A moderator is not required to know anything, but merely to exercise authority.
This is why, just like in most armies, they are automatically made officers. 
Sycophant differs from Me-Too in that he is much more concerned with sucking up than he is with actually doing battle. Of course, he WILL engage in some light combat to impress Big Dog and other stronger Warriors, but he never exposes himself to unnecessary danger. Although combatants sometimes employ [b]Sycophant[/b] to buttress an attack, his constantly shifting loyalties make him a weak and unreliable ally.
Okay, I’d been expecting a response, if not quite the ones I got! :shock: I’ll have to try to remember my etiquette when dealing with officers. lol
Pierre Boulle’s book was fiction.
Colonel Nicholson was fiction.
Yes, the book was indeed a novel, and therefore by definition, fiction.
Yes, the Nicholson character was totally contrived, and had nothing to do with the nature of the man in charge at the historical setting.
I think I said both things in my post, so we’re in agreement there!
The bridge was fiction.
I guess now we are delving into the realm of semantics. There WAS a bridge upon which the story was (very loosely) based, built by POWs, etc. I would say that made it real, not fiction. Though I can also see your point of view, since the actual bridge was nothing like the one depicted, the location, etc. At what point does something move from “being based on actual events” to being total fiction? I was reacting to your saying “The bridge never existed.” Maybe you’ll call it hair splitting, or maybe my line of work (a specialized type of writing) makes me too sensitive to loaded/absolute words like “never.” Anyway, I hope we can agree to disagree on that one!
The River Kwai was fiction. It didn’t even exist during the war or in the 1950s when the book and film were released.
The bridges you mention were over the Mae Klong river during the war and in the 1950s, although the relevant part of it was renamed the Kwai in the 1960s, presumably being a spectacular example of life following art.
As the river didn’t exist during the war, then a bridge to cross it couldn’t exist either.
I think the last sentence falls under what I just wrote above, so I won’t go into again. You are quite right about the rest, and I had forgotten these details. Regarding the rest – now that you’ve rubbed my face in it, I can remember reading a Time - the US weekly news magazine - article something like 10 years ago, in which they were discussing these facts. I think the story had something to do with an anniversary of some sort, related to the bridge, but I can’t recall the story’s main thrust. What does stick in my mind, though, was the reason given for the name changes you referred to: tourism. Veterans and just plain tourists were coming and spending lots of $$$ to see the famous bridge of the movie, and were disappointed to learn (when they were already in-country; I guess they never did trip planning with a travel agent before leaving home ! 
) the truth. Makes the “art” being “followed by life” sound rather crass and tawdry, eh? I guess that, too, is Hollywood!
Anyway, thanks for the corrections, and now I hope we each understand where the other is coming from! (Hey Herman, will that get me out of trouble?!?) And look at all the interesting comments my post generated! But why hasn’t anybody commented on my Hurtgen nomination? 
Should I duck…?
Your funny Ardee…stick around and you will go places!
No, it wasn’t. Please post any evidence to the contrary, but although Washington, DC realized that a Japanese attack or an act of war was imminent, the line of thinking was that they would strike on the Pacific rim. I think the Philipinnes was mentioned as a likely target:
[i]Eighteen months earlier, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had transferred the United States Fleet to Pearl Harbor as a presumed deterrent to Japanese agression. The Japanese military, deeply engaged in the seemingly endless war it had started against China in mid-1937, badly needed oil and other raw materials. Commercial access to these was gradually curtailed as the conquests continued. In July 1941 the Western powers effectively halted trade with Japan. From then on, as the desperate Japanese schemed to seize the oil and mineral-rich East Indies and Southeast Asia, a Pacific war was virtually inevitable.
By late November 1941, with peace negotiations clearly approaching an end, informed U.S. officials (and they were well-informed, they believed, through an ability to read Japan’s diplomatic codes) fully expected a Japanese attack into the Indies, Malaya and probably the Philippines. Completely unanticipated was the prospect that Japan would attack east, as well.
