Was there anything about this guy that wasn't pure awesome?

His racism or how horrible he was running his country when the war wasn't going on?

Be sure to watch for the sequel "War Cow"

Judge him according to the standards of the time, not today. Is racism a bad thing? Of course it is. And of course his peace time record is a matter of debate. But I'll cede early so I don't get dragged into that one!

So is the movie any good?

Meh. What did he do for horses during the war?

/Churchill: a war criminal with a drunks courage.

Bengal Famine 1943.
Poison gas against "uncivilized tribes" in Iraq, 1920s.

jim32rr: Bippal: His racism or how horrible he was running his country when the war wasn't going on?

Sadly we only have 2 choices when voting on comments. As yours was neither Smart nor Funny, you have received 0 votes

.

///Subby

Hey, he just answered somebody's question.

I like that photo in the article...

jim32rr: Bippal: His racism or how horrible he was running his country when the war wasn't going on?

Sadly we only have 2 choices when voting on comments. As yours was neither Smart nor Funny, you have received 0 votes

.

///Subby

Just responding to the previous comment, the truth hurts I guess.

I WILL NOT see the movie. It will reduce me to a blubbering, weeping idiot. Black Beauty f'ukked me up big time. I love horses dearly, and seeing them suffer rips me up.

He also thought that using chemical warfare on restive natives in the colonies was a great idea.

And he was a fat pig who slept in till noon in his parents' basement, like a lot of Farkers today.

TravisBickle62: Be sure to watch for the sequel "War Cow"

But everybody's favorite is still war pussy.

TheShavingofOccam123: A good documentary that contrasts the German, British and American approaches to war, watch "The Bombing of Germany". It's a documentary done by PBS and available on Netflix streaming.

It was the US that opposed the bombing of civilians since long before WWII. FDR called for a ban on bombing civilians before WWII broke out. The Nazis bombed civilians from the start. Churchill looked for an excuse to bomb German cities. And of course by the end of the war, the US immolated cities with great aplomb.

Shock and awe? We got it and we'll give it to you and you mom.

the bombing of civilian centers was initially abhorred and sworn against by all sides, as all sides wanted to be seen as "civilized".

the first bombing of a civilian center by an airforce was on Freiburg Germany, by... the german Luftwaffe. By mistake. Damage/Deaths were negligible but the germans used it as propaganda to justify their later escalation of bombing of Rotterdam and then later coventry liverpool london etc during the blitz. After this, the brits and later the americans were happy to answer in kind, and destroy german cities completely, one after the other, for the next 4 years.

the germans bombing british civies was one of their first of many bad miscalculations; the Luftwaffe was an airforce built primarily to support the army in the filed, not for "strategic" stuff like bombing factories in england and cities and stuff... they didnt have the right planes or the numbers of bombers for it, they ... well just werent that good at it. they tried, and in return got a whirlwind of Lancs and B17s over their cities and reduced most of their urban centers to ruins by the end of the war.

here's a quick tally of cities destroyed by the RAF alone over the war (excluding soviet action in the east... ie, where's koenigsberg, breslau, danzig and all the other cities in the east which were equally thoroughly combed over, but by russian instead of british bombs?)

Berlin* 33
Cologne* 61
Dortmund* 54
Dresden* 59
Düsseldorf* 64
Essen* 50
Frankfurt* 52
Hamburg* 75
Leipzig* 20
Munich* 42
Bochum 83
Bremen 60
Chemnitz 41
Dessau 61
Duisburg 48
Hagen 67
Hannover 60
Kassel 69
Kiel 50
Mainz 80
Magdeburg 41
Mannheim 64
Nuremberg 51
Stettin 53
Stuttgart 46

TheShavingofOccam123: A good documentary that contrasts the German, British and American approaches to war, watch "The Bombing of Germany". It's a documentary done by PBS and available on Netflix streaming.

It was the US that opposed the bombing of civilians since long before WWII. FDR called for a ban on bombing civilians before WWII broke out. The Nazis bombed civilians from the start. Churchill looked for an excuse to bomb German cities. And of course by the end of the war, the US immolated cities with great aplomb.

Shock and awe? We got it and we'll give it to you and you mom.

It wasn't so much that, as a different set of tactics. The US favored precision daylight bombing for the increased accuracy on the target at the expense of a high loss rate to fighters and AA. The British prefered night area bombing, less accurate but safer for the crews. The side-effect being higher civilian casualties as well. Though you are correct that leaders didn't generally care about enemy civilian casualties. It was war afterall, and up untill the 1950s or so, killing people and busting up their shait was generally the preferred methodology for fighting it.

MrSid: [www.solarnavigator.net image 390x378]

Was there anything about this guy that wasn't pure awesome?

Gallipoli?

Yeah. War Sucks. But in the end, I'd rather they die than me.

TheShavingofOccam123: A good documentary that contrasts the German, British and American approaches to war, watch "The Bombing of Germany". It's a documentary done by PBS and available on Netflix streaming.

