[m a d r a]

just idly watching an episode of "enterprise" yesterday, where our heroes are wafted into an alternative reality where germany was winning the second world war and occupying part of the US. there were some nice touches; aliens in SS uniform, stuka dive-bombers fitted with photon cannons and a nicely done movietone newsreel purveying the [nazi] party line. however one thing did grate slightly. german soldiers [boo! hiss!] were seen insulting a black woman on the steet, whereas all the americans [woot! holler!], without exception, treated her as a friend and equal.

of late, i've noticed this tendency in a lot of american movies and TV progs, set in the past [whether alternate or not]. we're either presented with a stuation whereby only the "evil" characters display any racist tendencies whatsoever or else [even more farcically] racism does not seem to exist at all.

i wonder how long this process of gradually re-writing history is going to take, until segregation and apartheid never happened in the good ol' US of A at all - and the records show it always was a bastion of "freee-dammm and deee-maacraceeee" for all its citizens?

[MacNStein]

Congrats! Now you see what the Left has done to our education system.

[rjenkinson]

since when are TV shows the american education system?

-r.

[MacNStein]

Originally Posted by rjenkinson

since when are TV shows the american education system?

-r.

No, but the idiots who write the shows are products of the "american education system". No?

[Maflynn]

I don't generally get my history from star trek so I'm not overly concerned.

Really this isn't a huge issue, rent any movie (or tv show) that has a historic theme and you will see the directors using artistic license with regard to history. TV is entertainment not educational pure and simple.

[m a d r a]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

I don't generally get my history from star trek so I'm not overly concerned.

Really this isn't a huge issue, rent any movie (or tv show) that has a historic theme and you will see the directors using artistic license with regard to history. TV is entertainment not educational pure and simple.

i don't get my history from star trek either - i was just quoting that particular example as the most recent i've noticed in an increasingly long line, transcending many different genres and media, of the US's cultural output. and, of course i expect film and TV makers to use artistic licence. i just think there's a subtle difference between bending the truth to fit the storyline and what seems to be an increasingly prevalent voluntary mass-amnesia by americans, whereby if you pretend for long enough that apartheid and segregation never happened then that will eventually become the truth.

then you can all get on with the next step, which will be rewriting the arrival of the slaves, so it turns into some kind of epic tale of poor starving africans seeking a better future overseas in a land of freeeedammm and opportooonity"

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

No, but the idiots who write the shows are products of the "american education system". No?

Padawan, it is about marketing a tv show to black and white people. It's business not the education system.

I'm going now to my biology class to study intelligent design and creationism. I love to hear about when dinosaurs walked the Earth with Raquel Welch.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Congrats! Now you see what the Left has done to our education system.

Yeah, and when the Right gets ahold of it, Pepsi won WWII and Abraham Lincoln was shot by Twizzler.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Yeah, and when the Right gets ahold of it, Pepsi won WWII and Abraham Lincoln was shot by Twizzler.

I told you a MILLION times to stop exaggerating.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I told you a MILLION times to stop exaggerating.

Fine. But I draw the line at McDonald's inventing the Zeppelin.

[willed]

It's not like Star-Trek purports to be an historical documentary. However, what does piss me off is films like U571, the story of how brave American submariners captured a German 'Enigma' coding machine, thereby allowing them to break their codes and win the war. Except that in real life this was all done by the British - both the capture of the machine and most of the code breaking (at Bletchley Park). Typical Hollywood revisionism.

Also Saving Private Ryan fails to even touch upon the huge effort made by the British and other Allied forces; it's just the USA vs Germany, despite the fact that as usual you turned up a few years late for the war

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by willed

It's not like Star-Trek purports to be an historical documentary. However, what does piss me off is films like U571, the story of how brave American submariners captured a German 'Enigma' coding machine, thereby allowing them to break their codes and win the war. Except that in real life this was all done by the British - both the capture of the machine and most of the code breaking (at Bletchley Park). Typical Hollywood revisionism.