The U.S. Fleet’s Pearl Harbor base was reachable by an aircraft carrier force, and the Japanese Navy secretly sent one across the Pacific with greater aerial striking power than had ever been seen on the World’s oceans. Its planes hit just before 8AM on 7 December. Within a short time five of eight battleships at Pearl Harbor were sunk or sinking, with the rest damaged. Several other ships and most Hawaii-based combat planes were also knocked out and over 2400 Americans were dead. Soon after, Japanese planes eliminated much of the American air force in the Philippines, and a Japanese Army was ashore in Malaya.[/i]
From: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/pearlhbr/pearlhbr.htm
One issue was the shallow depth of Pearl Harbor: the US did not believe Japanese torpedoes could be dropped by air and not “sink” to the bottom. The debacle at Taranto had raised awareness of the possibility in planners minds. But Pearl was shallower than Taranto, so they concluded they were more-or-less safe. But the Japanese had adapted the technology – I believe the key change was use of wooden running fins on the torpedoes, reducing weight, and maybe (the fins) had some design improvements as well.
Correct, which sort of builds on my post regarding the above…
You can make a case for hubris, etc, in the USA thinking the Japanese couldn’t solve a problem the US couldn’t – but historically, that’s a pretty common failing among military planners. But I don’t think it’s fair to say they were dismissive of Japan being able to make an attack. They expected maybe some bombers and strafing, but not the torpedoes, which I believe were responsible for most of the ship sinkings at Pearl. Of course, given the actual preparedness of the defenses when the Japanese came, bombing a strafing, especially with subsequent waves, may have done just as good a job.
They were expecting nothing at Pearl, unless you adhere to the ludicrous conspiracy theories…And bombing and strafing would have been much less effective against the shipping, though they may have crippled the air fields.
I’d have to ask what your historical evidence is for this? Because Pearl was on a shockingly, embarrassingly low state of alert, with only a couple of lieutenants on duty at a small radar post and a skeleton manning of stations. If the US command were believing an attack to be highly probable, then they should have been shot for derraliction of duty! And if it was though plausible that Japan would penetrate so deeply into the eastern Pacific without detection, then why would the US have parked their fighter pursuit planes so close together? Why would they not have been on a standing alert?
So far as other blunders that day, the list could go on for quite a while. The two that spring foremost to my mind was the lack of response to reported detection (and sinking) of the Japanese midget submarine, and worst all, the failure of intelligence: IIRC, the US had broken the Japanese codes, AND had picked up the “climb Mt Suribachi” message – the US knew what that meant, but the message got lost in paper piles before it got to the people who knew. Thank God the carriers were out to sea…
No one knew exactly what it meant, and the code was not fully broken (I believe), in any case, the Japanese maintained excellent radio discipline as there was no communication between the strike force and the home islands…
Well… from the “canadian” point of view … Relying on the Brits too much.
(I don’t feel canadian myself, being what they called a french-canadian, a “québécois”, proud descendant of the fighters who liberated the first french town in Normandy, Bayeux 1944).
While the Dieppe blunder is well documented, other strange things happened.
For example, during the liberation of Holland, the RAF bomber command denied repeated requests for attacks against fortified positions and concentration of troops*.
In effect, this resulted in frontal attacks on narrow roads surrounded by water, covered by deadly accurate german artillery fire all the way. Just because the RAF couldn’t divert a few bombers from the night raids on Germany (even the canadian squadrons). They basically told the commanders on the field to deal with it by themselve, or as we say in french : “arrangez-vous avec vos problêmes”.
The result was nasty. No wonder the people from Holland still have a lot of respect for the veterans (few still living) who liberated their country, at the price of blood.
- It is well know how relunctant the bomber command was of tactical air support during the Normandy invasion, and how they were forced to, sort off, by Eisenhower. It is also well known how heavy bombing was a decisive factor in that particular campaign.
So, what in hell were they thinking???
Just my two cents, I’m curious to read your opinions on the matter.
They were indeed reluctant. But the RAF and AAF as well were not “sort of” forced too, they indeed committed totally. It wasn’t just Ike that ordered the reluctant bomber generals of Harris and Spaatz, his deputy, RAF Air Marshal Tedder, was also instrumental…
“Annoying Man”
I think you mean this image Nick…
Hi Nick,
Incoming! Well, this is the risk I run by writing off of memory. The understanding I have of the events at Pearl Harbor are a conglomerate of many sources: probably the two chief historical ones being the books At Dawn We Slept and Day of Infamy, and I haven’t read either recently. You are correct that I erred and went too far in calling Pearl a “highly-likely” target, but my recollection is that it was studied in several war games/studies before the war, by both sides. And, as noted on another page of the site you linked to:
The Pearl Harbor naval base was recognized by both the Japanese and the United States Navies as a potential target for hostile carrier air power. The U.S. Navy had even explored the issue during some of its interwar “Fleet Problems”. However, its distance from Japan and shallow harbor … and a belief that intelligence would provide warning persuaded senior U.S. officers that the prospect of an attack on Pearl Harbor could be safely discounted.
