Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
NEW DAMBUSTERS FILM
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Tuesday, 20th December 2005
Recently an american film director purchasewd the film rights to the incredible film and legacy THE DAMBUSTERS.
One problem- he's american so who here thinks they'll try and make out it was their actions, planes, ideas and general brave actions that stopped hitler squishing poor defencless britain?
THEY STEAL OUR HERITAGE AND SACRIFICES AND TURN IT INTO THEIR 'OWN BRAVERY' STORIES.
we ne er get mentioned either.
p.s. no disrispect I have strong feelings here. -
Message 2
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 20th December 2005
With Mel Gibson playing some anti British squadron Leader who thinks the Germans are really nice but misunderstood people who did not want to go to war, but had it forced on them by Churchill. Hang on, The Americans can't do the bombing There was an old W. W. 2 saying. "When the Germans came over, The Allies ducked. When the RAF came over, the Germans ducked. When the Yanks came over, every body ducked.
-
Message 3
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Tuesday, 20th December 2005
I never knew the Yanks were into tradition. After all these years, they still like making everyone duck.
-
Message 4
Posted by STUDDLY (U2798535) on Tuesday, 20th December 2005
unfriendly fire there LORD LOL
-
Message 5
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 20th December 2005
Henson,
I don't get it ? They bounce some bombs into a couple of dams? Thats the movie ? What will they call Guy Gibsons dog? Mel!! Will there be loads of scenes with women and kids drowning ?
or just the evil nazis on the dam.
Cant wait.
Cheerz. -
Message 6
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 20th December 2005
On 4 June 1944, hunter-killer group 22.3 of the United States Navy captured the German submarine U-505. This event marked the first time a U.S. Navy vessel had captured an enemy vessel at sea since the nineteenth century. The action took place in the Atlantic Ocean, in Latitude 21-30N, Longitude 19-20W, about 150 miles off the coast of Rio De Oro, Africa. The American force was commanded by Captain Daniel V. Gallery, USN
-
Message 7
Posted by STUDDLY (U2798535) on Tuesday, 20th December 2005
And, WTF has that to do with the Dam Busters
-
Message 8
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
It was a ref to the infamous U-571, which allegedly got the Enigma in 1942.
I am glad to see that nothing seems to have come of Tom Cruise's plan for a remake of the Battle of Britain won by a bunch of Planks.
There is somethig rather sad about a nation, which has to take others' tales of heroism and ingenuity. -
Message 9
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 10
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
I doubt very much if Guy Gibson's dog will be called the N-word )which if used leads to your post receiving a "This message has been blocked as it contains a word which other users may find offensive. Please edit your message and post it again") in the film (will the evil zionist movie moghuls in Hollywood really push the boat out and have him called Mohammed?). I would imagine that we will be treated to lots of "evil nazis on the dam" receiving their comeuppance. The likelihood of seeing drowning women and children is not high: how often are we treated to images of maimed Afghan children on Fox News? Nobody likes collateral damage. Does any of the above make it a good or bad movie? Probably not: plenty of nice special effects; a completely unneccessary love story (what's wrong with one man and his dog anyway, Phil Drabble was well respected afterall), a little bit of a furore in the super soaraway Sun and a few "America has no history"/"Britain is shit, and you know you are!" rants on here by people who a)should know better, b)will never know better or, most likely, c) were probably bullied at school or who, British or American, are unlikely to have ever achieved anything of note.
Is Hollywood really re-writing History? Heaven forbid! That's what has been done since Herodotus started the ball rolling (if we allow him his epithet of 'Father of History'), that's what people on here do all the time. History and the past are very different things; dare one suggest that there is no such thing as 'history' just 'histories'. If Hollywood makes a new 'Dambusters' movie and gives and tweaks the truth a tad, so what. The movie will be aimed primarily at an American audience, not British, they want to make money. 'The Seven Samurai' was a 'better' movie than 'The Magnificent Seven', but which one would most people choose to watch if they were in the mood for a bit of mindless escapism? If there was an irony in Hollywood, we would get a remake of 'Lawrence of Arabia'. The day will surely come when the Chinese control the world and start remaking moveis like 'How The West Was Won' or 'The Halls of Montezuma' and the belly-aching will start all over again, albeit in a different geographical location. Remember America might be the nation the inflicted Scrappy Doo on the world, but it also gave the world Colonel Wilma Deering. -
Message 11
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
I find Hollywood's rewriting of history strange as it treats there own citizens as idiots and is totally unneccessary as they have a wealth of real life history they can make films about.
