Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 2 Aug 2004 12:45:43 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I shall say nothing about Gallipoli. As for the Russians you are probably
right but their novel tactics also included using infantry to run across
mine fields to clear them for for the tanks in the rush to take Berlin,
letting the Warsaw uprising be massacred by the Germans while they sat on
the opposite river bank and raping every German female they could get their
hands from nuns to 90 year olds. But then all wars are horrid and squalid.
What do I think of Two Men in a Trench - not bad for a pair of prehistorians
and sick as a dog I haven't got a TV contract.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iain Stuart" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: history films
> Paul,
>
> I couldn't resist making some form of comment to the list but you will
> appreciated there is a grain of truth in my comment.
>
> But to comment on your posting, it very much depends on where you sit. In
> Australia we complain about our treatment by the Brits in WWI and WWII and
> the Yanks in WWII. Truth be told in WWII the Russians probably won the war
> and certainly had the best tanks and artillery and infantry weapons. They
> also had some very interesting strategic thinking (in particular the
> development of operational level warfare) which was quite different from
> that of the Allies.
>
> In short it is our national myths that we are talking about.
>
> What did you think of two men in a trench, a great example of military
> archaeology?
>
> yours
>
> Iain Stuart
>
> [log in to unmask]
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "paul courtney" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 11:16 PM
> Subject: history films
>
>
> In regard to the recent thread on films there was a piece in the
Independent
> on Sunday today in which Simon Thurley, head of English Heritage attacked
> Holywood history films
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=546798
>
> I think he was a little unfair on Segeant Ryan for not portraying British
> involvement in Normandy as British and American soldiers mostly fought in
> their own sectors- to the relief of many British soldiers whose war
diaries
> reveal they thought American friendly fire was dangerous as the Germans
> (Ammunition was regarded as expensive and not to be wasted in the British
> army, my grandad went over the trenches in the Somme with six bullets and
> one of those was unofficial, and killed six men that day but he was a
> genuine Lincolnshire poacher). I also think the criticism made in the
states
> over the German TV series Heimat a few years back not showing
concentration
> camps was silly as it was about the experiences of an ordinary German
> family. This and its post-war set sequel Heimat 2 are among the best
> historical films ever and Heimat 1 explains a lot about the popularity of
> Nazism. Heimat 3 is due soon. I saw the Thirteenth Warrior the other night
> on TV and thought it actually made a good job of its historical setting
> despite being an outright fantasy plus it had a muslim hero. One of my
> worries about Hollywood is not just rewriting history (I am sure a film
> showing the Americans winning Stalingrad is only prevented by the fact the
> Russians still have a nuclear arsenal ) but the underlying racism of many
> such films. Hollywood dehumanisation of
> Muslims/Arabs/English/French/Russians like the 1930s racist schools of
> Germany and Japan is not a joke and I am sure has real consequences in the
> modern world (I will say no more).
>
> paul courtney
> leicester
> UK
|
|
|