Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SkyRock on June 06, 2008, 10:56:28 AM
-
with this D-day Propaganda film.
I hadn't seen this one before, very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5lnR8DmoLc&feature=related
-
That's Hitler for you.
-
Cool film find Skyrock. Definitely not showing the real picture of what was going on at the time.
-
Definitely not showing the real picture of what was going on at the time.
I wonder if we could draw any parallels with today's media on the war?
-
I wonder if we could draw any parallels with today's media on the war?
shhhhh :noid
-
I wonder if we could draw any parallels with today's media on the war?
Likely not.
-
Impossible!
Media today is fair and balanced!
-
Impossible!
Media today is fair and balanced!
Thats why CNN is referred to as communist news network
-
I wonder if we could draw any parallels with today's media on the war?
Possibly... We're kicking the daylights out of the enemy and our media ignores everything except how many of our guys are killed. It's as if the major news organizations were the propaganda wing of the bad guys!
The Allies suffered more casualties on June 6th, 1944 than the US has suffered during the entire duration of the Iraq war. I would wager that you will NOT see that factiod on ABC/NBC/CBS news tonight (or on the Communist News Network... opps "CNN" either).
Skyrock, Kudos for unearthing this gem
-
The Allies suffered more casualties on June 6th, 1944 than the US has suffered during the entire duration of the Iraq war.
The way you worded that is a little loaded, lets see if I can help.
The US has more casualties in the IRAQ war than the US had on D-day.
There, a little better perspective.
Skyrock, Kudos for unearthing this gem
thanks, I thought it was a gem too, although I wasn't trying play current politics with it. :(
-
That's Hitler for you.
oh so true
-
Was that old Dieppe footage?
-
Was that old Dieppe footage?
I was thinking the same thing, I know some of it was, those canadians and higlanders were in dieppe.
-
I wonder if we could draw any parallels with today's media on the war?
No, you couldnt find even one. At least that of a American media outlet painting a rosie picture upon threat of death and imprisonment by a war time Govt. Had a German newspaper wrote an actual account the editors and writers would have been thrown in concentration camps along with their families. Not that it would matter anyway because the story never would have made it past Goebbels censors.
BTW the penalty in Germany at the time for treason was beheading.
I know its fashionable lately for Americans, at least those who have never visited countries with limited freedoms, to compare our country to the Soviet Union, or WW-ll Germany. But when I ask them for comparisons between the societies they suddenly go mum. Or just say stupid stuff.
And the reason for that is because there are no comparisons.
-
Thats why CNN is referred to as communist news network
Dont forget NBC and CBS
News to Benefit Communism, Communism Brodcasting Station. :D
-
That's Hitler for you.
Hitler was no better or worse than other leaders at the time regarding propaganda.
-
Hitler was no better or worse than other leaders at the time regarding propaganda.
Its a question of degree isnt it?
"No worse" compared to the leaders of the Western Democracies? Well....Im waiting.
-
you want propaganda. how about Cronkite telling America that the commies won the Tet offensive.
-
People making comparsions to the current situation should be careful. One year after D-day it was all over. Five years after the invasion the British and Americans were heroes to the Germans during the Berlin airlift.
Five years after 2003? Easy to blame the media isn't it?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlP0mj8ydwk&feature=related
If you beleive that any western goverment wouldnt pull the wool over your eyes in the past present or future you are badly mistaken and a bit naive to be honest.
-
The way you worded that is a little loaded, lets see if I can help.
The US has more casualties in the IRAQ war than the US had on D-day.
There, a little better perspective.
thanks, I thought it was a gem too, although I wasn't trying play current politics with it. :(
I'll help YOU. The Allies suffered 10,000 casualties in ONE day, including over 4,000 KIA, on D Day, while invading Normandy. The U.S. has not yet reached 4,000 KIA in Iraq.
-
you want propaganda. how about Cronkite telling America that the commies won the Tet offensive.
Yes, and North Vietnam freely admits that Cronkite's assertion was critical to their war effort, which, at the time, was by their own admission, on the verge of collapse. I believe the leading Communists of the Stalin/Lenin era called people like Cronkite "useful idiots". He did manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory though. A crowning achievement, I suppose.
-
Germany did win the war. They were liberated from the Nazi regime, they regained most of their geography. The country was rebuilt with the generosity of other countries. And now, despite the fact that gasoline cost $12 a gallon there, it is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and it's economy is still growing.
How are they able to have such a healthy economy when petroleum, something that germany doesn't produce at all, is so expensive? Petroleum has more influence on the US dollar than the US federal banks. The price of oil goes up, and the value of the US dollar goes down. We should learn something from Germany.
Regarding Tet. The tet offensive was a victory for the communist insurgents, even though it was a military defeat. In terms of warfare, the forces of South Vietnam and the forces fighting on their behalf were winning the war day after day, year after year, untill the South was defeated.