I used to get indignant about it, but at its root was an overdeveloped desire for my country to be liked by people abroad and that's daft because when I meet a foreigner who's very fond of the UK and its history/culture I get embarrassed and think of the many crap things in both.
Now I see the funny side of U-571 (never watched it of course)and similar, what else can you do.
And you can't beat that Carling BlacK Label ad. -
Message 12
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
Let me help you guys out. Not you Dave, you're a hopeless case. If you want History, read a History book. If you want entertainment, watch a movie. If you can't tell the difference between the two, you're a cretin anyway. I know ya'll had a little hissy fit because Hollywood made a movie about the U.S. capturing a U Boat. My post was to let you see it actually happened, just as the Royal Navy did also. I hate to pop your bubble but enigma was a gift from Poland. It's not a British solution or American. It’s a Polish accomplishment. Brits and Americans only improved and kept it up to date at Bletchly (sp.) Park. None of the above takes away any fun the RAF bomber command had killing German civilians all through the war, which was after all their main accomplishment. It took real men to fly in daylight, go for military and industrial targets, and fight the Luftwaffe head on. Now lets have a communal break dance then bring it on.
Cheerz. -
Message 13
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
"It took real men to fly in daylight, go for military and industrial targets, and fight the Luftwaffe head on."
Three cheers for expat32!! -
Message 14
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
You're right about the major role the Poles played in cracking enigma, when there was a British made film about Enigma the Poles got no credit for that. It wouldn't have fitted in with the film as it didn't detail that early period, however it would have been a nice touch.
Anyway expat, it wasn't really civvies getting killed when the dams burst but foreign slaves.
So there (my compliments on the trolling
) -
Message 15
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
Anyway expat, it wasn't really civvies getting killed when the dams burst but foreign slaves.
Ìý
And you accuse me of trolling? -
Message 16
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
Anyway expat, it wasn't really civvies getting killed when the dams burst but foreign slaves.
Ìý
And you accuse me of trolling?Ìý
I'm just being pedantic. -
Message 17
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
It was a ref to the infamous U-571, which allegedly got the Enigma in 1942.
I am glad to see that nothing seems to have come of Tom Cruise's plan for a remake of the Battle of Britain won by a bunch of Planks.
There is somethig rather sad about a nation, which has to take others' tales of heroism and ingenuity. Ìý
Since there were Americans flying for the RAF, why shouldn't Americans make a film about them? I trust you'll be equally voiciferous in harranguing the Czechs for making the film "Dark Blue World" solely about Czech pilots in the RAF.
The US navy did capture U505 and a new experimental version of Enigma which did help the code breakers. Again, why shouldn't the Americans make a film about it?
But what really annoys me is that those who complain loudest about Americans "stealing" our history for U571 rarely give the Poles any credit for their part in the code breaking. Pots, kettles and black spring to mind. -
Message 18
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
Recently an american film director purchasewd the film rights to the incredible film and legacy THE DAMBUSTERS.
One problem- he's american so who here thinks they'll try and make out it was their actions, planes, ideas and general brave actions that stopped hitler squishing poor defencless britain?
THEY STEAL OUR HERITAGE AND SACRIFICES AND TURN IT INTO THEIR 'OWN BRAVERY' STORIES.
we ne er get mentioned either.
p.s. no disrispect I have strong feelings here.Ìý
I don't see how the US version can be any worse thahn the original, which made out that the raid was a glorious success (which it wasn't) and totally ignored the innocent victims (ie East European slave workers) -
Message 19
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
I just did an interweb search and it would appear that the rights have been bought by the broadcaster David Frost not some Pseudo Mel Gibson.
A bit of trivia: one of my Dad's teachers was shot down on the dambusters raid and badly injured. He had a big steel plate in his forehead that the German doctors put in. Wish I knew more about that. -
Message 20
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
"It took real men to fly in daylight, go for military and industrial targets, and fight the Luftwaffe head on."
Three cheers for expat32!!
Ìý
Yeah, we tried that at the beginning of the war but realised that without the luxury of long range fighter escort (which you had) it was near suicidal. -
Message 21
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
Completely off the track, it took the Russians AGES to realise that the Mosquito was right all along - for a bomber speed is the best defence, guns are practically useless against determined fighter attack. I think the russians still were putting rear gunners on thier bombers in the late 60s.....
-
Message 22
Posted by STUDDLY (U2798535) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
AMERICANS, They are always right, its just the rest of the world who are wrong.
Let um get on with it, because they do whatever they want anyway. -
Message 23
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
"It took real men to fly in daylight, go for military and industrial targets, and fight the Luftwaffe head on."
Three cheers for expat32!!
Ìý
Yeah, we tried that at the beginning of the war but realised that without the luxury of long range fighter escort (which you had) it was near suicidal.Ìý
The first 8th AF attack with its own planes was to come on 17th August 1942
P-51 Mustang
Role Air superiority, bomber escort
Crew 1
First flight 1941
Entered service December 1943
Manufacturer North American
Numbers were available when the 8th and 9th Air Forces had re-grouped over the winter of 1943/44, and when the raids recommenced in February 1944 things changed dramatically.
August 1942 thru February 1944 USAAF bomber command was without fighter escort. Despite horrendous losses they were never turned back by the Luftwaffe.
Cheers. -
Message 24
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
I wonder if the US day bombing would EVER have been stopped by losses though, or could they not afford the loss of face????? Also the so-called "pickle barrel" bombers never really did get that accurate, for various reasons. Read "Ruin from the Air" - its about the Bomb and the 509th it has a nice little bit on bomb aiming and accuracy.
One thing for sure though - until late in the war Bomber Command (excepting the Pathfinders) was pretty innaccurate, no I would go further and say a lot of the times they were not within 10 miles of the target.
Have a look at "The Most Secret War" by R.V. Jones if you can get it. Its a wonderful book on scientifuc intelligence, has a fair bit to say about Bomber Command. -
Message 25
Posted by wyn8126 (U2577714) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
P 51 Mustang, wonderful plane, powered by Merlin engine.....
Why don't you all stop bickering and taking shots at each other!
To both sides: stop trying to wind each other up by slamming achievements of great bravery!
There are much better things to discuss on this board. "It took real men to fly in daylight, go for military and industrial targets, and fight the Luftwaffe head on."
Three cheers for expat32!!
Ìý
Yeah, we tried that at the beginning of the war but realised that without the luxury of long range fighter escort (which you had) it was near suicidal.Ìý
The first 8th AF attack with its own planes was to come on 17th August 1942
P-51 Mustang
Role Air superiority, bomber escort
Crew 1
First flight 1941
Entered service December 1943
Manufacturer North American
Numbers were available when the 8th and 9th Air Forces had re-grouped over the winter of 1943/44, and when the raids recommenced in February 1944 things changed dramatically.
August 1942 thru February 1944 USAAF bomber command was without fighter escort. Despite horrendous losses they were never turned back by the Luftwaffe.
Cheers.
Ìý -
Message 26
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
Hi wyn8126,
We are not bickering. We are getting the record straight. This thread was started by someone who never knew what he was talking about. These things surly can be debated in a heated manner. The thread statement started WITH CAPITALS BECAUSE THE GUY FELT VERY STRONGLY ABOUT FALSE FACTS HE WAS POSTING. I'm sure he has been subsequently educated. Those Rolls Royce engines were really something huh?