Also Saving Private Ryan fails to even touch upon the huge effort made by the British and other Allied forces; it's just the USA vs Germany, despite the fact that as usual you turned up a few years late for the war

It's the sordid intersection of business and human nature. Watch some old Soviet WWII movies and you will see that Stalin single-handedly won WWII. Never mind that until 1943 almost all Soviet small arms ammunition, medicine, grain, fuel, rubber, etc., came from Allied shipping convoys, or that Stalin begged the other Allies to open a second front to take the pressure off of Soviet forces. When you're dealing with mass market entertainment – which Star Trek is - any historical accuracy gets quickly sacrificed for making a good story. In this case the Nazis are the ultimate bad guys, so, by extension, all German soldiers are evil. Watch almost any American WWII movie ever made and you will see the same thing. It has nothing to do with anyone's influence on the educational system and everything to do with the needs of mass market television writing: they needed a sooper bad guy, and Nazis are easy targets.

Saving Private Ryan was interesting from one point of view: it showed American soldiers killing surrendering Germans, in clear violation of the Geneva convention. I was surprised the fact that this happened – and it happened on all sides – was acknowledged.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by willed

Also Saving Private Ryan fails to even touch upon the huge effort made by the British and other Allied forces; it's just the USA vs Germany, despite the fact that as usual you turned up a few years late for the war

Well, we hadn't intended to show up at all, but you know how insistent Japan can be.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Fine. But I draw the line at McDonald's inventing the Zeppelin.

Yeah, cuz goodyear tires invented the zeppelin.

[historylme]

Revisionism of past events occurs all the time, especially by large entities like governments, states, institutionalized religions and so on. It occurs at every level, where a few details are forgotten/not mentioned or are spin-ed off to have different meanings.

Most people, teens in particular (myself included, back in the day), didn't care much about history. I took the 411's of history and ran with whatever bias data I had been given.

I think movies (Hollywood types) in particular are a horrible way to learn history. Their motives, no matter how factual and authentic they want to get, is not to educate nor teach history. It's all about profits.

Unfortunately, they do teach myths of history to those that know no better. To all those that don't read the actual history, the movie(s) will stand as their "informed" whatever part of history they are dealing with. They are brilliant examples of how one can learn history (sounds, visuals, and plot), sadly, movies are not designed with education in mind.

[m a d r a]

true. unfortunately tho' most people who watch these "historical epic" movies believe them to be the truth, in the same way they believe what they read in their tabloid newspapers is the truth. ideally, it shouldn't matter, but unfortunately we live under a system of government were [for right or wrong] the opinions and beliefs of the majority of the population decide the fate of us all.

[historylme]

You guys need to read (I"m sure many already have), Lies my teacher told me and Lies across America. The guy makes great arguments, and in the latter, he argues that the "south" has successfully done a lot of historical rewriting to benefit their "loser" side.

[SimeyTheLimey]

damned dp

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by willed

IAlso Saving Private Ryan fails to even touch upon the huge effort made by the British and other Allied forces; it's just the USA vs Germany, despite the fact that as usual you turned up a few years late for the war

Saving Private Ryan is an attempt to show the experience of D-Day relatively authentically from the point of view of a handful of soldiers who happen to be from the 101st Airborne and the Rangers. Ordinary soldiers do not have an overall God view of the battlefield. Paratroopers from the 101 and the Rangers probably would have had zero interaction with the British and Canadian troops several miles to their east. In fact, more than likely that ordinary company level troops had little idea that they were there. If you want to watch a movie that purports to show the entire battle, then I suggest that you watch The Longest Day. It's a good movie, but utterly unlike the way the soldiers on the day experienced the war.

In addition, it is a fact that the worst fighting on Normandy was experienced by the American troops (as well as the Germans). That's not to devalue the contributions of the other allies to the War. Nor is it to devalue their individual sacrifice on that day. (Incidentally, my Uncle lost partial use of his legs to an 88mm while landing with the British 1st Armoured on D-Day +1). Nevertheless, it is a fact that the highest casualty rates were experienced by the US and the most difficult of the beaches was Omaha. Point du Hoc (which the Rangers took) was especially difficult because they had to climb a cliff while being shot at.

Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy. This figure includes over 209,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground forces and a further 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces. Of the Allied casualties, 83,045 were from 21st Army Group (British, Canadian and Polish ground forces), 125,847 from the US ground forces. The losses of the German forces during the Battle of Normandy can only be estimated. Roughly 200,000 German troops were killed or wounded.

DDayMuseum.co.uk

[JoshuaZ]

Thanks Limey. As someone who graduated in a degree in history I find it annoying when people mix entertainment with history. They are two separate things most of the time. When you realize that then you enjoy films more and understand history better.

[Warung]

One should also remember that history always has been, and always will be, a matter of perspective.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warung

One should also remember that history always has been, and always will be, a matter of perspective.

Right, then there are the facts.

[Moderator]

I vividly remember my 4th grade teacher telling us

"The United States has never lost a war."
"But what about Vietnam?" we asked.

"That was a conflict, not a war."

hmm

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Right, then there are the facts.

Exactly, for example that some obscure Jewish carpenter was born roughly 2000 years ago...

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Right, then there are the facts.

Also consider the facts that are omitted or misconstrued to make a certain thing more favorable. Different from an all out lie in how it "revises" history. A great example of this is Christopher Columbus. School books don't lie about what he did, just not mention it or at least obscure it to a point. A book I read that deals with that is A History Of The United States of America.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warung

Exactly, for example that some obscure Jewish carpenter was born roughly 2000 years ago...

Actually, the fact he existed isn't up to question.

[Kvasir]

This discussion reminds me of Churchill's comment to the US President at the 1943 conference in Tehran:

"History will judge us kindly"

Mr. Roosevelt - "How can you be so sure"

Churchill - "Because I shall write the history"

And he did ("The Second World War", in six volumes).

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by demograph68

Also consider the facts that are omitted or misconstrued to make a certain thing more favorable. Different from an all out lie in how it "revises" history. A great example of this is Christopher Columbus. School books don't lie about what he did, just not mention it or at least obscure it to a point.

And I am not really young, and I remember learning about the Christopher Columbus not really being the first person back in 1st grade. So it's not really that big of a conspiracy.

A book I read that deals with that is A History Of The United States of America.

Who wrote it?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Warung

Exactly, for example that some obscure Jewish carpenter was born roughly 2000 years ago...

Historical records point to him truly existing. Are you saying His living is all made up? Are you one of those folks who think the holocaust never happened?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by demograph68

Also consider the facts that are omitted or misconstrued to make a certain thing more favorable. Different from an all out lie in how it "revises" history. A great example of this is Christopher Columbus. School books don't lie about what he did, just not mention it or at least obscure it to a point. A book I read that deals with that is A History Of The United States of America.

Huh? Seems like something is missing from your post.

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by Kevin

[/b]
And I am not really young, and I remember learning about the Christopher Columbus not really being the first person back in 1st grade. So it's not really that big of a conspiracy.

This is just an example of a figure that gets praise when he should deserve resentment.
"Before he left on his second voyage he had been directed by Ferdinand and Isabella to maintain friendly, even loving relations with the natives. However, during his second voyage he sent a letter to the monarchs proposing to enslave some of the native peoples, specifically the Caribs, on the grounds of their aggressiveness. Although his petition was refused by the Crown, in February, 1495 Columbus took 1600 Arawak as slaves. 550 slaves were shipped back to Spain; two hundred died en route, probably of disease, and of the remainder half were ill when they arrived. After legal proceedings, the survivors were released and ordered to be shipped back home. Some of the 1600 were kept as slaves for Columbus's men, and Columbus recorded using slaves for sex in his journal. The remaining 400, who Columbus had no use for, were let go and fled into the hills, making, according to Columbus, prospects for their future capture dim. Rounding up the slaves resulted in the first major battle between the Spanish and the Indians in the new world."

Originally Posted by Kevin

Who wrote it?

Howard Zinn. What I like about it is how it covers everything in a perspective of the slaves, indians, women, indentured servants, immigrants, and lower class workers.

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Huh? Seems like something is missing from your post.

