Ok the yanks have gone to far

[Jonaldo]

Originally posted by Bym
You're forgetting one of the most crucial things they did in World War II - making lots of babies with married British women

Yeah and we wonder why so many stupid people exist in England now once that gene was introduced to Britain we were fubard.

 

[Wij]

Originally posted by Omniscieous
Were the Americans involved in WWII? I mean besides the handy Pearl Harbour decoy to keep the Japanese away. I thought they just brought chocolate and things over to England.

Um - yeh.


Oh never mind.

BUTTOCKS !

 

[Debaser]

Just a film?

Unfortunatly, as much as i'd love that statement to be true I'd have to disagree :/

Movies as a medium are as, if not more, influential and entertaining than any history book.

 

[mank]

Originally posted by Debaser
Movies as a medium are as, if not more, influential and entertaining than any history book.

Exactly. Most people (Americans) are going to take this as gospel and it basically defaces the legacy of the British people who died serving the RAF in WW2. It's really quite sad.

Originally posted by Omniscieous
Were the Americans involved in WWII? I mean besides the handy Pearl Harbour decoy to keep the Japanese away. I thought they just brought chocolate and things over to England.

They only got involved once the Japanese bombed them, they didn't really care beforehand. When they entered the war the Nazi's were on the backpedal a bit anyway, now everyone thinks they won the war singlehandedly.

 

[sad_mung]

Originally posted by mank
They only got involved once the Japanese bombed them, they didn't really care beforehand. When they entered the war the Nazi's were on the backpedal a bit anyway, now everyone thinks they won the war singlehandedly.

Yeah , if you say something often enough and loud enough it becomes a fact in everyones mind.
I mean, look at the bible.

 

[Sharma]

Hope the maker of the movie and the actors burn in hell tbh.

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Well, imagine you were German and had to watch all these movies about war.

I especially love the parts where the movie-Germans are supposed to speak "German". Monty Python'esque mostly...

Twisting historical facts (like the SS Hitler Youth Division defending the beach in Saving Private Ryan), in every other war movie: SS all over the place - a must-be, I guess.

Oh... and for the most part the German soldier is just there (together with a bataillon of others) to be single-handedly shot by the allied hero. Having conquered most of Europe and the better part of northern Africa was an accident.

... but I guess that's just how it is.

"Das Boot" is a great movie - just make sure you don't start liking the crew. It's a German sub after all.

"Band of Brothers" was well done, too. Admitting allied war crimes (like the shooting of prisoners) and being fair towards the Germans overall.
... well, the one part where four Shermans "scare" away a German Jagdpanther and two StuG's was just hilarious, tho.
The Panther would have ripped them apart within a minute...

\rant

 

[.z.]

If this film gets made, someone should start a boycotting campaign over here so it is a complete flop at the box office. Petitions should be sent to the cinemas asking them not to show it.

This is, quite frankly, sickening.

That they could transform some dumbass American who couldn't even fly his plane straight into the hero that saved Britain - that's not 'twisting the facts' - that's a novel.

I don't think Saving Private Ryan is in the same category as this - yes, it makes no mention of the other allies landing, but the Omaha and Utah beaches were the ones that suffered the most casualties and were the most heavily defended. It should have had some other allies in it, but it is not really in the same category.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Uncle Sick(tm)
Twisting historical facts (like the SS Hitler Youth Division defending the beach in Saving Private Ryan), in every other war movie: SS all over the place - a must-be, I guess.

By that stage in the war the "SS" moniker had lost its elite status and referred to specialist fighting units, the entire Battle of the Bulge was fought with SS Divisions, many of the "foreign" divisions (like Viking) were attached to SS, as they would be the commanders.

Originally posted by Uncle Sick(tm)
... well, the one part where four Shermans "scare" away a German Jagdpanther and two StuG's was just hilarious, tho.
The Panther would have ripped them apart within a minute...

The Shermans were British "Fireflys" and armed with 17-pdrs, which could easily rip through a Panther, in fact there is a Jagdpanther in the Imperial War Museum that was knocked out by a Cromwell armed with a 76mm, the British Sherman was better than that.

Also, Jagd- and StuG APCs are assault guns and can easily be out maneuvered by turret armed tanks.

(Actually I seem to remember 2 scenes where Shermans encountered Jadgpanthers in BoB, so maybe I'm quoting the wrong one).

 

[Mr.Monkey]

People who see films about things that they otherwise know nothing about tend to assume that it is based on some fact.

