons who lost there lives for this 'living space'

fruitbat

thefruitbat
04-15-2006, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:

You are right about that, the Soviet Union viewed their treaty with Germany as a way to buy time. How much time did the Soviet Union need to prepare for war? YEARS!
Nazi Germany never would have given that much time, so the point is mute.

Nazi germany did give them the time they needed. Or less you live in a diiferent dimension, i believe the germans attacked the ussr on june 22nd 1941. The treaty was signed august 23rd 1939. By my book, thats roughly 2 years, during which time the red army nearly doubled in size, from 1,800,000 to 3,000,000, and included the development of among other things the t-34 tank. It is widely accepted that the soviets turned the tide at stalingrad before landlease made a noticable effect, and they beat the germans in the field on there own merit.
How you possibly come to your conclusion, i have no idea.

fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Soviet Army was totaly unprepared for war and ran headlong back to Moscow. It was not the Soviet Army that stopped them, but the Winter conditions.
The Soviets did not start their counter attack until November of 42 and did not achieve vic until Feb of 43. Lend lease was in high gear long before that. Rember F.D.R. was funneling supplies to Europe before the U.S. entered the war.
1. On 11th March 1941, Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act. The legislation gave President Franklin D. Roosevelt the powers to sell, transfer, exchange, lend equipment to any country to help it defend itself against the Axis powers.
A sum of $50 billion was appropriated by Congress for Lend-Lease. The money went to 38 different countries with Britain receiving over $31 billion.

2. The United States Government was now straining neutrality in Britians favor and Mr. Churchill was continually pressing them to further efforts. He asked, among other things, for the loan of fifty or sixty destroyers, and this scheme was discussed between London and Washington.

3. Lend-Lease started for the Soviet Union in March of 42 and about $11 billion in war material was sent to the Soviet Union under that program. Additional assistance came from U.S. Russian War Relief (a private, nonprofit organization) and the Red Cross. About seventy percent of the aid reached the Soviet Union via the Persian Gulf through Iran; the remainder went across the Pacific to Vladivostok and across the North Atlantic to Murmansk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasnt just the soviet winter, it was also the age old problem of streched supply lines, which contributed to this massivly, and the lack of winter equipment by the germans. The russian army was obviously prerpared enough to still be able to put up an effective fight on the outskirts of moscow, which by all accounts, was not a half hearted struggle.
Also it is wrong to assume that even if the germans had taken moscow in 41 that the war would of been over. There is already a precedant in russian history of moving a capital when under threat of capture, ie st petersberg to moscow. The russians would of just pulled back futher east. they already had movedd most of there manufactoring east of the urals, which in itself is a natural defensive barrier. The futher east the germans went, the harder it was for them.
About the land lease scheme, this is something i would like to know more about, but my general impression of it through my limited reading about it, is that it consisted more of suplies than combat ready equipment, food aid, lots of trucks etc... Now i am sure all of this could only help, but i dont know how important it was to the ussr's final victory. I do know that according to churchills autobiography that stalin in 42 and 43 put much more emphisis on it than he did by the end of the war, But this could well be more to do with ntional pride than anything else. I would like to see a breakdown of what $11 billion actually was.

norman888
04-15-2006, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
Also it is wrong to assume that even if the germans had taken moscow in 41 that the war would of been over.

I agree with most of what you said, but didn't Stalin plan to stay in Moscow? We all know what happens when the leader of a dictatorship is killed.

thefruitbat
04-15-2006, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by norman888:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
Also it is wrong to assume that even if the germans had taken moscow in 41 that the war would of been over.

I agree with most of what you said, but didn't Stalin plan to stay in Moscow? We all know what happens when the leader of a dictatorship is killed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i hadnt heard that before, but leaders of dictatorships also seem loath to give up their dictatorships. I find it hard although not impossible to belive that stalin would have stayed and gone down with moscow, simpley because it would mean handing over power to someone else.

Aaron_GT
04-15-2006, 03:15 PM
It wasnt just the soviet winter, it was also the age old problem of streched supply lines, which contributed to this massivly,

Indeed it has been argued that the autumn rains, which made road transport difficult, were the more significant problem. The German logistics had problems keeping frontline units sufficiently supplied even before the rains.