I guess I was emphasizing the first part, and had not given proper due to the latter: they were discounting it, unless Intelligence said otherwise.
In another part of my post, hindsight makes me realize I was guilty of sloppy writing. When I wrote: “They expected maybe some bombers and strafing, but not the torpedoes, …” I should have said something like “If an attack were to happen, they expected it to be some bombers and strafing…” I did not mean to suggest they were actually “expecting” an attack; they obviously weren’t. Excuse me while I go wipe some egg off my face…
And if it was though plausible that Japan would penetrate so deeply into the eastern Pacific without detection, then why would the US have parked their fighter pursuit planes so close together? Why would they not have been on a standing alert?
Isn’t that part of the reason Short and Kimmel got sacked? And I thought one or the other of them (Short?) had enough qualms about the idea that he did order a few planes be dispersed to ancillary fields? (I’m not sure if I read about that or not; Hollywood’s Tora, Tora, Tora! might be coloring my recollections.)
Regarding the code and the “climb Mt Suribachi,” I based what I said on recollections of a rather thorough discussion of in a book…I’m not sure if it was one of the two I mentioned, but if I had to guess, I’d pick Day of Infamy. I’ll see if I can find it in that book. I would agree that they didn’t know exactly what it meant (an attack at Pearl), but did have a lot of particulars (going by memory again) of it involving a (surprise?) attack on the US, using carriers. Under those circumstances, it seems reasonable to (at least to me) that Pearl would have been put at a much higher alert than was the actual case.
Regarding “conspiracy theories,” no, I don’t think I qualify as being a devotee. I have little doubt FDR want to get us into the war (e.g., our “neutral” destroyers escorting UK convoys), but sitting on your hands if you know an attack is coming is…ludicrous, as you said.
Incidentally folks, when I make posts like the one that started this, it’s not in any way personal, rather I read something that didn’t ring true to my understanding. So I challenge it, hopefully politely, with my understanding. Being corrected is how I learn and get my “facts” checked. I am NOT stating YOU ARE WRONG; instead I am being sincere with the “IIRC” (If I recall correctly). I don’t know if that’s how it comes across or not, but that’s my meaning.
That’s not to say I don’t sometimes screw up royally: in the photo section, I stated, without the “IIRC” or similar qualifier, something I was quite sure of, but which I believe I got from only a single (forgotten) source. Dixie Devil challenged me on it, and I, although at first fully confident I was correct, found I couldn’t support what I “knew.” When I don’t have the IIRC/something similar in there, that’s the time to really go for the throat when I am wrong! 
Your funny Ardee…stick around and you will go places!
Where? Actually, I think it’s kind of funny: you were paraphrasing the old Navy recruitment slogan about joining up and seeing the world/going places…
BTW, maybe Admin should add another “smiley” to the option when we post – the animated one of the head hitting himself with the hammer? Sometimes seems appropriate.
We Love You Nick!..If love is annoying then I ask you what is the point of living…I am simply exhibiting my passion to you and the Gang…but I will tone down a bit if it bothers you. I was simply wanting to let you know how much we all admire your wealth of knowledge. I actually have a nephew who is plagerising some of your past comments in various threads for his WW2 project in grade 5…so You have more admirers that just me!..fyi…over and out.
BTW, maybe Admin should add another “smiley” to the option when we post – the animated one of the head hitting himself with the hammer? Sometimes seems appropriate.…ya, I agree with you Ardee, I want another smiley too!..maybe Nick and the boys can pull some strings for us to get another type of smiley?..
Well, for my own country, Germany, where do I start? The crazy wave on jingoism after we won the war of 1870-71 against France, trying to take on all established powers with our own aim at colonial expansion, which eventually led to WW1?
Leaving too many loopholes to be used by authoritarian regimes in our constitution of 1918, leading to civil war like scenes in the 1920s?
Letting a political hazardeur like Hitler and his gang of criminals getting into power, well knowing that he was spoiling for a fight and basically had two lifetime goals:
- Colonising Eastern Europe by enslaving the the local population (after declaring them to be inferior to Germans (I think this answers all suggestions that Poland should have sided with Germany against the Russians) and
- Killing all Jews and Gypsies in Europe.
Starting WW2?
Attacking Russia?
Having Corporal Schicklgruber meddle in affairs, of which he didn’t have a clue, like how to run an army?