Everyone does that to some extent (how much do I know about the US drug scene? Nothing other than what I see on Cops and suchlike), and ofcourse the americans are going to be less aware of european history than we who live here, so they will assume more.

Does that make it right to bend history to sell a film? Not in my mind at least. I've never like films that in any war glamourise war, as the WW's were undoubtably the most horrendous things to have been involved in, which I seriously doubt the movies could ever convincingly depict.
That's not to say that some aren't good, just rather tasteless imo.


As for the UK winning the war without the US? Not a chance. There is no way that the UK could have suffered the combined losses that the allies suffered (about 1/2 a million troops if memory serves).
The UK wasn't in a position to manufacture it's own weapons, as we didn't have access to the raw materials, nor did we have the ability to produce heavy weapons (such as tanks) on the same scale the US did.
We spend most of our labour on aircraft and ammunition.

I'm very proud of the UK, and our role in the wars, but I don't think there can be any credible historian who would back the position that we could have invaded "Fortress Europe" by ourselves, even with the russians making some advances (at an amazing cost of human life). Stalin was desperate for the allies to open up a western front, to relieve the pressure from the eastern. If the front had not been opened, there is great uncertaintly that Stalin could have held out against a better equiped german regiment.


Anyhoo, gg vets.

 

[throdgrain]

Originally posted by xane


The Shermans were British "Fireflys" and armed with 17-pdrs, which could easily rip through a Panther, in fact there is a Jagdpanther in the Imperial War Museum that was knocked out by a Cromwell armed with a 76mm, the British Sherman was better than that.

Ive seen this, its quite true, theres a tell-tale hole in the back of it

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Originally posted by xane
By that stage in the war the "SS" moniker had lost its elite status and referred to specialist fighting units, the entire Battle of the Bulge was fought with SS Divisions, many of the "foreign" divisions (like Viking) were attached to SS, as they would be the commanders.



The Shermans were British "Fireflys" and armed with 17-pdrs, which could easily rip through a Panther, in fact there is a Jagdpanther in the Imperial War Museum that was knocked out by a Cromwell armed with a 76mm, the British Sherman was better than that.

Also, Jagd- and StuG APCs are assault guns and can easily be out maneuvered by turret armed tanks.

(Actually I seem to remember 2 scenes where Shermans encountered Jadgpanthers in BoB, so maybe I'm quoting the wrong one).

Sorry - but I have to correct you there.

The bulk of the units employed during the BoB were so-called "Volksgrenadier" Divisions (roughly translated as "People's Grenadiers". Not SS.

And the Shermans I referred to (2nd D-Day episode) were US Shermans - not Fireflies.

Werd.

 

[Xtro 2.0]

While we're at it I think the clouds in Scene 32, Episode 6 are fake.

Screw you Hanks, you cheater.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

*This post has been retracted for legal reasons*

 

[Xtro 2.0]

Do your research fool, did I say he was?

Check out the credits ffs.

 

[.z.]

Originally posted by Deadmanwalking.
*This post has been retracted for legal reasons*

Co-produced it, I believe.

EDIT: Grr.

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

That just takes the piss.

 

[Xtro 2.0]

Z is correct.

haha DMW

 

[Cdr]

Originally posted by Mr.Monkey
People who see films about things that they otherwise know nothing about tend to assume that it is based on some fact.

Everyone does that to some extent (how much do I know about the US drug scene? Nothing other than what I see on Cops and suchlike), and ofcourse the americans are going to be less aware of european history than we who live here, so they will assume more.

Does that make it right to bend history to sell a film? Not in my mind at least. I've never like films that in any war glamourise war, as the WW's were undoubtably the most horrendous things to have been involved in, which I seriously doubt the movies could ever convincingly depict.
That's not to say that some aren't good, just rather tasteless imo.


As for the UK winning the war without the US? Not a chance. There is no way that the UK could have suffered the combined losses that the allies suffered (about 1/2 a million troops if memory serves).
The UK wasn't in a position to manufacture it's own weapons, as we didn't have access to the raw materials, nor did we have the ability to produce heavy weapons (such as tanks) on the same scale the US did.
We spend most of our labour on aircraft and ammunition.

I'm very proud of the UK, and our role in the wars, but I don't think there can be any credible historian who would back the position that we could have invaded "Fortress Europe" by ourselves, even with the russians making some advances (at an amazing cost of human life). Stalin was desperate for the allies to open up a western front, to relieve the pressure from the eastern. If the front had not been opened, there is great uncertaintly that Stalin could have held out against a better equiped german regiment.


Anyhoo, gg vets.