A.K.Davis
04-15-2006, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:
Third: We cannot rightly call the Soviet Union an ally to the West before, during, or after the war. The Soviet Union was an ally of Nazi Germany, and throughly enjoyed it's role as an aggresor in the form of Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.
It was only the treachery of A.H. that brought the Soviet Union into a war with Germany.
After the U.S. entered the war and to some degree before the Soviet Union was only an ally in so far as it would accept aid from the West, other then that we did not see Soviet troops fighting the Japanese in China, or sending troops through the Middle East to North Africa, because it was not in their interest, and because they were not truley an ally.
After the German halt at Moscow, and the near surrender of Stalin during that period the Soviet Union set it's sights on Western Europe and was in a race to reach Berlin before the Western Allies.
Soviet troops did not spill their blood to help save England, France, Poland, or Democracy. They spilled thier blood in defence of their nation from a former ally gone bad, and to take their place as the dominent power in Europe.
What was the point of the Western allies defeating Nazi Germany and then letting the threat of the Soviet Union to hang over Europe for the next 45 years?
In conclusion G.B. and France started a war they could not finish, and for their own selfish reasons, not haveing been attacked by Germany had no reason to do so. The Soviet Union was fighting a war forced on them by a decetfull ally.

The Soviet Union had already decided to go to war with Germany. Barbarossa simply preimpted this decision. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right about that, the Soviet Union viewed their treaty with Germany as a way to buy time. How much time did the Soviet Union need to prepare for war? YEARS!
Nazi Germany never would have given that much time, so the point is mute. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soviet units were being positioned for an assault in the near term, not years.

fordfan25
04-15-2006, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Adam906:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
my my arnt we high and mighty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif . yes god forbid that hollywood wich is in the USA should make a movie that appeals to people who live in the USA. and god forbid that any heros in said movie should be "yanks". And God forbid thay should make something other than a documentry and make the movie appeal to the very largist portion of movie going public in some crazy sceam to actualy turn a profit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Go find my other post in the topic


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>no way! one is enough for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BfHeFwMe
04-15-2006, 05:28 PM
Oh yes, poor Soviet allies. No one could have possibly done more to facilitate a world war besides Germany than the Soviet leadership.

Operation August Storm- Soviet aggression launched against Japan in 1939 over God forsaken wastelands no one inhabited in Mongolia. But it did ensured Japan would never carry out the North Strike favored by the Imperial Army. So they switched gears and put the weaker South strike Navy end run plan on top burner. Only problem is they forgot to mention it to Adolf. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia siezed from Romania by force of Soviet arms, 1940. Forced Romanias cancellation of an alliance with Great Britian for a deal with the devil himself, Hitler, thus securing the oil he so needed to drive a ruthless war machine.

Of course Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were 'protected' by Soviet armies only after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact secured the act. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Than we get to Finland, once again agreement with Der Fueher in the secret provisions of the Treaty of Nonaggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, agreeing to spheres of grabification. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif Don't think there's anyone who can justify this as anything but a purely aggressive act on a neutral.

Which leads to Poland, also listed in 1939 as a secret clause in the treaty between chums. Be sure all the targeted provisions of the treaty were aquired, um fullfilled.

I think we can safely say the "Soviets" never had a moral leg to stand on when it comes to condemning the acts of any agressor nation.

So where were they during the battle of France, oh yeah, guarding the back door in Poland. How about the BoB, sorry, busy in Finland.

Don't forget while Russia had inspectors in Germany during the 1930's to ensure the demiliterization provisions of Versailles were in compliance, they also had German personal using their own soil doing joint tactical theory, military excercises, and development of weapons prototypes. And they didn't see a thang going on in Germany. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

joeap
04-15-2006, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:

Operation August Storm- Soviet aggression launched against Japan in 1939 over God forsaken wastelands no one inhabited in Mongolia. But it did ensured Japan would never carry out the North Strike favored by the Imperial Army. So they switched gears and put the weaker South strike Navy end run plan on top burner. Only problem is they forgot to mention it to Adolf. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif



Interesting post, except you got the name wrong...August Storm was the name of the attack against Manchuria in 1945 not Monglia in 1939, not sure it was an aggresion against Japan ya know...Monglia is neither Russia nor Japan. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I thought it was a border dispute.

fordfan25
04-15-2006, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Oh yes, poor Soviet allies. No one could have possibly done more to facilitate a world war besides Germany than the Soviet leadership.

Operation August Storm- Soviet aggression launched against Japan in 1939 over God forsaken wastelands no one inhabited in Mongolia. But it did ensured Japan would never carry out the North Strike favored by the Imperial Army. So they switched gears and put the weaker South strike Navy end run plan on top burner. Only problem is they forgot to mention it to Adolf. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia siezed from Romania by force of Soviet arms, 1940. Forced Romanias cancellation of an alliance with Great Britian for a deal with the devil himself, Hitler, thus securing the oil he so needed to drive a ruthless war machine.