The point is, and even today some very important people don't get this, is that you can't militarily win a war against guerrilla insurgency. It's not something that can be defeated by physical attrition. The way to defeat a guerrilla insurgency is by making the insurgents irrelevant. What that means is that you have to secure the populace against the terrorism of the guerrillas to the point that the populace has confidence in that security and in the forces providing it. If the people don't believe that the security forces are commited for the long enough term, they're not going to risk contributing anything. Securing the populace requires significantly more man power, yet monetarily the cost is less than attrition warfare. There are many many examples in vietnam where the destruction of a handfull of rice eating, sandal wearing, sks toting guerrillas cost the US tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Obviously this is not a sustainable strategy, and it wasn't. The solution takes time and alot of men, but not necesarilly an expensive arsenal. You have to make the populace secure from the guerrillas and keep it secure untill the futility of the guerrilla situation disolves the ranks and will of the insurgents and their proponents to the point where the movement collapses and dissolves back into criminal cells small enough to be managable by the police agencies. Take, clear and hold is a ridiculously simple concept, appearantly unfasionably simple. But it works, it just demands time and commitment.
-
Hehe,nice post Suave.
Anyway, just to get into the original post and link, think how much "wochenshaus" like these weighted.
And it has no point of realism in it. It always looked as Germany was winning and evrybody else on their last feet.....Even when making massive landings or knocking on Berlin's door...
And Pervert...don't tell me you're Scolzie?
-
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_02/georgebushAP2604_468x306.jpg
i think this sums up our need for regime change
-
The way you worded that is a little loaded, lets see if I can help.
The US has more casualties in the IRAQ war than the US had on D-day.
There, a little better perspective.
If you really want perspective, the breakdown of US casualties was 1,465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928 missing and 26 captured. Of the total US figure, 2499 casualties were from the US airborne troops (238 of them being deaths). The casualties at Utah Beach were relatively light: 197, including 60 missing. However, the US 1st and 29th Divisions together suffered around 2000 casualties at Omaha Beach.
On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: So the US troops were 47% of the invasion troops. In March 2006, (before the surge) of the 151,600 foreign troops in Iraq, 133,000 were American. (88%)
-
The U.S. has not yet reached 4,000 KIA in Iraq.
Outdated information is outdated.
The current Iraq death count is 4092.
Source:
http://icasualties.org/oif/ (http://icasualties.org/oif/)
-
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_02/georgebushAP2604_468x306.jpg
i think this sums up our need for regime change
the CV was the USS nuremberg ?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlP0mj8ydwk&feature=related
If you beleive that any western goverment wouldnt pull the wool over your eyes in the past present or future you are badly mistaken and a bit naive to be honest.
You miss the point. We have a free media whos right to free speech, as is ours, is protected by our Constitution. A western Govt. that lies to the people is at risk of being discovered and then being voted out. Even worse if they break the law.
But I have places to compare with. Ive lived in countries without these kinds of rights and freedoms. Thats why I laugh at these "America becoming like the Soviets" types of threads.
But yes, you are correct that every type of Govt. will "spin" a story.
-
Outdated information is outdated.
The current Iraq death count is 4092.
Source:
http://icasualties.org/oif/ (http://icasualties.org/oif/)
That includes deaths due to non combat related accidents and other causes. So your incorrect information is, well, incorrect information.
-
Missed this. Very old and interesting film.
-
Kee-ryst, not even the Wochenschau could find anything to say about the Luftwaffe, other than the flak.
-
I'll help YOU. The Allies suffered 10,000 casualties in ONE day, including over 4,000 KIA, on D Day, while invading Normandy. The U.S. has not yet reached 4,000 KIA in Iraq.
No, but they have incurred about 30,000 casualties in total...
However its a little disingenuous comparing numbers of casualty rates between battles, and wars as some measure of merit of these struggles when it really is just a measurement of scale. In 1945 when Germany surrendered, the US had 1.6 million men in germany, out of a total of 3 million in Europe.
The 1st and 2nd divisions AIF suffered 5,000 casualties on one day in the 3rd battle of Ypres in 1917, but I don't believe that somehow makes the efforts of the US armed forces in Iraq (or Australian forces which has not yet had 1 KIA yet) any less commendable.
O/t I thought it was quite amusing...a very fox news channel like take on the D-Day landings...all that was missing were some flag graphics, and a retired german general talking head
Tronsky
-
We now get the Smithsonian Channel (great stuff). They just did a story on Omaha beach that basically said the death toll has been under-reported by a factor of 2 all these years. Arial photos of the beach taken during the battle were used to extrapolate the casualties.
-
You need to bear in mind that the casualties listed for Iraq include those from all causes; depending on the sources cited, approximately 20-30% are not combat related.
If you want to know what the difference is between Iraq and WW II, read "Typhoon of Steel; the Battle for Okinawa."
No matter how you slice it, the Iraq war is not comparable to WW II, or even to Vietnam. It doesn't even come close. The casualties for Vietnam were an order of magnitude greater.