As far as I'm aware, no one has questioned the fact that we needed the Americans help. What people are up in arms about is the fact that an American is being portrayed as the instigator of victory in the Battle of Britain - which is utter crap. Yes there were American pilots that came across and helped - but this particular one flew 3 (yes three) combat missions, and died in a crash landing. There were many many many more British pilots who did a damn fine and better job than this stupid Yank, but I doubt will be remembered at all. It is these British pilots who deserve to star in the film, it is these British pilots who deserve the accolade of winning the Battle of Britain, not an American (who quite frankly in comparison, did f*ck all).

Like I said, no one is denying that America's help during the War was much needed - but their help during the the Battle of Britain was nothing, and as such there should not be a movie based on inaccurate facts. How dare they re-write our history. But then, it's the typical American arrogance that seems to be evident throughout modern America - the same arrogance that makes them think they can dominate the world - it is the same arrogance that makes the majority of the world hate them.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Mr.Monkey
As for the UK winning the war without the US? Not a chance.

The confusion often arises here, because "winning the war" involves the defeat of the Axis Armies, certainly something that could not have been done without the combined forces of all allies.

As for "saving your ass" I think the British held out pretty well against the German Army on its own and given the strength of British naval and air power, plus the turn of fortunes at that stage of the war, it was highly unlikely the Britain would have succumbed to the Nazi rule.

The Americans certainly provided manpower and technology, however, they'd never have pulled off the Normany landings without using Britain as a gigantic airbase in the first place, the Battle of Britain was all about thwarting those invasion plans and allowing the path of winning the war to remain open.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by Xtro 2.0
Z is correct.

haha DMW

Xtro - Comedy Gold

 

[Xtro 2.0]

No worries Bobby!

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Uncle Sick(tm)
The bulk of the units employed during the BoB were so-called "Volksgrenadier" Divisions (roughly translated as "People's Grenadiers". Not SS.

I was answering the query of "SS units all over the place", basically that by that stage of the war the SS units were a lot more common.

 

[kameleon]

I though Das Boot was excellent, and I enjoyed The Iron Cross too. I've always gone for the german point of view since reading crappy war novels by Sven Hassel

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Uncle Sick(tm)
And the Shermans I referred to (2nd D-Day episode) were US Shermans - not Fireflies.

Wasn't the Jadgpanther knocked out by a bazooka tho ? If so, StuGs versus Shermans is likely to fall towards the latter as winners.

American Shermans were also armed with the more powerful 76mm in 1944 instead of the standard 75mm, which would do in a Jadgpanther as well.

 

[Jupitus]

*Isn't the question about whether people, particularly American, truly believe the historical aspects of movies? If so isn't it obvious that the Americans will believe this proposed film's version of events as they must all be thick.... after all... it's one of them Americans that married Uncle Sick!!!








*Disclaimer The views given above are not my personal views, but rather made up views in order to feed me the opportunity to make this cruel joke about Uncle Sick. Any similarities to real people, living or dead, is purely coincidental. Unlike Y0ni and DMW I am not part of a comedy duo, therefore need to make stuff up like this. Sorry.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

We need to be in a comedy duo to counter Xtros far superior intellect and humour.

 

[Embattle]

This film is silly but rather typical and expected. It is a fact that a good deal of younger Americans have difficultly when asked what years WW2 took place, so this film won't help those who have become over dependent on films as a source of history.

 

[.Cask]

Given the power and influence that Hollywood has across the whole world these days, it kind of makes sense that there should be some kind of council made up of all the nations deciding what should and shouldn't be broadcast. But I can imagine the protests against that there would be: what business is it of theirs? They don't have to watch our films! etc.

What would be better is if some Eastern company started making blockbuster movies showing Asians winning the American civil war and the war of independence. Definitely need some kind of anti-Hollywood to keep things even.

I found it funny on the bf1942.com forums a while back when people were discussing possible new maps. There were no complaints about any of the current maps but as soon as someone suggested Pearl Harbour a lot of Americans were outraged claiming it would be inappropriate and tasteless.

They can't be the world's strongest power, fight wars with other countries, throw their media at living rooms globally and still be isolationist at the same time. They're gonna have to start fitting in eventually

 

[Testin da Cable]

Originally posted by .Cask

They can't be the world's strongest power, fight wars with other countries, throw their media at living rooms globally and still be isolationist at the same time. They're gonna have to start fitting in eventually

so true. sadly it will be everyone else fitting in with america if trends are followed. if I'm really nasty I can extrapolate all the way to the War on Nations Who Don't Agree With the USA. lucky for me I'm not nasty, just evil.