You know my Motto!..I have had it on my signature for years and it speaks for itself! Right on Brother!
yeah it’s pretty silly, where in Norway where you?
On a deployment with the Ace Mobile forces in March,1974, we landed in or around Bardufoss . Aside from spending time in Narvik, we were mostly in the woods, or on the road.
woooah, awesome! what kinda vehicles did you drive?
My little group had an M-151 Jeep, we were separate from the rest of the AMF contingents. British M.I., and our M.I. scouted around to determine likely avenues of approach the Rampaging Soviet Hoards might use if they ever got itchy feet, and decided to come visit you. Other parts of the AMF had their own vehicles from whatever Country they came from. The AMF was comprised of some NATO member Nations and was a rapid deployment force whose purpose was to meet, and delay any soviet incursion into Countries sharing a Border with them. This until regular forces would arrive to do the heavy lifting.
Ah, yes, a well tried and brilliantly implemented strategy / large scale tactic of putting forward insufficient forces to little purpose apart from the humiliation and suffering of defeat, as in the Philippines with USN and Malaya/Singapore with RN in December 1941/ first few months of 1942. :rolleyes:
You’re lucky it was only an exercise.
Well, the small force was intended to get there quickly to determine if the Warsaw Pact was serious, or just fishing for an easy gain. If it were to be an actual situation with a concerted invasion, then the question would have been when, and where to place the Tactical, and Theater Nuclear ordnance. Assessments of the conditions allowing for, or requiring deployment of Nuclear weapons comprised about a third of the communique’s that passed through our tent in the woods. Yes, it was just an exercise, not real World. (thankfully). It would not surprise me though to learn that some of that old stuff was being reviewed in the event things go really sour over there in the near future.
My troop in the 1980’s was given a lovely motivating talk about our role and how important it was - We were the covering force for BAOR.
Within 24hrs we were expected to have 90% casualties - we would not be coming back as the Warsaw Pact plans were to drop an Airborne Division behind us - our job was to slow down the ground troops by route denial and demolitions for 24 hrs while the main force was positioned - even in training many of our bridge demolitions were targeted by Lance missiles “in case”.
That’s got to be right at the top of morale boosting talks. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Then again, the command to the Sutherland Highlanders at Balaclava “There is no retreat from here, men. You must die where you stand.” produced a stout and successful defence.
Conversely, Churchill’s ‘die where you stand’ order to the commander in the dying days of the Singapore defence was rather less inspirational, but at least Churchill had the charity to allow a surrender when it was clear that further resistance was futile.
It’s a shame, because they had Adam Tooze on for like a minute, then a bunch of politicians and ret. generals that really don’t know much more than the typical comic book narrative of history. I mean they had Cheney and Powell on, and Stanley McChrystal babbling incoherently about how the Germans had a new for of warfare in Blitzkrieg (even though they had no such strategy or operational doctrine until after the Fall of France)… :rolleyes:
It’s more than a shame. History is owned by A&E, which is in turn owned by Disney and Hearst. So it’s not like they’re lacking the resources or expertise to do the job properly. Since they fail to do so, it’s reasonable to wonder if they’re careless, incompetent, or just don’t give a damn. When they misstate facts and events that are easy to state correctly, that’s unforgiveable.
Most company websites include things such as statements of their corporate mission. If A&E or History do, I couldn’t find it on their websites. I did go to History’s facebook page, and read their “About” statement. Interestingly, no where in the statement does “accurate” or a similar word appear. They do claim their programming’s “non-fiction” (!) but anyone age 10+ who’s seen Ancient Aliens knows what that’s worth. Tellingly, variations of “entertainment” appear in their “About” at least twice. But they also billed this particular show as a documentary (as opposed to a “docudrama” or whatever). By definition, that means it is supposed to be factual, NOT entertainment. And obviously, they don’t care. By deliberately or carelessly putting out misinformation (not to mention programs they KNOW are total BS), they are doing nothing but a public disservice, and leaving a viewer of ANY of their programs unsure what to believe or not. They’re out to make a buck off the wide-eyed innocents who aren’t smart enough or educated enough to realize they’re being suckered.
JMHO.
One particular detail that they misreported was in the first use by Germany of lethal gas in WW I The show indicated that Artillery was the delivery system, when it was just a massive release of gas from storage cylinders behind German lines fed through pipes into No-Man’s land. It had been necessary for Germany to wait until the wind conditions were favorable to carry the gas toward the Allied side. Sadly, it was more a docudrama than a serious work of History. After seeing German using British Rifles, as well as WW I German Soldiers using WW II German Rifles, I was just waiting for Giorgio A. Tsoukalos to come on and say it was Aliens all along.