Cheerz. -
Message 27
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
In the film, Battle of Britain. The German 109s (Spanish Airforce) were powered by R. R. Merlin engines. Re daylight bombing all sides used it, and got shot to bits. The British tried it with Wellintons, and later over France with Battles The germans came next, during the Battle of Britain then the 8th Airforce It took brave men to do that. I true tale One of my ex mayors was Lancaster crew. He did his tour, in 1945, then as he had his bags packed dumped his gear, and left the station just in time to grab his train. The rest of the crew hung about for a few hours, only to find all tours had been extended. They flew that night and got the chop.
Fred -
Message 28
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
". It took real men to fly in daylight, go for military and industrial targets, and fight the Luftwaffe head on" - yes, of course, here we have the typical US approach! They went in aircraft tooled up like Rambo and still lost large numbers of them. If your resources are very extensive, I suppsoe this is okay, but most would deem it rather stupid. If you have a better and more effective option, then you should use that, especially where lives are at stake. Fact: 2/3 of the ordnance dropped on Germany was carried there by Lancasters - erm, because they had double the load of any US plane! Of course, they will forget that one too.
Expat may be a more intelligent inhabitant of the US, but given that over 50% think Creationism should be taught in schools and voted for Dubya, it might just be worth bearing in mind that the average Plank thinks that Hollywood or indeed the printed word is correct. -
Message 29
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
". It took real men to fly in daylight, go for military and industrial targets, and fight the Luftwaffe head on" - yes, of course, here we have the typical US approach! They went in aircraft tooled up like Rambo and still lost large numbers of them. If your resources are very extensive, I suppsoe this is okay, but most would deem it rather stupid. If you have a better and more effective option, then you should use that, especially where lives are at stake.Ìý
I try to ignore this guy, but he gives me so much material to work with, sometimes I just can't help myself. Right on Dave, we should have sent in our bombers unarmed. Bomber Harris had it all in one bag, they keep shooting at our bombers, so lets bomb at night. If the RAF only bombs German cities, we can hardly miss. Of course the fact that the targets were non combatants is their tough luck.
Fact: 2/3 of the ordnance dropped on Germany was carried there by Lancasters - erm, because they had double the load of any US plane! Of course, they will forget that one too.Ìý
Fact: 2/3 of the ordnance dropped on Germany was carried there by Lancasters. What a pity it was dropped on women and kids.
Expat may be a more intelligent inhabitant of the US, but given that over 50% think Creationism should be taught in schools and voted for Dubya, it might just be worth bearing in mind that the average Plank thinks that Hollywood or indeed the printed word is correct. Ìý
Why DaveMBA finds it necessary to close his anti American rants with a selection of his usual collection of nonsense can only be attributed to his insecurities and feelings of inferiority when confronted with anything American. -
Message 30
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
Lets stop the bickering and close off this discussion - it's going to nasty places fast.
-
Message 31
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
Please note, if it is going to get nasty, I am an expert at holding coats. LOL. May in suggest that people take the time to read the names of the dead on their local war memorials, and they ages. Then look up how many aircrew of all sides have no known grave.
-
Message 32
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
". It took real men to fly in daylight, go for military and industrial targets, and fight the Luftwaffe head on" - yes, of course, here we have the typical US approach! They went in aircraft tooled up like Rambo and still lost large numbers of them. If your resources are very extensive, I suppsoe this is okay, but most would deem it rather stupid. If you have a better and more effective option, then you should use that, especially where lives are at stake.Ìý
I try to ignore this guy, but he gives me so much material to work with, sometimes I just can't help myself. Right on Dave, we should have sent in our bombers unarmed. Bomber Harris had it all in one bag, they keep shooting at our bombers, so lets bomb at night. If the RAF only bombs German cities, we can hardly miss. Of course the fact that the targets were non combatants is their tough luck.
Fact: 2/3 of the ordnance dropped on Germany was carried there by Lancasters - erm, because they had double the load of any US plane! Of course, they will forget that one too.Ìý
Fact: 2/3 of the ordnance dropped on Germany was carried there by Lancasters. What a pity it was dropped on women and kids.
