The Official True Story of World War II

[denishc]

That is because Japan is a major trading partner

 Or is it that Sony owns a major motion picture studio?  The conspiracy theories abound!

[Bombardier101]

I didn't mind U-571. But I just wish I could get Das Boot on DVD!

[Scorpiоn]

This just goes to show the greatness of Simviation.  I was initially reluctant to post this for fear of those disputes that result when people are convinced their opinion is right, but alas Simviation, at its core, is the same as the day I joined it. Moving on...

I often find myself in a paradox regaurding movies.  The older films have some horrendous visuals, poor audio than often leave me on the brink of dozing, but all the new films are pure, empty gild delivered in 5.1! The best war movie I've seen actually isn't World War II.  A Korean made war movie about the... erm... Korean War: Tae Guk Gi.  While there are some things about it that stick out, it plays off in the end very nicely.  It far surpasses Band of Brothers as my favorite on screen experience.  I generally frown on love/action stories, but somehow I don't think the love story in Tae Guk Gi counts.  I bought the Das Boot DVD, but I've never watched it.  It's kind of hard to find a solid six hours open between work, sleep and play.

I personally am not bothered by the violence in movies.  If it can be excluded, then it very well should be, but it's only a problem when it's used in place of a good, hard-hitting story, which it usually is nowadays.  Movies just don't seem to combine the best of all worlds.  Good script, realistic, factual, believable, good acting, impressive presentation.  Looking at some of the older films, I'm sure in their day, they delivered all of those, but for those in my generation, the effects are just too dated.  Of course when I write this, I remember films like a Bridge Too Far, which I just didn't care for too much, but when I remember Patton, I'm forced to eat my words a bit.

Also, I must give special thanks to Hagar, because after reading the gargantuan and ginormous Barbarossa, I've felt a special craving to know the happenings of the Sino-Japanese conflict, American Island Hopping, and the British in Indochina.  I shall now engage in the rare act of giving Barnes and Noble my money.  Despite my hate of school and academic things, I miss reading a good book. 'Tis been a few months.

The Pacific War: World War II and the Japanese, 1931-1945 by Saburo Ienaga

[Hagar]

I must give special thanks to Hagar, because ......

....... I shall now engage in the rare act of giving Barnes and Noble my money.

Glad I could help. Maybe I should work on commission.

[ATI_7500]

Speaking of movies again, how would you guys rate 'Deep Blue World' ?
And I'm asking for a neutral point of view, not the one from a Spit or love story lover.


P.S: I've seen BoB on DVD for 10

[ozzy72]

I still have yet to see Dark Blue World........

[Hagar]

I still have yet to see Dark Blue World........

Ah, that explains why I couldn't find it. Never heard of it before but from the reviews I've seen it looks worth watching.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000648X2/103-9576535-0494234?v=glance

[Smoke2much]

My second favourite war movie of all time is Stalingrad, the German one in which everyone dies.  Bloody awsome movie.  Sarah refused to watch it and had a bath as I recall.

My favourit movie is Waterloo, the Dino de Laurentis version from 1973.  It's historically pants but a great spectacle.

Will

[Bombardier101]

I think you're missing the point Bomber old chap.

Yes I am. I'm just being up myself, that's all.

Except the point that the gunners were destroying at least 2183248956 german aircraft in that movie.  
Unrealistic.

I want to know why you think that Heretic. I really do.


Many Australians did die in Bomber Command. I once spoke to a veteran (Ron Elms if anyone wants to know) and asked him whether he knew someone who'd seen someone shot down by a German nightfighter after I asked him if he'd seen anyone downed, and he said that the guy who'd seen someone downed saw the guy go down close to base and that the Germans would stalk the bombers back near their bases and shoot them down when they were getting near landing time. The Japs are still one bit sneekier (Sydney Harbour )

[TacitBlue]

I find that the best way to learn about history is to read autobiographys of people who were there. I learned a lot from Bob Hoovers book, even though WWII only takes up a small portion of it. For example, I didn't know that the US flew Spitfires. I keep meaning to research that and find out more, but I never think of it when I'm... on line... be right back.

[Hagar]

I find that the best way to learn about history is to read autobiographys of people who were there. I learned a lot from Bob Hoovers book, even though WWII only takes up a small portion of it. For example, I didn't know that the US flew Spitfires. I keep meaning to research that and find out more, but I never think of it when I'm... on line... be right back.

I couldn't agree more. Bob Hoover is one of my heroes although I never saw him perform in real life. Too late now as I believe he's retired.

From memory, many American pilots volunteered for the RAF before the US was involved in WWII. Some flew during the BoB & obviously flew RAF types like the Hurricane & Spitfire. The Americans were posted to their own units which were known as the Eagle Squadrons. When the US officially became involved they were given the choice of remaining with the RAF or transferring to US units. These were equipped with Spitfires until they had their own aircraft.

PS. http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/es.html

[TacitBlue]

Very interesting. Thanks for the link Doug.

[ATI_7500]

I want to know why you think that Heretic. I really do.

Gunners always greatly exaggerated the number of enemy planes they claimed to have destroyed. This is actually okay for them, since no one can determine who of the many gunners targeting an enemy fighter finally destroyed it. But the numbers are crap for historical documents.
You always get the most accurate numbers about victories from the other side.
For example, B-17 gunners usually claimed more than 150 vicories over german fighters per sortie, whereas the german lists only stated between 25 and 40 fighters lost.

[H]

Gunners always greatly exaggerated the number of enemy planes they claimed to have destroyed. This is actually okay for them, since no one can determine who of the many gunners targeting an enemy fighter finally destroyed it. But the numbers are crap for historical documents.
You always get the most accurate numbers about victories from the other side.
For example, B-17 gunners usually claimed more than 150 vicories over german fighters per sortie, whereas the german lists only stated between 25 and 40 fighters lost.

Don't get nervous, Heretic -- just a bit of back up:
As an example, much controversy ensued with who actually shot down M.vonRichthofen. Bullets flew at him from Brown's Sopwith and ground gunners, as well. When you have an innumerable amount of gunners shooting at the same target from different postions at the same time (as in bomber formations), each will see the target go down and think it's his kill [often it was a shared kill due to accumulative damage]. In the fury of battle, it's unlikely that serial numbers are going to be noted so the same kill gets a multiple claim.

[Scorpiоn]

Beating the dead horse again.

Just today, a(n online) BBC story:

Countries around Asia are honouring their dead and calling for peace, as they mark the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II in the Pacific.

They must add, in the Pacific.  They seem to have left out "in Europe" when talking of VE Day so many times several months ago.

This coverage is a footnote when compared to VE day, which I'm sure many of you will remember, as there was all sorts of non-stop hooh-hah about it.  You might also remember, it was hailed as the anniversary of the end of World War II.  Period.  Only sometimes it would be mentioned that it was in fact the anniversary of VE Day.  I still contest that World War II began not in 1939, but in 1931.

It may seem silly to some, but it bothers me to no end.  Maybe I should shut up and go back in my box.