Of course Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were 'protected' by Soviet armies only after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact secured the act. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Than we get to Finland, once again agreement with Der Fueher in the secret provisions of the Treaty of Nonaggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, agreeing to spheres of grabification. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif Don't think there's anyone who can justify this as anything but a purely aggressive act on a neutral.

Which leads to Poland, also listed in 1939 as a secret clause in the treaty between chums. Be sure all the targeted provisions of the treaty were aquired, um fullfilled.

I think we can safely say the "Soviets" never had a moral leg to stand on when it comes to condemning the acts of any agressor nation.

So where were they during the battle of France, oh yeah, guarding the back door in Poland. How about the BoB, sorry, busy in Finland.

Don't forget while Russia had inspectors in Germany during the 1930's to ensure the demiliterization provisions of Versailles were in compliance, they also had German personal using their own soil doing joint tactical theory, military excercises, and development of weapons prototypes. And they didn't see a thang going on in Germany. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif propganda be sure!!

panther3485
04-15-2006, 08:07 PM
Hi there, thefruitbat

First quote from you:
"It is widely accepted that the soviets turned the tide at stalingrad before landlease made a noticable effect, and they beat the germans in the field on there own merit."

Second quote from you:
"About the land lease scheme, this is something i would like to know more about, but my general impression of it through my limited reading about it, is that it consisted more of suplies than combat ready equipment, food aid, lots of trucks etc... Now i am sure all of this could only help, but i dont know how important it was to the ussr's final victory. I do know that according to churchills autobiography that stalin in 42 and 43 put much more emphisis on it than he did by the end of the war, But this could well be more to do with ntional pride than anything else. I would like to see a breakdown of what $11 billion actually was."

You can relax, fruitbat, at least in relation to your first statement, because what you said was essentially correct.

Accepting that every bit of help is better than nothing, of course, and that Lend Lease aid to the Soviets began before the struggle for Stalingrad, the actual amounts of help the Soviets received did not become truly useful (as a proportion of their overall requirements) until some time after the Russian victory there. In other words, the Soviets absorbed the full weight of the German offensive and had already begun to turn it back before Lend-Lease became a significant factor in the equation.

As for your second quote, I have seen the figures somewhere, that give specific breakdowns by materiel type and tonnage, of what the Soviets actually received from the date their first Lend-Lease shipments arrived until the end of the War.

The figures also showed, on a quarterly basis if I remember correctly, what percentage of the Soviet's needs were being filled from Lend-Lease supply, as compared to their own production. Even for the first 12 months of Lend-Lease aid to Russia, if you look just at the tonnages received, they appear fairly impressive - [B] until they are compared to the overall picture and what the Soviets produced for themselves. The sheer scale of that conflict and the amount of supplies consumed is staggering to the imagination!

Incidentally, most people seem to think of planes, tanks etc that the Soviets received. However, they received substantial numbers of good, reliable American trucks and these were among the most useful items they got - they were always short of motorized transport. These trucks probably had more impact than some of the more obvious items that come to mind!


Best regards,
panther3485

A.K.Davis
04-15-2006, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi there, thefruitbat

First quote from you:
"It is widely accepted that the soviets turned the tide at stalingrad before landlease made a noticable effect, and they beat the germans in the field on there own merit."

Second quote from you:
"About the land lease scheme, this is something i would like to know more about, but my general impression of it through my limited reading about it, is that it consisted more of suplies than combat ready equipment, food aid, lots of trucks etc... Now i am sure all of this could only help, but i dont know how important it was to the ussr's final victory. I do know that according to churchills autobiography that stalin in 42 and 43 put much more emphisis on it than he did by the end of the war, But this could well be more to do with ntional pride than anything else. I would like to see a breakdown of what $11 billion actually was."

You can relax, fruitbat, at least in relation to your first statement, because what you said was essentially correct.

Accepting that every bit of help is better than nothing, of course, and that Lend Lease aid to the Soviets began before the struggle for Stalingrad, the actual amounts of help the Soviets received did not become truly useful (as a proportion of their overall requirements) until some time after the Russian victory there. In other words, the Soviets absorbed the full weight of the German offensive and had already begun to turn it back before Lend-Lease became a significant factor in the equation.

As for your second quote, I have seen the figures somewhere, that give specific breakdowns by materiel type and tonnage, of what the Soviets actually received from the date their first Lend-Lease shipments arrived until the end of the War.

The figures also showed, on a quarterly basis if I remember correctly, what percentage of the Soviet's needs were being filled from Lend-Lease supply, as compared to their own production. Even for the first 12 months of Lend-Lease aid to Russia, if you look just at the tonnages received, they appear fairly impressive - [B] until they are compared to the overall picture and what the Soviets produced for themselves. The sheer scale of that conflict and the amount of supplies consumed is staggering to the imagination!

