Originally Posted by VDKMS

People who experienced it know more than is written.

Maybe. They know more about what they saw looking across a field, out a porthole or a canopy, but they may not know as much about what happened beyond thier sight horizon as well as a person who has read about the events, if well documented, many years later. The veteran of a battle sees what is in front of him, as far as knowledge of the rest of the battle that happens out of his view, he gets it the same way anyone else does, talk, reports & news accounts. People who saw the Concentration Camps can refute those idiots who deny the Holocaust & those who saw female VC with babys straped to their backs while firing @ them can refute those who deny that happened. At the same time an "operator" has a grasp on things like what it actually takes to move a Wing of planes from place to place that others wouldn't have. After the War my Dad, who was a pilot for WWII, Korea & Vietnam, flew private planes between Wars, refugees into Australia & Jewish refugees into Palestine. He once remarked that he had no idea why there was such a long runway @ Darwin. I told him it was to handle B-32s. Something he didn't know that I learned from reading. He did have tales of things from Egypt that aren't in the books, though. Sam has a valid point about all Wars before WW I, there isn't any vets left, so does that mean nop one is qualified to discuss?

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

I don´t know anybody who lived in Roman, Mongol, napoleonic, civil war or WW I times and yet have read excellent comments about those times, rarely by military men. I fail to see how having fought makes you better qualified to analize Churchill's of Hitler's mistakes. I have met several mercenaries, seals, veterans, etc, far more experienced in killing than in analizing, in tactics than in strategy.

I don't give a sh!te if you met Mickey Mouse or the Pope, you make so many stupid and inane comments its no wonder you get insulted.


Der Alte said it best, “You sit and clinically evaluate a profession you have never been part of and also has the audacity to contradict people who have a concrete knowledge.

Originally Posted by George

Maybe. They know more about what they saw looking across a field, out a porthole or a canopy, but they may not know as much about what happened beyond thier sight horizon as well as a person who has read about the events, if well documented, many years later. The veteran of a battle sees what is in front of him, as far as knowledge of the rest of the battle that happens out of his view, he gets it the same way anyone else does, talk, reports & news accounts. People who saw the Concentration Camps can refute those idiots who deny the Holocaust & those who saw female VC with babys straped to their backs while firing @ them can refute those who deny that happened. At the same time an "operator" has a grasp on things like what it actually takes to move a Wing of planes from place to place that others wouldn't have. After the War my Dad, who was a pilot for WWII, Korea & Vietnam, flew private planes between Wars, refugees into Australia & Jewish refugees into Palestine. He once remarked that he had no idea why there was such a long runway @ Darwin. I told him it was to handle B-32s. Something he didn't know that I learned from reading. He did have tales of things from Egypt that aren't in the books, though. Sam has a valid point about all Wars before WW I, there isn't any vets left, so does that mean nop one is qualified to discuss?

All that is written comes from people who experienced it. Otherwise it is made up. Even secret documents that become public comes from people who experienced it. Maybe I was not completely clear in what I said but let's take the example of the runway in Darwin. Your father didn't know but others did. And your father propably knew much more than he told you, not because he didn't want to but because no one asked him. The same for ancient history. Someone must have told the writer what happend and that must have ultimately come from someone who experienced it. The problem starts with assumptions, rumors, misunderstandings and the like. The more it is told the more it will be twisted, not always intended.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Hi 84RFK,
Maintaining a bridgehead in Calais-Dunkirk would have required months of supplies, that is where a merchant fleet is invaluable. By the way in crossing the 36 km of the Strait of Dover, it does not make much difference whether you use coal or oil. Actually, using coal would be advantageous since Britain produced plenty of it and a smoky sky caused by heavy traffic would make visibility low for the German planes trying to sink the ships.
Even the Italian navy was far more successful crossing the much shorter route to Tunisia than that to Tripoli. The huge allied navy should have been quite successful crossing such a short strait.

How would you get the supplies to that allied army in Dunkirk? I give you some of my concerns. Where are those supply ships the moment you need them? How many can reach the English port to load them and how long would it take? To which port do they have to travel to get the water, fuel, ammo , spare parts, food etc. And how are you going to unload a fueltanker at a beach? All those men are waiting and every hour counts. What is your detailed strategy?

Originally Posted by VDKMS

All that is written comes from people who experienced it. Otherwise it is made up. Even secret documents that become public comes from people who experienced it. Maybe I was not completely clear in what I said but let's take the example of the runway in Darwin. Your father didn't know but others did. And your father propably knew much more than he told you, not because he didn't want to but because no one asked him. The same for ancient history. Someone must have told the writer what happend and that must have ultimately come from someone who experienced it. The problem starts with assumptions, rumors, misunderstandings and the like. The more it is told the more it will be twisted, not always intended.

Yes, but it come from the total expieriences of the group, vs my comment witch was about the view of an individual who often has limited expierience of the event that he participated in. S.L.A. Marshall came up with the concept of interviewing whole units @ a time to get a more accurate story than would happen with individual interviews. Also archeology has proven the accepted story as being wrong(in some cases recent events).

Originally Posted by VDKMS

How would you get the supplies to that allied army in Dunkirk? I give you some of my concerns. Where are those supply ships the moment you need them? How many can reach the English port to load them and how long would it take? To which port do they have to travel to get the water, fuel, ammo , spare parts, food etc. And how are you going to unload a fueltanker at a beach? All those men are waiting and every hour counts. What is your detailed strategy?

He tries to make a case for the Germans to isolate the Dieppe raiders & use it to milk the British & now supports leaving the BEF in a simular situation.

Originally Posted by George

Yes, but it come from the total expieriences of the group, vs my comment witch was about the view of an individual who often has limited expierience of the event that he participated in. S.L.A. Marshall came up with the concept of interviewing whole units @ a time to get a more accurate story than would happen with individual interviews. Also archeology has proven the accepted story as being wrong(in some cases recent events).