You don't see the point I was trying to make? I was trying to say how people don't have to lie to alter the past. Erasing the details all together is as effective.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by demograph68

This is just an example of a figure that gets praise when he should deserve resentment.
"Before he left on his second voyage he had been directed by Ferdinand and Isabella to maintain friendly, even loving relations with the natives. However, during his second voyage he sent a letter to the monarchs proposing to enslave some of the native peoples, specifically the Caribs, on the grounds of their aggressiveness. Although his petition was refused by the Crown, in February, 1495 Columbus took 1600 Arawak as slaves. 550 slaves were shipped back to Spain; two hundred died en route, probably of disease, and of the remainder half were ill when they arrived. After legal proceedings, the survivors were released and ordered to be shipped back home. Some of the 1600 were kept as slaves for Columbus's men, and Columbus recorded using slaves for sex in his journal. The remaining 400, who Columbus had no use for, were let go and fled into the hills, making, according to Columbus, prospects for their future capture dim. Rounding up the slaves resulted in the first major battle between the Spanish and the Indians in the new world."

So you propose we teach 1st graders about this?

Of course not. Actually I learned about this in High School. And it is more high school level.

And such practices weren't abnormal then either.

Howard Zinn. What I like about it is how it covers everything in a perspective of the slaves, indians, women, indentured servants, immigrants, and lower class workers.

Yup, he's right up there with that other radical Michael Moore.

Originally Posted by demograph68

You don't see the point I was trying to make? I was trying to say how people don't have to lie to alter the past. Erasing the details all together is as effective.

Or saving the details that aren't really appropriate for young people until a later date.

That was atleast my experience.

[demograph68]

Michael Moore is a nut. I'll give you that. But Howard Zinn's book is far different in comparison. I would just suggest that you read it yourself and try not to be cynical of it from page one.

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by Kevin

[/b]
Actually I learned about this in High School. And it is more high school level.

That wasn't so much the case 50 years ago.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Nevertheless, it is a fact that the highest casualty rates were experienced by the US and the most difficult of the beaches was Omaha. Point du Hoc (which the Rangers took) was especially difficult because they had to climb a cliff while being shot at.

I agree with you and willed in part. I agree with you when you say that the Americans suffered greater casualties and therefore they are the focus of stories about D-Day. Also Omaha was the most heavily guarded beach, although only marginally moreso than Juno and bear in mind that the British and Canadians covered more beaches. I agree with willed though when he says that the other beaches and the battles by the other armies don't get their just deserve of attention. One of the major reasons why the Canadians, British and French suffered fewer losses on D-Day is the fact that they were better armies on the day.

The reason there were such high casualties at Omaha is that General Gerow thought he knew better than the British who had experience landing on German occupied beaches in Italy and Africa. He eschewed the tactical subtleties the British had developed as did he the use of British armour technology. Gerow's "plan" was to commit his men to hurling themselves frontally against German defenses that he hoped had been weakened by a short round of bombing before the landing. That was intrinsically a strategy that would lead to more casualties than the strategy adopted by the others. To make matters worse, the intelligence on the Atlantic Wall was wrong and the guns were not in the places soldiers had been told they were. The aerial bombardment had failed to take out as much of the Wall as anticipated. So the defences they were throwing themselves against were stronger than expected. The rough weather caused navigation errors and the Americans often landed in the wrong place or had to navigate along the coast where they were exposed to German guns. Timing was bad.

Same thing happened at Pointe du Hoc. Supply boats sunk or had to jettison cargo. The coxswain headed for the wrong point and to correct the error, the flotilla had to navigate 4km parallel to the coast exposed to the German guns. They were late as a result so the Germans had time to recover from the aerial bombardment and man their positions. The irony that a lot of people forget is that the immensely brave Rangers captured nothing more than telegraph poles swathed in cloth camouflage when they got to the top. Again because of bad intelligence. The guns had been moved a mile back and hidden in an orchard. And they defended those cloth covered poles for 2 days taking 60% casualties before relief came.

All of the men involved in the D-Day landings were incredibly brave. Having been to the beaches and the amazing museum at Caen, you really learn to appreciate what they were facing. The British and Canadians faced similar challenges but they were better lead than their American counterparts. Where I disagree with movies like Saving Private Ryan is that they gloss over the mistakes that were made and make out as if the loss of life was inevitable. At the end of the day, I guess the stories of the other beaches would be more boring because they went relatively well compared to Omaha and that's why more movies aren't made about them. We have yet to see a Blackhawk Down version of the Omaha Beach landings.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by demograph68

Michael Moore is a nut. I'll give you that. But Howard Zinn's book is far different in comparison. I would just suggest that you read it yourself and try not to be cynical of it from page one.