Expat may be a more intelligent inhabitant of the US, but given that over 50% think Creationism should be taught in schools and voted for Dubya, it might just be worth bearing in mind that the average Plank thinks that Hollywood or indeed the printed word is correct. Ìý
Why DaveMBA finds it necessary to close his anti American rants with a selection of his usual collection of nonsense can only be attributed to his insecurities and feelings of inferiority when confronted with anything American.Ìý
Well, expat, to be quite honest I do admire the way that you feel about the bombing of Germany. Yes, women and children died in the raids, just like they died in the bombing raids on London, Liverpool, Coventry, Portsmouth and every other major city in the UK. It was the way war was fought in those days. Strategic bombing was new and unrefined. If the lessons of Strategic bombing had not been learned in WWII, imagine the devastation that could be wrought with modern weaponry of today. The bombing of Germany was a necessary evil. -
Message 33
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
Dave's anti-americanism does seem to be blinding him rather. Surveys of intelligence and general knowledge in British people don't show many more signs of intelligence than that which Dave criticizes in Americans. I'm still waiting for him to lambast Czech film makers for stealing British history in "Dark Blue World", though I could be waiting a long time since his agenda seems to be to denigrate Americans.
Back to the history:
It did take a lot of bravery for US crews to fly in daylight. The losses among British crews at night was bad, but the USAF took 50% casualties. But flying in daylight was also necessary for the targetting of specific points which was the US style of bombing. Brits could bomb at night because our tactic was one of area bombing where it mattered little if the bombs fell on homes or factories. Of course, we could claim that Britain lacked the targetting equipment that was standard on US planes and wasn't that effective anyway, so area bombing was pretty much the only option open to us. But regardless of equipment, Harris was completely wedded to the idea that he could bomb Germany into submission by killing civilians and destroying the country's will to fight.
The tactic of area bombing may have been popular in 1935 when governments planned to minimize their own casualties at the expense of the enemy. Remember that most of the soldiers were conscripted civilians - shouldn't the UK government have had more of a duty to protect them than to protect German civilians? However, by 1943 it became pretty obvious to everone bar Harris that area bombing didn't work. Drop enough bombs and you might accidentally destroy an important factory, or divert anti-aircraft resources from the front line, but it couldn't win a war. What's more, the morality of it was seriously questionable, even at the time. That's why no campaign medal was awarded. -
Message 34
Posted by wyn8126 (U2577714) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
Just persuade Expat32 that he is just as rude about the Brits as those he criticises for similar unwanted comments about our best allies, the Yanks.
All this behaviour takes the fun out of the board. Lets stop the bickering and close off this discussion - it's going to nasty places fast. Ìý -
Message 35
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
Well, expat, to be quite honest I do admire the way that you feel about the bombing of Germany. Yes, women and children died in the raids, just like they died in the bombing raids on London, Liverpool, Coventry, Portsmouth and every other major city in the UK. It was the way war was fought in those days. Strategic bombing was new and unrefined. If the lessons of Strategic bombing had not been learned in WWII, imagine the devastation that could be wrought with modern weaponry of today. The bombing of Germany was a necessary evil.Ìý
You have no idea at all how I feel about the bombing of Germany. You have entirely missed the points Dave and I were debating. The RAF bombed German cities because that is all they could hit during the hours of darkness. They would not fly bombers during the day. It's not a moral issue it's a tactical issue. The USAAF flattened Japanese cities. As for the British cities you mentioned you better be happy that they were bombed. It was a lost German pilot that mistakenly bombed London that caused Churchill to retaliate and bomb Berlin, to which the German response was the bombing of London. Therein taking the pressure from the RAF airfields during the Battle of Britain, and giving them a respite to recover. I find it incredible that you mention what the Nazis did to English cities as a moral benchmark for British conduct. In my wildest outburst I would not dream of comparing British morals and character with that of the Nazis. -
Message 36
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
Hi wyn8126,
You see, I finished up saying something nice at the end of my post. Must be the Christmas spirit I guess -
Message 37
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
No, but the thinking of the time was that seeing that they bombed us we should bomb them expat. That was Churchill's response when London was bombed. They bomb our capital, we bomb theirs.