Jan
Well for Bulgaria …
First Balkan war not signing any adequate agreement about Macedonia with Greece and Serbia and trusting them that they will give us something . What they give us was second Balkan war which lead to first national catastrophe giving much of our teritory such as Southern Dobrudzha and Macedonia thanks to our " briliant " tactician King Fedinand and his clique .After loosing WW1 we got Treaty of Neuilly Aegean coastline to Greece, recognized the existence of Yugoslavia, ceded nearly all of its Macedonian territory to that new state, and had to give Dobrudzha back to the Romanians. The country had to reduce its army to 20,000 men, and to pay reparations exceeding $400 million.Results of the treaty was the “Second National Catastrophe”.(doesn’t it sound pretty similar as the german fate after ww1 ? )
Second under the new King Boris III ( son of the previos great tactician ) we instead to keep strictly neutrality and to learn from WW1 we got into the same stupid mistake to become ally with the Axis and Germany .
But there were good things too :
1 Bulgaria became one of only three countries (along with Finland and Denmark) that saved its entire Jewish population (around 50,000 people) from the Nazi camps by refusing to comply with a 31 August 1943 resolution.
*This had to be remebered very well , the jewish people here still are very gratefull for that , in my town even is a memorial for that .
2 no Bulgarian soldiers participated in the war against the USSR
And here again come the gratefull USSR and his policy without to be in situation of war with it , out of the coalition of Axis powers , we were "liberated " from Nazi Germany , as the Allies already got a deal of saving their own ass instead of liberating europe so they didn’t care for such a small country as mine .
And in September 1944, the Soviet army entered Bulgaria, enabling the Bulgarian Communists (the Bulgarian Workers Party) to seize power and establish a communist state. Our third national catastrophe .
That was the USSR way of to say "thank you for not sending soldiers against us " .
And maybe something of which no one here ever heard Bulgaria had a Waffen-Grenadier Regiment der SS (bulgarisches Nr 1) in formed when Bulgaria joined the USSR side in september 1944. It was made up of 500 - 600 Bulgarian workers and soldiers who were in Germany at the time and was willing to keep fighting with Germany. This unit was reformed as the SS Panzer-Zerstörer-Regiment (bulgarisches) Apr 1945.The Germans hoped this unit would form the basis of a Waffen-Grenadier Division der SS (bulgarische Nr 1) but that never happend.
You can look what i found here http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1713
Let’s try MY country: Malaya.
We got outflanked by Yamashita time and again, and we like many other eastern nations were too divided to really put up any stiff resistance against British encroachment in the 19th century.
The British (our leaders) thought the Japanese could never build planes, tanks or warships.
The Japanese assailed Kota Bharu in December 1941 with planes.
They caught us out with our pants down again, by sending tanks (functioning as light artillery and meat shields) against Indian regulars at Kampar.
Which albeit not as good as British or even German armour, was still better than no armour, and actually seemed adept at jungle and amphibious warfare.
We in Malaysia still wonder to this day what’d have happened if General Percival actually listened to Churchill and stood up against the Japanese…
As to the U.S. - Already mentioned are getting ambushed at Pearl Harbor and MacArthur in the Philippines.
I think that Halsey falling for the trap a Leyte Gulf and later getting caught in a Typhoon are also worthy of listing.
But I think the biggest mistake was to insist on the “Daylight Strategic Bombing” campaign. I believe that we would have at least as good results by joining the Brits and bombing at night and with far less loss.
Thread returned to active service…
You have it the wrong way around.
Churchill denied Malaya, and Percival, everything that was needed for a proper defence, from the aircraft to the ships to being able to initiate Operation Matador to stop the Japanese landing.
Percival, and Malaya, were victims of Churchill’s arrogance and ignorance.
I’ve posted a lot on this on the forum but don’t have the time to dig out the old threads now, but if you have the time to find them you’ll see what I mean.
True, burning Washington was pretty bad. Even more hilarious was the American victory at New Orleans which occurred after the peace treaty was signed, but then the mails were kinda slow.
No one knew exactly what it meant, and the code was not fully broken (I believe), in any case, the Japanese maintained excellent radio discipline as there was no communication between the strike force and the home islands…[/QUOTE]
Actually, the Japanese fleet maintained solid radio silence all the way to Pearl. As for radar, the station did detect the incoming aircraft, but the station was highly experimental, not entirely trusted and the incoming aircraft were confused with a group of B17s that were supposed to arrive at nearly the same time.