He is a left wing radical. From my experience in life, these people tend to make things up "for the good of man"

And from what I have read abouth the guy on multiple pages, he doesn't seem too different.

But hey I could very well be wrong.

That wasn't so much the case 50 years ago.

My parents seem to know all about it too. They are both in their mid 60s. If someone was trying to cover something up, they did a horrible job of it.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Historical records point to him truly existing. Are you saying His living is all made up? Are you one of those folks who think the holocaust never happened?

a) That was kind of my point.

b) I was making a comment on "perspective".

c) I've talked to enough people on either side of the concentrationcamp "fence", so I'm pretty damn sure that the holocaust "happened".

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll

One of the major reasons why the Canadians, British and French suffered fewer losses on D-Day is the fact that they were better armies on the day.

Go on, show us the benchmarks.

[Y3a]

Screw revisionism, go to a good library and read the microfiche copies of newspapers from the era you are interested in. Make sure you read the opinion page too so you have an idea of where the editors are coming from. The Civil war is much more interesting that way. So are the coal strikes, WWI and WWII.

[Warung]

One thing I find really laughable, is when people claim that the Americans, British etc. "liberated" Europe from the NAZIs on D-Day.

I am almost certain that the Red Army had something to do with it as well...

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Go on, show us the benchmarks.

Yeah, point taken. The Brits never tried to take Pointe du Hoc, so how can we do a direct comparison. Still, my argument is that the Canadians and Brits were better armies because they adopted what are recognised today as superior tactics, because theywere better lead and because they made fewer mistakes. The major reason they were better is because they had more experience than the Americans. The British had experience in conducting beach assaults against the Germans in Italy and Africa and they'd been fighting the Germans for longer. They had developed tactics and technology in those campaigns. The Americans chose to ignore the tactics and largely dispensed with the British armour technology and they learned the hard way.

For me, the reason why the story of Omaha is so compelling is because these men marched towards the German guns and an almost certain death. In waves, they just kept going knowing the chances of dying were relatively high. The thing that doesn't come across in these movies though is that whilst war did involve a certain amount of mathematical loss calculation (the Canadians suffered 50% casualties on the landing beaches until they breached the German defenses), in the case of the US Army, this trend was exacerbated by the US tactics of throwing soldiers headlong at the German defences. Whereas the Brits and Canadians were able to get off the beaches relatively quickly due to the tactics they adopted, the US troops at Omaha got bogged down on the beach because of the errors made.

[willed]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Saving Private Ryan is an attempt to show the experience of D-Day relatively authentically from the point of view of a handful of soldiers who happen to be from the 101st Airborne and the Rangers. Ordinary soldiers do not have an overall God view of the battlefield. Paratroopers from the 101 and the Rangers probably would have had zero interaction with the British and Canadian troops several miles to their east. In fact, more than likely that ordinary company level troops had little idea that they were there. If you want to watch a movie that purports to show the entire battle, then I suggest that you watch The Longest Day. It's a good movie, but utterly unlike the way the soldiers on the day experienced the war.

In addition, it is a fact that the worst fighting on Normandy was experienced by the American troops (as well as the Germans). That's not to devalue the contributions of the other allies to the War. Nor is it to devalue their individual sacrifice on that day. (Incidentally, my Uncle lost partial use of his legs to an 88mm while landing with the British 1st Armoured on D-Day +1). Nevertheless, it is a fact that the highest casualty rates were experienced by the US and the most difficult of the beaches was Omaha. Point du Hoc (which the Rangers took) was especially difficult because they had to climb a cliff while being shot at.



DDayMuseum.co.uk

Interesting and well argued. However, I would be interested to see the full numbers of British and Americans involved before claiming that the Americans had a tougher time of it. I'm sure the Americans had more soldiers there (although that's just a guess). Percentage-wise the British may still have lost more men, even if they lost fewer numerically, and that would equal a harder fight.