It was the US that opposed the bombing of civilians since long before WWII. FDR called for a ban on bombing civilians before WWII broke out. The Nazis bombed civilians from the start. Churchill looked for an excuse to bomb German cities. And of course by the end of the war, the US immolated cities with great aplomb.

Shock and awe? We got it and we'll give it to you and you mom.

Also watch "Fog of War" about Robert McNamara for a good look into the Fire Bombing of Japan (which did more damage then the Atomic Bombing).

Good quote from Robert McNamara:

"LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"

He sacrificed the life of a village in order to be able to continue to monitor encrypted german frequencies.

That was not cool.

The War Horse story reminds me of the government's drive to recruit pet dogs to aid troops in the Vietnam War. Many dogs did incredibly heroic things while out on the field and many even died to protect US Soldiers. Then when it was time for the army to pull out of Vietnam, it figured it was too expensive to take the dogs with them so they just slaughtered them en masse.


I wonder why no one's ever made a movie about that?....

TheShavingofOccam123: On September 1, when the Germans invaded Poland without warning, the Luftwaffe bombed Warsaw, Katowice, Krakow, Tczew and Tunel with incendiary bombs. There were certainly military targets in Warsaw but it's difficult to believe that terrorizing citizens by burning them out of their homes is strategic bombing.

This was prior to Britain and other allies declaring war.

Exactly, war is terrible and people die. That's the nature of war.

Pah! Balderdash! Churchill was little more than your common-or-garden tree-hugging liberal. Horses, for goodness sake! Now Tony Blair--ah, now there was a statesman! Why I remember the last Iraq war like it was only yesterday. Be over by Christmas they said. But my word, if ol' Tone didn't work is so we could keep going forever more. I'd follow him to hell and back, I would!

mark12A: I WILL NOT see the movie. It will reduce me to a blubbering, weeping idiot. Black Beauty f'ukked me up big time. I love horses dearly, and seeing them suffer rips me up.

I can't even watch the trailers. I keep telling myself, "At least there's no dogs in this movie." Wait. Are there dogs in this movie? Don't tell me!

This too. Whatever the reasons, the US felt bombing civilians was wrong--unproductive and immoral both. At least for a while. Curtis LeMay made up for the hesitation.

What if we had gone softly softly and beat up Japan/Germany *lightly* and ended up negotiating a "surrender"? It would have ended up like post WW1 Germany, the Nazis/Nip Militarists would not have been defeated and discredited, and we would probably *still* be fighting with them today.

The reason we have not won a war since WWII is because we have not beaten the enemy into a total, complete, bloody, subjugated pulp. Today's free and democratic Germany and Japan are a result of TOTALLY subjugating them and installing democracy whether they liked it or not. Being brutal upfront saved far more lives in the long run.

Had we obliterated every Iraq town that *allowed* the resistance to install IEDs, we would not have lost 5000 Americans to IEDs, and the damm war would have been over in months. The locals would have seen to it than no IEDs were emplaced, merely to save their own lives.

Ditto Korea and Vietnam. These lame attempts at being "civilized" when fighting a freakin' war ultimately costs more lives than saved. Be brutal, be merciless, and the war and associated suffering ends much quicker.

mark12A: Be brutal, be merciless, and the war and associated suffering ends much quicker.

That thought has been around for some time. When Cromwell went to pacify Ireland he did just that and look at what history thinks of him.

That thought has been around for some time. When Cromwell went to pacify Ireland he did just that and look at what history thinks of him.

Well, the Brits love him...

/hangs out at the Oliver Cromwell pub outside Devizes occasionally.

mark12A What if we had gone softly softly and beat up Japan/Germany *lightly* and ended up negotiating a "surrender"? It would have ended up like post WW1 Germany, the Nazis/Nip Militarists would not have been defeated and discredited, and we would probably *still* be fighting with them today.

The reason we have not won a war since WWII is because we have not beaten the enemy into a total, complete, bloody, subjugated pulp. Today's free and democratic Germany and Japan are a result of TOTALLY subjugating them and installing democracy whether they liked it or not. Being brutal upfront saved far more lives in the long run.

Had we obliterated every Iraq town that *allowed* the resistance to install IEDs, we would not have lost 5000 Americans to IEDs, and the damm war would have been over in months. The locals would have seen to it than no IEDs were emplaced, merely to save their own lives.

Ditto Korea and Vietnam. These lame attempts at being "civilized" when fighting a freakin' war ultimately costs more lives than saved. Be brutal, be merciless, and the war and associated suffering ends much quicker.

Yup. Overall that's true - sad but true; many wars have to be won, not just negotiated to a temporary stop.

And no surprise that Churchill loved animals, old fashioned British gentlemen were like that. Never happier than taking long walks in the company of simple, dumb creatures that didn't expect them to say anything clever.

Norfolking Chance: That thought has been around for some time. When Cromwell went to pacify Ireland he did just that and look at what history thinks of him.

mark12A: Well, the Brits love him...

/hangs out at the Oliver Cromwell pub outside Devizes occasionally.