…and ret. generals that really don’t know much more than the typical comic book narrative of history. I mean they had Cheney and Powell on, and Stanley McChrystal babbling incoherently…
Hi Nickdfresh – Guess I had to add this!
While I vouchsafe nothing in regards to Cheney, but regarding Powell and McChrystal, I would sooner guess they were victims of creative editing by History rather than assume their knowledge of WWII was really at a comic book level. To me, it suggests even greater guilt by History. But I certainly appreciate your sentiment! 
Paid appearances, and while having some latitude, are still responding to a formatted, if not scripted dialogue. The only plus in this sort of programming is that someone may become interested enough to actually read accurate accounts, and learn History. Sad to think that it takes a Graphic Novel format to appeal to viewers.
Agreed!
I know. I apologize again for jumping into discussions way too late. When I finished reading the comments in this discussion board, I still had a documentary that I had watched about the development of the four-engined B-17 and B-24 in my mind. I just finished readingThe Luftwaffe Diaries and I could not help but feel some sympathy for the Luftwaffe aviators who died knowing that their long-range bomber force could not return the strategic devastation of their enemies. I feel this sympathy, although I know what these Luftwaffe airmen did to my country when we were weak and helpless. It is ironic that I feel this way, 70 odd years later, such is life I guess.
The American Air Forces made a cognizant shift towards more aggressive, direct attacks on Luftwaffe aerodromes using long range fighters, which was in fact the final death-knell of organized Luftwaffe resistance. But I might add that I think strategic bombing was valuable if often misapplied and dispersed. Speer did move the weapons factories to an extent, but in the end it was the stifling of fuel and lubricants production that hindered the German war effort the most.
I have only glanced at Speer’s testimony at Nuremberg and what he told George Ball, Director of the United States’ Strategic Bombing Survey. Forgive me if I’m wrong but I think that the armament industry seemed to face what economists call the law of diminishing returns, as shortages of raw materials in the 1930s forced the Germans to produce more and more synthetic fuel, which in turn, yielded diminished marginal returns of ships, tanks, airplanes, etc. In my mind’s eye, I think of my former economics classes, where the teacher’s Production Possibility Curve on the board was bowed outward. I’d like to think that that might explain why Germany’s armament production was an anomaly that can’t serve to justify the need for strategic bombing when the entire production process would eventually, one day, run out of steam. In 1936, I believe that Naval officers started to discuss the acute shortage in iron ore, which of course, is crucial in the production of steel. Todt found a short-term solution but the problem resurfaced again in the same year. I can’t remember what solution Todt found to appease the Navy and the Army, who were fighting a vicious battle over resources. I imagine that someone somewhere knows that story better than I.
Someone else or others, and possibly including me, made the point earlier in this thread that the most important difference between the Allies and the Axis is that, certainly from 7 December 1941 onwards, the Allies pursued a coherent and cooperative strategy to achieve their mutual aims, and the Axis didn’t at any time from 1939 onwards while pursuing their own independent and unrelated aims.
Had the Axis powers pursued a similar strategy, Italy would not have diverted its substantial forces to North Africa and later Greece which in turn diverted German forces to North Africa and later Greece. Japan could have aimed its Pearl Harbor / South East Asia / Pacific forces at the southern end of Suez and the Persian Gulf to aid the German drive to the oilfields in that region, with no or negligible British Commonwealth land forces in North Africa and probably modest RN forces in the eastern Mediterranean and Arabian Sea.
There would have been a vast saving of Axis men, materiel, weapons and fuel which in practice was consumed in North African land campaigns and related sea and air operations. It would have allowed much greater German and Italian air and land forces to be applied against the USSR in Barbarossa at an earlier start time, which could well have defeated the USSR or forced it into a vastly worse position by the end of 1941 and avoided Stalingrad etc.
The critical issues, upon which I have no knowledge, are whether this combined strategy would have released sufficient oil to meet the needs of all the Axis forces and, so far as Japan was concerned, sufficient shipping to transport it.
The Allies also had a cohesive supply and equipment programme.
The US the main economic partner provided material at cost or lend lease to be paid later to all the allied nations, the latest versions in most cases to all
Compare that with Germany the main economic partner in the Axis forces who was constantly taking from its allies and the occupied countries to keep its own economy and production going, the majority of equipment it provided to its allies was out of date and what was being discarded by itself - often sold at very high mark ups and way and above the worth of the equipment.
[QUOTE=Rising Sun*;192479] The critical issues, upon which I have no knowledge, …[/QUOT
I find that extremely hard to believe:shock:
I find that extremely hard to believe…YOU,No Knowledge??..must be a slow day for you…:shock: