By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Good WWII films/programs: A Bridge Too Far The Longest Day (not bad for a cameo fest) Battle of Britain (flying sequences) Private Schultz (Ian Richardson and Michael Elphick) Band of Brothers Downfall Das Boot Colditz (70'sTV)
OK/good in parts WWII: The Pacific Cross of Iron The Bridge on the River Kwai Saving Private Ryan Inglorious Barsterds Hogan's Heroes (only for Shultz and Klink)
Crap WWII: The Guns of Navarone Force Ten from Navarone The Dirty Dozen Anzio The Battle of the Bulge Von Ryan's Express The Great Escape (sorry, its bilge!) Escape To Victory
New German War Drama coming to BBC2 on 03:41 - Aug 21 by isawqpratwcity
Good WWII films/programs: A Bridge Too Far The Longest Day (not bad for a cameo fest) Battle of Britain (flying sequences) Private Schultz (Ian Richardson and Michael Elphick) Band of Brothers Downfall Das Boot Colditz (70'sTV)
OK/good in parts WWII: The Pacific Cross of Iron The Bridge on the River Kwai Saving Private Ryan Inglorious Barsterds Hogan's Heroes (only for Shultz and Klink)
Crap WWII: The Guns of Navarone Force Ten from Navarone The Dirty Dozen Anzio The Battle of the Bulge Von Ryan's Express The Great Escape (sorry, its bilge!) Escape To Victory
Feel free to add or disagree
[Post edited 21 Aug 2013 3:48]
You are aware that Inglourious Basterds is ....... No, of course you are...
Anyway, back on topic I watched the first episode last night & it's really very good. Only 3 episodes so will watch it all this week.
0
New German War Drama coming to BBC2 on 09:54 - Aug 21 with 2787 views
New German War Drama coming to BBC2 on 03:41 - Aug 21 by isawqpratwcity
Good WWII films/programs: A Bridge Too Far The Longest Day (not bad for a cameo fest) Battle of Britain (flying sequences) Private Schultz (Ian Richardson and Michael Elphick) Band of Brothers Downfall Das Boot Colditz (70'sTV)
OK/good in parts WWII: The Pacific Cross of Iron The Bridge on the River Kwai Saving Private Ryan Inglorious Barsterds Hogan's Heroes (only for Shultz and Klink)
Crap WWII: The Guns of Navarone Force Ten from Navarone The Dirty Dozen Anzio The Battle of the Bulge Von Ryan's Express The Great Escape (sorry, its bilge!) Escape To Victory
Feel free to add or disagree
[Post edited 21 Aug 2013 3:48]
You missed Stalingrad. 10X Better than Enemy at the gate.
Can't beleive it's 20 years old.
The New Russki Version looks good too.
Beer and Beef has made us what we are - The Prince Regent
0
New German War Drama coming to BBC2 on 10:19 - Aug 21 with 2768 views
Come and See, a Russian film, is my all time favourite WW2 film.
I quite enjoyed The Thin Red Line, although it's more of a poem than a film most of the time.
Bloody hate war movies, especially recent ones, where the krauts and russkies speak perfect english, a la Enemy at the Gates.
Thought Band of Brothers and The Pacific were very good, especially the former.
Special mention goes to the following: Das Boot Cross of Iron Valkyrie Letters from Iwo Jiam Flags of our Fathers Downfall The Pianist Enigma Saving Private Ryan Stalingrad Schindler's List Memphis Belle Empire of the Sun Where Eagles Dare
And of course, don't forget this classic: Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS
0
New German War Drama coming to BBC2 on 11:19 - Aug 21 with 2738 views
New German War Drama coming to BBC2 on 10:41 - Aug 21 by Orthodox_Hoop
Come and See, a Russian film, is my all time favourite WW2 film.
I quite enjoyed The Thin Red Line, although it's more of a poem than a film most of the time.
Bloody hate war movies, especially recent ones, where the krauts and russkies speak perfect english, a la Enemy at the Gates.
Thought Band of Brothers and The Pacific were very good, especially the former.
Special mention goes to the following: Das Boot Cross of Iron Valkyrie Letters from Iwo Jiam Flags of our Fathers Downfall The Pianist Enigma Saving Private Ryan Stalingrad Schindler's List Memphis Belle Empire of the Sun Where Eagles Dare
And of course, don't forget this classic: Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS
That first one looked real interesting; the second, more Holloway's line.
New German War Drama coming to BBC2 on 10:41 - Aug 21 by Orthodox_Hoop
Come and See, a Russian film, is my all time favourite WW2 film.
I quite enjoyed The Thin Red Line, although it's more of a poem than a film most of the time.
Bloody hate war movies, especially recent ones, where the krauts and russkies speak perfect english, a la Enemy at the Gates.
Thought Band of Brothers and The Pacific were very good, especially the former.
Special mention goes to the following: Das Boot Cross of Iron Valkyrie Letters from Iwo Jiam Flags of our Fathers Downfall The Pianist Enigma Saving Private Ryan Stalingrad Schindler's List Memphis Belle Empire of the Sun Where Eagles Dare
And of course, don't forget this classic: Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS
That first one looked real interesting; the second, more Holloway's line.
Come and See looks well worth getting hold of. Have to say that if believing that the Yanks won WW2 is a cardinal sin, not far behind is portraying the Eastern Front as if the Germans won it [or should have done]. If you're interested in the mechanics of waging war it's worth remembering the Red Army beat the Wehrmacht hands down and it might be worth a look to find out how and why. If you're interested in the moral dilemmas of the war I'd have thought the Russian experience - having to choose between Hitler and Stalin - is at least as interesting as the German one.
0
New German War Drama coming to BBC2 on 11:35 - Aug 21 with 2726 views
I was expecting The Thin Red line to be a very good WWII film & left very disappointed at the arty b*ll*ks that it actually was. I even tried a second viewing but it was still wnk.
0
New German War Drama coming to BBC2 on 13:02 - Aug 21 with 2691 views
New German War Drama coming to BBC2 on 21:15 - Aug 19 by CiderwithRsie
Verging a bit off-topic, but I've seen/read plenty on the issue of how the Nazis took power, why did so many Germans go along with it etc [all perfectly good questions] but I've recently started wondering just why were the Japanese such b*stards in the 30s/40s? Didn't lose WW1, didn't have the de-humanising effects of the trenches, didn't have hyperinflation, don't think they were hurt by the Depression more than anyone else, didn't really have an equivalent of Hitler or Stalin [various leaders seem to have come and gone,] but no-one seems to ask why they suddenly swept across Asia massacring millions of Chinese and Koreans, not to mention unspeakable treatment of PoWs etc. Then back home for a few exquisite haikus about cherry blossom and a tea ceremony.
I don't think the idiosyncracies of political leaders are a good explanation for national policies. For example the creation of an empire in Eastern Europe and Russia was a goal of German foreign policy prior to Hitler. The antagonism between Japan and America was also a matter of long standing. That is why in 1914 the leader of Red Clydeside John Maclean predicted war between Japan and America, even though Japan was then an ally of Britain and America:
'We all know that the commercial rivalry of Japan and the United States – similar to that between Britain and Germany – must lead to a war in the Pacific basin.' (September, 1914)
Neither is there anything peculiar to Japanese notions of racial superiority. Japan's Racial Equality Proposal of 1919 at the League of Nations was rejected by Britain and the USA (Woodrow Wilson, often described as an 'idealist' was a particularly ardent racist) because it was felt any notions of racial equality would undermine their empires http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Equality_Proposal%2C_1919
One episode that is not at all well-known is how Britain collaborated with the Japanese in 1945 to keep Vietnam as a French colony: 'But who put the French back in 1945? The British, in the first months of the new Labour government of 1945 — a story that has been almost completely erased from the books of British historians, and certainly from the consciousness of the British people. The war had ended in August 1945 more suddenly than most expected. What was French Indo-China and became Vietnam was occupied by Japanese troops and within days of the war ending the Vietminh had taken control first in the North — where they were strongest — and then in the South. Without outside intervention the local peoples of Vietnam would have remained in power, and French colonial rule would have ended. There were no French troops at all in the Far East but imperialist regimes must stand together, and in the second week in September the British moved in, with mostly Indian and Gurkha troops and the British RAF. Within four months Saigon and most of the South had been made safe enough for the French who by this time had about 40,000 troops in the country, having arrived there courtesy of the British and Americans. It had not been easy for the British commander in these months before Christmas 1945 for he was short of troops himself. Fortunately there were still large numbers of armed Japanese around and these were used against the Vietminh in October and November 1945, just at the time when newspapers back home were telling their readers of the atrocities perpetuated by the Japanese against these prisoners of war and interned civilians. The senior British commanders noted how ‘cooperative’ the Japanese were. Without the British, the French would not have returned to Vietnam, and its history would have been different.' http://www.marxists.org/archive/saville/1993/07/vietnam.htm
Air hostess clique
0
New German War Drama coming to BBC2 on 14:17 - Aug 21 with 2667 views
New German War Drama coming to BBC2 on 13:02 - Aug 21 by TacticalR
I don't think the idiosyncracies of political leaders are a good explanation for national policies. For example the creation of an empire in Eastern Europe and Russia was a goal of German foreign policy prior to Hitler. The antagonism between Japan and America was also a matter of long standing. That is why in 1914 the leader of Red Clydeside John Maclean predicted war between Japan and America, even though Japan was then an ally of Britain and America:
'We all know that the commercial rivalry of Japan and the United States – similar to that between Britain and Germany – must lead to a war in the Pacific basin.' (September, 1914)
Neither is there anything peculiar to Japanese notions of racial superiority. Japan's Racial Equality Proposal of 1919 at the League of Nations was rejected by Britain and the USA (Woodrow Wilson, often described as an 'idealist' was a particularly ardent racist) because it was felt any notions of racial equality would undermine their empires http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Equality_Proposal%2C_1919
One episode that is not at all well-known is how Britain collaborated with the Japanese in 1945 to keep Vietnam as a French colony: 'But who put the French back in 1945? The British, in the first months of the new Labour government of 1945 — a story that has been almost completely erased from the books of British historians, and certainly from the consciousness of the British people. The war had ended in August 1945 more suddenly than most expected. What was French Indo-China and became Vietnam was occupied by Japanese troops and within days of the war ending the Vietminh had taken control first in the North — where they were strongest — and then in the South. Without outside intervention the local peoples of Vietnam would have remained in power, and French colonial rule would have ended. There were no French troops at all in the Far East but imperialist regimes must stand together, and in the second week in September the British moved in, with mostly Indian and Gurkha troops and the British RAF. Within four months Saigon and most of the South had been made safe enough for the French who by this time had about 40,000 troops in the country, having arrived there courtesy of the British and Americans. It had not been easy for the British commander in these months before Christmas 1945 for he was short of troops himself. Fortunately there were still large numbers of armed Japanese around and these were used against the Vietminh in October and November 1945, just at the time when newspapers back home were telling their readers of the atrocities perpetuated by the Japanese against these prisoners of war and interned civilians. The senior British commanders noted how ‘cooperative’ the Japanese were. Without the British, the French would not have returned to Vietnam, and its history would have been different.' http://www.marxists.org/archive/saville/1993/07/vietnam.htm
New German War Drama coming to BBC2 on 13:02 - Aug 21 by TacticalR
I don't think the idiosyncracies of political leaders are a good explanation for national policies. For example the creation of an empire in Eastern Europe and Russia was a goal of German foreign policy prior to Hitler. The antagonism between Japan and America was also a matter of long standing. That is why in 1914 the leader of Red Clydeside John Maclean predicted war between Japan and America, even though Japan was then an ally of Britain and America:
'We all know that the commercial rivalry of Japan and the United States – similar to that between Britain and Germany – must lead to a war in the Pacific basin.' (September, 1914)
Neither is there anything peculiar to Japanese notions of racial superiority. Japan's Racial Equality Proposal of 1919 at the League of Nations was rejected by Britain and the USA (Woodrow Wilson, often described as an 'idealist' was a particularly ardent racist) because it was felt any notions of racial equality would undermine their empires http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Equality_Proposal%2C_1919
One episode that is not at all well-known is how Britain collaborated with the Japanese in 1945 to keep Vietnam as a French colony: 'But who put the French back in 1945? The British, in the first months of the new Labour government of 1945 — a story that has been almost completely erased from the books of British historians, and certainly from the consciousness of the British people. The war had ended in August 1945 more suddenly than most expected. What was French Indo-China and became Vietnam was occupied by Japanese troops and within days of the war ending the Vietminh had taken control first in the North — where they were strongest — and then in the South. Without outside intervention the local peoples of Vietnam would have remained in power, and French colonial rule would have ended. There were no French troops at all in the Far East but imperialist regimes must stand together, and in the second week in September the British moved in, with mostly Indian and Gurkha troops and the British RAF. Within four months Saigon and most of the South had been made safe enough for the French who by this time had about 40,000 troops in the country, having arrived there courtesy of the British and Americans. It had not been easy for the British commander in these months before Christmas 1945 for he was short of troops himself. Fortunately there were still large numbers of armed Japanese around and these were used against the Vietminh in October and November 1945, just at the time when newspapers back home were telling their readers of the atrocities perpetuated by the Japanese against these prisoners of war and interned civilians. The senior British commanders noted how ‘cooperative’ the Japanese were. Without the British, the French would not have returned to Vietnam, and its history would have been different.' http://www.marxists.org/archive/saville/1993/07/vietnam.htm
A few problems with your take on history, T_R.
"I don't think the idiosyncracies of political leaders are a good explanation for national policies. For example the creation of an empire in Eastern Europe and Russia was a goal of German foreign policy prior to Hitler." What, so he was just a slave to dogma? Next you'll be saying he wasn't really a Nazi, had no time for all that lebensraum and untermensch crap, was really only there for the uniforms and Eva Braun was just a beard.
"'We all know that the commercial rivalry of Japan and the United States – similar to that between Britain and Germany – must lead to a war in the Pacific basin.' (September, 1914)" I am compelled to point out the incredible prescience of the bloke unless you consider that WWI had been going a couple of months when he said this. You'd have to think his prediction was intended for the following 12 or 24 months, not 27 years: prescience, or plain failed prediction?
In your third paragraph I'm not quite sure what your point is...That Japan was or wasn't racistly 'superior', that the Western Powers were more self-serving and hypocritical condemning Japan's 'Racial Equality' proposal? Japan's record in WWII was appalling: their treatment of Chinese and Koreans was particularly racist, but even the delightfully named "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" was little more than slavery and resource stripping hiding behind a mask of liberating colonies from their European overlords. Far more local civilians died building the Thai-Burma Railway than Allied servicemen.
As for your last paragraph, I really don't have much problem with the facts, but again I'm not sure what your argument is. Yes, the British left Japanese troops in charge after hostilities. Yes, they allowed European powers to reclaim their colonies. But, what...?
Are you suggesting that the British should have denied their allies' demand to reclaim their former colonies? How likely is that? Are you suggesting that Britain should have been progressive enough to see that colonialism was dead? Ask India if Britain was that enlightened.
I am not at all surprised that European powers tried to re-establish former colonial relationships, but unfortunately the preceding war had proved that these powers were anything but invincible. To me the only surprise was that America, the glowing example of world's-best 'former colony' allowed this imperialism to attempt to be re-asserted, though that might be ascribed to, again, pandering to allies, and also the strident (and hypocritical) stance of 'world's policeman' (they'd prefer 'sherriff') that we expect today was not so imperative.
I was surprised that I had so many problems with a post of yours, T_R. If, however, you were just trying to get rise out of some-one like Spirit of Gregory, then forget I spoke.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
Worth watching one saturday night. 