-
Message 38
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
My home town of Bootle North of Liverpool) was the most heavly bombed place per head in England. 85% of the housing stock and factories damaged or destroyed. I am writing it into my fictonal book. I can remember as a boy walking up and down the streets, and I cannot remember one street that did not have damage. The Germans started the Terror bombing in Spain then Poland. That is not an excuse, that is a fact. Remember, the planes did not have the sights of todays aircraft. In Boorle, they were after the docks, but anywhere within a couple of miles, with a big river to guide them was close enough. One fault was to aim at the fire, which caused the bombs to drop astern of the fire. so along came the next one who did the same, and the damage spread. If the whole of the Lancaster/Flying Fortress Fleets had been replaced with D. H. Mosquitos, one the loss of life in aircrew would have been greatly reduced, and the loss of life on the ground to would have been lower, and the Mosquito carried a greater bomb load than the F F B 17
-
Message 39
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
No, but the thinking of the time was that seeing that they bombed us we should bomb them expat. That was Churchill's response when London was bombed. They bomb our capital, we bomb theirs.Ìý
Stalin called Britain cowards, saying his Western Allies had left Russia to her fate. Churchill went to visit Uncle Joe in August 1942. Stalin chided Churchill about the 'gutless' British surrendered at Tobruk compared to the heroic defence of Sebastopol. Stalin asked about a second front being opened up.
Churchill explained Britain and USA lacked the trained manpower and shipping, particulary in landing craft in 1942. Stalin was not impressed. Until Churchill told him what he could do:
Operation Torch
and the heavy bombing of German cities.
The heavy bombing of Germany particulary appealed to Stalin and it was this meeting that gave the political impetus to Bomber command begining offensive operations. For the moment this constituted the 'second front'.
The early bombing of Germany demonstated all the limitations of Bomber Command. Daylight raids were soon abandoned once almost it was realised that often the entire offensive fleets were shot down or damaged. The offensive operations were continued because their was no other way for Britain to demonstate her commitment to the second front.
For the record, this stratagy, and its improved refinements and enhancements was well well in place before 'Bomber' Harris assumed command. -
Message 40
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Tuesday, 27th December 2005
Going back to the original point, I was amused to see the US reaction to the new film "Brokenback Mountain" about gay cowboys. They don't seem to like a dose of their own medicine!
To those, who know the spoof German film "The Shoe of Manitou", it's "Abahache, mein Bruder!". -
Message 41
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 27th December 2005
Reminds me of the old (And I am sorry for this) joke of the Gay cowboy who rode into town and shot up the sherif. Yes, I do deserve to be drummed out the group. To have my sword broken, and my buttons sliced off. So what T. V. series was that from???
-
Message 42
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Tuesday, 27th December 2005
One of the problems about the Americnas remaking war films with themselves as achieving anything that any one else achieved (eg Enigma etc), is that, alas, British school children believe the film version, not the historical version.
OK, both 'sources' can be criticised as 'propaganda' but it still seems a shame that we are growing a generation that simply believes Hollywood.
Eliza. -
Message 43
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
Surely the problem with schoolchildren believing the film version has more to do with the failure of their schools to teach them (something more like) the truth than a cause for criticisng the film version?
Unless a film claims to be telling "the truth" (not certain we can ever know THE truth, though), you just have to accept that, just as teachers deliberately lie to their pupils, film makers lie to their audiences - even if the latter do it for baser reasons than the former. -
Message 44
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
-
Message 45
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
Hi wyn8126,
We are not bickering. We are getting the record straight. This thread was started by someone who never knew what he was talking about. These things surly can be debated in a heated manner. The thread statement started WITH CAPITALS BECAUSE THE GUY FELT VERY STRONGLY ABOUT FALSE FACTS HE WAS POSTING. I'm sure he has been subsequently educated. Those Rolls Royce engines were really something huh?