I dunno... I guess we feel ambiguous about it. The English Civil War was necessary (Without it there could have been no Founding Fathers or American Revolution) but Cromwell and the Roundheads were bastards - that's why they won, (see comment above).

As I understand it that's how everybody fought wars in those days,- I don't know if the New Model Army treated the English towns they captured in the Civil War any different. I don't know if the Irish who fought in it behaved any better either.

ethics-gradient: Norfolking Chance: That thought has been around for some time. When Cromwell went to pacify Ireland he did just that and look at what history thinks of him.

mark12A: Well, the Brits love him...

/hangs out at the Oliver Cromwell pub outside Devizes occasionally.

I dunno... I guess we feel ambiguous about it. The English Civil War was necessary (Without it there could have been no Founding Fathers or American Revolution) but Cromwell and the Roundheads were bastards - that's why they won, (see comment above).

As I understand it that's how everybody fought wars in those days,- I don't know if the New Model Army treated the English towns they captured in the Civil War any different. I don't know if the Irish who fought in it behaved any better either.

You fight wars to win. Postwar getting awards for 2nd place and "fighting like a gentleman" don't mean much.

Mark12A

Sorry, but you are very wrong in your analysis of Korea and Vietnam.
We were very brutal in both cases, just that those situations were different than WWII instances and cultural components made most of the differences in those outccomes.

The US/UN/Nato forces had a good repulsive effect from the landing in Incheon and pushed the North Korean forces very far back, almost to the Chinese Border in some locations, which was the main problem. China did not want to have a US Ally, so it pushed back with its massively overwhelming forces and local resources. The stalemate that remained is due to Korean cultural traits not allowing for reconciliation with its massive backers making sure that the conflict remains cold.

We bombed the hell out of North Vietnam, burned, and deforested the Jungles in vietnam, killed 600K-1 million NVA/Civillians over the course of the war. They just wouldn't give up, while the South Vietnamese leaders civillian and military were always looking for money, outside assistance as well as trying to establish their drug presence in the world. The SVA did very little to assist and there was constant security breaches that lead to problems for the US/UN forces in Vietnam, just as the French had had in Indochina (same difference).

It wasn't a lack of war skills/killing brutality that have lead to the different outcomes these wars have had since WWII, it was the fact that our objectives in these other wars were simply that we didn't want to start WWIII which could have ended the world for the biosphere. So we are the age of fighting the wars that Europe had experienced previoulsy - 100 years war, 7 Years War, Spanish Civil War, etc. These never had good results and because of the geopolitical forces as they are today, no limited war is every going to have good results again.

War, War never changes...

Twist2005: So is the movie any good?

I just got back from it. It is very good, only a few moments of sticky sentimentality. Outstanding war footage, and the horse actors are fantastic.

This is essentially a love story about a boy and his horse, but none of the movie was predictable. It's a great war movie.

johnnieconnie:This is essentially a love story about a boy and his horse,

Good thing Mr. Hands wasn't in it.

catmandu: Bippal: His racism or how horrible he was running his country when the war wasn't going on?

Since when does someone have to be perfect in order to be great?

Once again, I'll refer to the fact that I was responding to the previous post above mine, which asked what about him wasn't pure awesome. Great wasn't the word used, awesome was. And the things I mentioned make him not awesome.

Sorry, but you are very wrong in your analysis of Korea and Vietnam.
We were very brutal in both cases, just that those situations were different than WWII instances and cultural components made most of the differences in those outccomes.

1. We shoulda nuked the living hell out of China when they entered the Korean War. Lay down a half dozen A-bombs across the far side of the Yalu, and it would have been ended. No Kim Jongs et al at all, no mass starvation of North Koreans, etc.

2. All we did in Vietnam was bomb the crap out of the South. What we should have done was level the North. ALL of it. The dikes, Hanoi-Haiphong, the lot. War over in a year.

We did neither, and millions suffered, and are still suffering, as a result.

jdbob: johnnieconnie:This is essentially a love story about a boy and his horse,

Good thing Mr. Hands wasn't in it.

That was an obscure enough reference that I had to look it up. Thanks, Wikipedia.

*shudder*

mark12A: 1. We shoulda nuked the living hell out of China when they entered the Korean War. Lay down a half dozen A-bombs across the far side of the Yalu, and it would have been ended. No Kim Jongs et al at all, no mass starvation of North Koreans, etc.

This is an awesome idea. Lets royally piss off the largest nation (in terms of population) and make it clear we'll use A-Bombs as a first strike method. This has NO negative long term consequences for us after the Chinese rebuild and decide to even up.

ha-ha-guy: mark12A: 1. We shoulda nuked the living hell out of China when they entered the Korean War. Lay down a half dozen A-bombs across the far side of the Yalu, and it would have been ended. No Kim Jongs et al at all, no mass starvation of North Koreans, etc.

This is an awesome idea. Lets royally piss off the largest nation (in terms of population) and make it clear we'll use A-Bombs as a first strike method. This has NO negative long term consequences for us after the Chinese rebuild and decide to even up.

While I don't agree, I think he's implying they wouldn't have that capability if we'd have nuked them.