Incidentally, most people seem to think of planes, tanks etc that the Soviets received. However, they received substantial numbers of good, reliable American trucks and these were among the most useful items they got - they were always short of motorized transport. These trucks probably had more impact than some of the more obvious items that come to mind!


Best regards,
panther3485

Choo-choo trains, even more so.

fordfan25
04-16-2006, 01:27 AM
and lets not forget fried chicken. KFC won the war be sure

thefruitbat
04-16-2006, 04:09 AM
dont do that to me panther3485 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif i thought i'd made a major error!!
Seroiusly though, i'll try to dig up that post to have a look, thanks. I knew that i had read somewhere about studebaker trucks being one of the most usefull things, as well as food, but had no idea where i had read it. Didnt know about trains, but that makes sense to. I imagine anything that improved on horses, was only going to improve supply lines, and on the eastern front, this would be paramount because of the vast distances involved. The shear scale of the eastern front keeps on amazing me as i find out more about it.
It will be interesting to see the land lease contributions as a percentage of total soviet war effort.

cheers fruitbat.

Ps, kfc http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif, surely the war would of been over quicker with high quality burgers mmn no? i bet after the war you could put burger stores all over the world...

panther3485
04-16-2006, 05:09 AM
Hi, fordfan25

Quote:
"and lets not forget fried chicken. KFC won the war be sure"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Good one, mate! If we're in danger of starting to get too serious, looks like we can rely on you to rescue us!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
04-16-2006, 05:36 AM
Hi, thefruitbat

Quote:
"dont do that to me panther3485 i thought i'd made a major error!!"

Sorry mate! Perhaps I need to adopt a more gentle technique.

I try to develop some idea of what other forum members are all about ('where they are coming from', if you like); how rational or irrational they are, depth of knowledge on the subject being discussed, whether or not I perceive a substantial bias, integrity, willingness to accept fresh information etc etc. In other words, 'what makes 'em tick'. Of course, that works both ways and I'm sure that others here may well make similar assessments about me!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

For what it's worth, you seem to me to be shaping up pretty good. A keen, rational enquiring mind and a good sense of balance, combined with a desire for fairness and the pursuit of truth. Excellent qualities!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

-HH-Quazi
04-16-2006, 06:25 AM
Actually, this has turned out to be one of the better threads, great read, than any other in a very long time. Thanks to everyone for being tolerant of the other. As one m8 said, there has been enough fuel spilled here to start a real flame fest. But you guys have done a super job of no taking it there. I commend you all!

fordfan25
04-16-2006, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi, fordfan25

Quote:
"and lets not forget fried chicken. KFC won the war be sure"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Good one, mate! If we're in danger of starting to get too serious, looks like we can rely on you to rescue us!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Best regards,
panther3485 ,...... what are you talkingh about man. i was being completly serious. didnt you read all the reports of "drumsticks" penatrating tiger tank armor? or the fighters made from delta "wing's" that could take multi hits from 20mm cannons with no damnge in flight performnce. come on its history. and dont let the bias propaganda from the tacobell team fool you.

SATAN_23rd
04-16-2006, 01:29 PM
Thanks to this movie I now know that it was truly the Yanks (or 'Seppos' in Australian rhyming slang) that won the war and if it wasn't for them and them alone the Nazi's would have long ago walked across the face of the planet and I would be ending this with a Sieg Heil!

That sounds about right.

SATAN_23rd
04-16-2006, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
As a coherent narrative, the 'Thin Red Line' dissapointed a lot of people, most of which were expecting another 'Saving Private Ryan' only set in the Pacific.

As a thematic and cinemagraphic piece it was outstanding. Malik didn't scream his message across like Spielberg did. Instead it quietly posed lots of questions. The duality of man and nature the conflict inherent in both, cycles of death and rebirth, the motivations of men at war. It emphasises that everyone has their own pont of view, that nothing in war, or life, is ever as simple or black and white as we would like it, or see it. The Japanese aren't portrayed as evil, but they are treated with a terseness that leads to the point of dehumanisation. Something similar could be said of the US soliders, each is treated more as a point of contact with the overarching story than a reference for the narrative.

Where did you copy and paste that from?

SATAN_23rd
04-16-2006, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Sorry to sound like a barbarian, but Thin Red Line bored the heck out of me. It seemed to me to be trying to be too clever in an esotetirical kind of way. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

And I`m, the kinda guy who`s happy to watched subtitled french and Chinese/Japanese movies too!

maybe, if you could spell esoterical, you would have gotten it...