Cheerz.Ìý
Boo hiss the evil RAF for their acts of evil like killing 200,000000000 Dresdeners as you claimed the other week. Presumably you have been subsequently educated. P.S The USAF also took part in the Dresden raid although some of them managed to bomb Prague by mistake...whoops! I blame the Brits for fooling the heroic yanks into taking part in the raid. Anyway, lets all hail the americans for coming to our rescue.Even though Germany declared war on the US. And that the USSR would probably have at the very least fought the Germans to a standstill on their own. -
Message 46
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
<quote user='expat32' userid='2025313'I try to ignore this guy, but he gives me so much material to work with, sometimes I just can't help myself. Right on Dave, we should have sent in our bombers unarmed. Bomber Harris had it all in one bag, they keep shooting at our bombers, so lets bomb at night. If the RAF only bombs German cities, we can hardly miss. Of course the fact that the targets were non combatants is their tough luck.
Fact: 2/3 of the ordnance dropped on Germany was carried there by Lancasters. What a pity it was dropped on women and kids.
</quote>
A bit like the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki then eh? I actually think that the bombing of these cities can be justified but it always makes me laugh when you try to claim that the Americans fought a whiter than white war unlike those dastardly Brits. -
Message 47
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
Surely the problem with schoolchildren believing the film version has more to do with the failure of their schools to teach them (something more like) the truth than a cause for criticisng the film version?
Unless a film claims to be telling "the truth" (not certain we can ever know THE truth, though), you just have to accept that, just as teachers deliberately lie to their pupils, film makers lie to their audiences - even if the latter do it for baser reasons than the former.Ìý
Completely right. It's entirely up to us to ensure that children know their own history. It's essential to know history - or else we get doomed to repeat it.
Do you think teachers deliberately lie, per se, or just follow their own agenda/assumptions/prejudices?? I don't really know enough about current history teaching - so far mine have done a fairly standard 'trot through' from Celts to Tudors (sort of full circle, really!). The only contentious subject was the Aztecs at primary school - the teaching didn't seem to include pointing out that the Aztecs were the Nazis of Precolumbian America!
Eliza. -
Message 48
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
There was a recent report about History education being focused on Hitler and the Nazis and the Tudors. I agree that it seems to be focused on the Tudors as I have studied them 3 times in my education (Key Stage 2, Key Stage 3 and A-level). However, the GCSE course focused on the Second World War for about 2 weeks with the rest being devoted to Germany in the 20s + 30s and America in the same period, plus the early Cold War years. Surely, the Second World War being the greatest time of upheaval in the world's history, more time should be devoted to that war. World War I was hardly covered at all except the Battle of the Somme, which was only covered for Coursework benefits. Also, we studied the British Empire in KS3 for 1 week. The rest was mainly focused on the Industrial Revolution, but no mention of Britain's expanision was made during this. Our teacher pointed out that when he was a child, he was taught about the Empire for a whole year and it was more than a little obvious that he thought that it should still be the same.
-
Message 49
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Friday, 30th December 2005
To be completely honest, I'm not sure how far the "liars to children" tag applies to history. Certainly the degree of simplification comes close to the lie direct, but perhaps doesn't reach it. It's in science where some mechanisms are so complex that teachers really have no option - they aren't summarising or simplifying, they are deliberately (and necessarily) lying. Perhaps because history is about the fastest-changing subject (more accurately, our knowledge and perceptions rather than the history), it's less subject to that temptation.
-
Message 50
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
Someone said its our fault (the brits). We bombed the dams to stop them making weapons to use against us in a war they started. If we didn't we might as well bomb our own men and make it easier for them.
Yes some one else I started the topic WITH CAPITALS cause its a very very big miscarrage of JUSTICE.
When was the last time we, the Brits made a totally innaccurate historical film about America and inserting ourselves there instead of them? eh?
hmm... NEVER.
We fought.
We died.
We should be thanked for our heroism.
THEY TAKE THE CREDIT AND NEVER SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT BEING TOTALLY FALSE!
I said i had strong feelings. Sorry its just my view.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.