He tries to make a case for the Germans to isolate the Dieppe raiders & use it to milk the British & now supports leaving the BEF in a simular situation.

I think we should be a bit more honest here though, Sam is suffering from three backlashes:

1) Wording: The worst thing you can do is attack peoples heros "Churchill was incompetent because he sent troops from North Africa to Greece before finishing the Italians in Libya" all this does is piss off the Churchillites, on the other hand had he said "I think one of Churchill's biggest mistakes was to send troops from North Africa to Greece before finishing the Italians in Libya" it becomes a discussion point.

Basically he leaves no room for support or discussion.

2) Extremism: He is not gathering information he is telling us what should have happened "Dowding should have sent all his fighters to France, the Luftwaffe would have lost, the war ended before it started therefore Dowding is incompetent".

3) Randomness: We have the Japanese supporting German operations in the red sea, the French and poles joining the Germans etc etc. it is hard making arguements with things that might have happened let alone things that could never have happened.

As I have said I don't disagree with everything he is saying but his delivery makes it impossible argue his case.

I would also point out that even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight there is no guarantee that anything we say here would have changed the outcome of the war because for everything we change the other side would have reacted and adapted to, it reminds me a lot of the discussions we had on the Lotzen decission even had Guderian gone on and captured Moscow instead of turning South there is no gurantee that Russa would have surrendered.

Sam's posts are a mixture of
1) ignorence:claiming that Japan could invade South Africa
2)Anglophobia : Dowding was an idiot
3)Chauvinism : only the US were fighting good
4)Arrogance :Stalin,Churchil,Hitler were stupid ones,but Sam knows the answers
5)Fanboyism:if the brilliant German generals had received free hand,we all would still goose-stepping .
Which of the 5 is dominating ? I don't know,and I don't care,all I know is that all his posts would have been refused by the History Channel and by Readers Digest .

Originally Posted by MontyB

I would also point out that even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight there is no guarantee that anything we say here would have changed the outcome of the war because for everything we change the other side would have reacted and adapted to, it reminds me a lot of the discussions we had on the Lotzen decission even had Guderian gone on and captured Moscow instead of turning South there is no gurantee that Russa would have surrendered.

The rear view mirror is far more clear then the windscreen every time.

I'm far from a Churchillite, I recognise that he made mistakes, HUGE mistakes at times, but I also recognise what he did for Britain and the British people, the same goes for Monty and Mountbatten, people who sam regards as total incompetents.

Hugh Dowding and Keith Parks were in my opinion absolutely spot on how they fought the Battle of Britain. Yes pilots were sent into the fight far too early, the inexperienced going up against a hugely experienced enemy. Little by little those who survived began to learn and gave as good as they got.

Sam, I think you should really Take onboard what Monty has just said, You will find it will improve your experiences on here a lot.
For starters you will get to spend more time actually discussing what is obviously a passion of yours rather then reading insults. Hell you might even make a friend or two.

History is written by the victors to the extent that history is shaped by statistics released by the victors. However, each generation of historians "rewrites" a lot of history for two reasons. One is for individual historians to make a name for themselves. The second is because events are reexamined through the prism of the time. While somewhat useful, we run the danger of losing sight of the motivations and viewpoints of the players in a certain event. Sometimes it is not Who writes history, but HOW...Norman Cantor, a history writer and professor, wrote a book "Inventing History" where he explains that Writers tend to put their own 'spin' on events, depending on their politics, perspective and also the era in which they write. A historian is literally a writer of History. That's what separates historians from "history buffs" - they are working in the industry, and usually teaching at the same time. Historians don't "tend" to put their spin on events - it is their job to do so. But they would call it research, not "spin” but history many times tends to be an echo chamber. One historian sneezes and you will hear that sneeze for a hundred years in a hundred books.

ALL sides of historical events write the history. The history taught in the US about WWII is not the same as in Japan, and vice versa. The history taught in Sweden about the Thirty Year's War is not the same as in France. The events in the Tiananmen Square in 1989 are not depicted the same way in China as in most of the world. We might think that what we're being taught in school is the "truth as everyone else knows it", but in reality it is far from it. The winner writes the history that will be the majority-truth, but in the "losing area etc" another history will be written. It's like when we were kids and got into a fight with someone else. "He did this and I did that..." were never the same as "I did this and he did that..." from the other side of the argument. All the people who survive an event have a story to tell. But it's important to note that all the survivors don't always get a voice. You can tell your story, but if no one listens, that story eventually gets lost. Things get said. Sometimes those things are catchy and gain a life beyond what they truly merit, and live on because we embrace the fame and longevity of the saying as indicative of its validity.

"Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it." Is there really any sense to this? Is it any more the case than "Those who do not remember history, are doomed to make new mistakes?" If you do not know what happened in the past, which does not make any more or less likely to accidentally duplicate it. At the same, time, is remembering the past any guarantee of avoiding future mistakes? I would offer the French behavior between World Wars as an example of people who came to grief because they remembered the past. The French spent the two decades preparing to fight WW I all over again. That had been a conflict where the defense was supreme and attackers were bled to death in unprecedented numbers. Not wishing to have that happen again, the French constructed the Maginot Line, just what was needed in case WW I had to be fought all over again. Of course advance in armoured warfare and greatly enhanced mobility, plus advancements in air war....all changed the old scenario and now the offense was to be supreme in WW II. France was easily overrun because they remembered the past all too well.

The information is out there and it is out there in a wide variety ofsources with competing interpretations. But what we should remember is that history is a complex social science. It's not just a chunk of facts for grade-schoolers to remember.