Not trying to be difficult, just saying that the Americans were bound to lose more men if they had more men there. I take your point about Saving Private Ryan - it's almost first-person, and quite realistic from that POV.

[historylme]

I disagree. Just because you have more men engaged in an action does not mean that you will lose (numerically) more men.

Troll makes a great point about tactics, logistic and subtle uses of equipment in lessening the number of casualties.

Edit: On topic, the revision of history is a tool of the modern state. Before you had revision (mostly done by the Catholic Church), done with same purpose but with a slightly different use and different outcome.

This is a huge problem however, when the state no longer controls the difusion of information. The internet and China being a current example. The US employs more subtle inderect means.

[willed]

Originally Posted by history1me

I disagree. Just because you have more men engaged in an action does not mean that you will lose (numerically) more men.

Troll makes a great point about tactics, logistic and subtle uses of equipment in lessening the number of casualties.

Edit: On topic, the revision of history is a tool of the modern state. Before you had revision (mostly done by the Catholic Church), done with same purpose but with a slightly different use and different outcome.

Have you been reading the Da Vinci Code too much?

As to your first point - you're right, it's not necesarrily the case that you will lose more men if you have more men engaged. But if the fighting is 'harder' as was claimed, thenn by definition you will lose more men. Not that it's really an important point; each death in such circumstances was the ultimate sacrifice.

[Kerrigan]

As cynical and wry as MacNNers like to be, the lot of you have a very simplistic grasp of history.

The prevailing attitude seems to be that America has a terrible history of racism and injustice which it actively tries to cover up with sugar-coated movies and biased historians. A lot of people look back at the 19th and early 20th centuries and apply today's standards to policies that were in place many years ago.

They ignore the fact that, as far as racial policies go, America has one of the better track records. The slave trade that is so often attributed to antebellum America is part of a much more vast global market of slavery in which Arabs were the most active buyers and sellers. There were more slaves being used in Africa and Asia than in America, America was simply a mediocre country at the time, taking part in what was the standard of the day. In fact, legalised slavery in the British Empire continued up to the 1850s in British India, which shows that Europeans too were willing to sidestep their moral and religious qualms with slavery as long as it produced satisfactory economic results.

As far as segregation goes, America is not the sole offender here either. As someone who lives in Europe I must point out that the immigrant ghettoes in places like the East End or in Paris are nothing to be proud of either. Trevor Phillip's remarks on race issues in UK highlight the fact that as Europe's immigrant population grows in number, its racial problems become more apparent. Andalucia is notorious for having sweatshops where North Africans work in unacceptable conditions, but the government never does anything to solve the problem.

Americans are only human, they have committed the same sins that every other culture is guilty of, and we should at least admire them for their optimistic (if flawed) view of the world.

[historylme]

I actually haven't read the Da Vinci Code. I'm curious about it, but I like reading reall history instead. I will get around to reading it, of that I'm sure.

[historylme]

As cynical and wry as MacNNers like to be, the lot of you have a very simplistic grasp of history.

I think you have a point, but it's not relevant for the topic of revisionism.

To touch on a misconception of "the Arabs were the most active buyers and sellers," that many people have: The Arab population, in most cases, held slaves in servitude only for 7 years. They also treated their slaves much, much more humanly than *generally speaking* the American/anglo masters. At the end of the their servitude they were also given the means to sustain themselves ($$, not that much, but at least it was something. And let's not forget their freedom!).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by willed

Interesting and well argued. However, I would be interested to see the full numbers of British and Americans involved before claiming that the Americans had a tougher time of it. I'm sure the Americans had more soldiers there (although that's just a guess). Percentage-wise the British may still have lost more men, even if they lost fewer numerically, and that would equal a harder fight.

Not trying to be difficult, just saying that the Americans were bound to lose more men if they had more men there. I take your point about Saving Private Ryan - it's almost first-person, and quite realistic from that POV.

It's late, so I am not going to look the statistics up again, but the figures I have seen suggest that Omaha had roughly 50% casualties. By contrast, the worst British/Canadian beach (either Sword or Juno, I don't recall which) had 50% casualties on the first wave, but much less than that in subsequent waves. The net result is that they had far lower rates overall than Omaha beach, though of course, if you happened to be on the first wave of either it wouldn't make any difference. And, of course, people were still being killed on later waves. My uncle was shot up on the second day.

As for Troll's comment about better leadership and equipment, that's really not true but it sounds great if you habitually put Americans down, which has been a habit ever since the GIs showed up (over paid, over sexed and over here, and all that). The contrary is ingrained as myth but in fact the equipment was mostly common. The British Army by 1944 was mostly equipped with American hardware. I.e Sherman tanks, Jeeps, Browning Automatic Rifles (common to both armies even before the war) and so on. Britain lost most of its own equipment at Dunkirk. In some cases, the equipment wasn't common, and then I am afraid the consensus is that the British equipment was older in design and inferior. The British landed on D-Day mostly carrying bolt action rifles, while most US troops had the modern M1 Garand semi-automatic. British officers carried Webley revolvers, while US officers (and some others) carried the M1911 Colt 45 semi-automatic. The British Tommy helmet was also a World War I design, while the US M1 "steel pot" helmet (and German helmet) had better ear and neck protection. It's just a fact that the Britain was scraping the barrel in a way that the US was not.

Leadership-wise, I don't think you can make much of an argument, unless it is just based on nationalism. Take a look at Operation Market Garden and you can see that the British Army had plenty of duds in its leadership. At least as many as the US (and yes, the US did too). And of course, most of the troops in both armies were green recruits. The numbers of British soldiers with experience in North Africa was quite small, and the numbers who fought in France before Dunkirk smaller still. Most were like my uncle - 18 and green. And the same goes on the American side, only of course, there too quiite a few were veterans of Operation Torch in North Africa. Those veterans included some of the same troops who landed at Normandy.

In terms of tactics being used, the only possible tactics to cross an open beach is to charge straight ahead. There is no other direction to go, and no cover so no possibility of doing anything other than run straight ahead. It's really dumb to suggest that superior tactics had anything to do with anything when the terrain absolutely dictated the same kinds of tactics the British perfected (I mean this in an ironic way) at the Somme. It's sheer suicide, but charging the guns is the only way when you are on an open flat beach with a dug in enemy.

In any case, the simplest comparison is on D-Day itself. If it was just a matter of heroic and wise Tommies being better than those dumb Yanks, you would expect the casualty rates to be consistently different, but they are not. In fact, the casualty rates at Utah beach were much lower than Omaha. My understanding is that Utah beach is more like the geography of Sword and Juno with similar casualty rates. Omaha is much hillier (Point du Hoc being the extreme) and had the highest casualty rates. It's just a simple fact that high ground is more defensible than flatter ground. If you have to attack high ground from low ground you get more casualties. It's not a matter of training, but of the difficulty of the mission. The most difficult mission happened to go to the US. And in fact, the most difficult mission of all went to the US Rangers who took Point du Hoc. I assure you they were the equal of any troops anywhere, and there is not a Royal Marine or SAS trooper who would be so nationalistic as to not admit it.

[ghporter]

My father-in-law was in the 82nd Airborne and jumped into Normandy on D-Day minus a few hours. He volunteered to go in with Col. Tucker as much to get out of the glider he was assigned to as to support the colonel. Good thing too-that glider didn't do so well.

Anyway, watch "The Longest Day," and pay attention to the sequences with John Wayne-that's Col Tucker. Dad said that for the most part that movie showed it pretty well: small groups of people completely on their own. It should be noted rather strenuously that the British beaches were well removed from the U.S. beaches, and the Brits had their own troubles, though not nearly as bad nor actually on the beaches.

But discounting the historicity of "Saving Private Ryan" because it didn't show the "God's Eye View" big picture indicates to me that Mr. Spielberg didn't get his message completely across to some people. War is ALWAYS very personal and ALWAYS focused on small groups who can NEVER see the big picture.

I always thought that Market Garden was a case of the British Army getting cocky and believing their own propaganda about themselves. Dad was there too, by the way, while he didn't jump there, he was with the engineers who had to paddle across the canal under fire. It sucked.