History Channel

"arjay" wrote in message
m...


The only claim that the Kwai Bridge existed was the following:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
...

And then there is British director David Leans' "Bridge
Over The River Kwai", which credited the British for an
action that in fact Americans accomplished.........

Yes -- but Mitchell (whose contributions here I greatly value) has not
clarified which action he referred to.
Perhaps he meant the destruction, rather than the construction, of the
bridge(s).

Is it "irony" or "farce" when some one claims
credit, (in all seriousness) for something which they know
nothing about except that it is creditted to some one
else in *fiction*?

eg: some american claiming to have done
some thing (believing the fiction to be true)
attributed to some one else (the British et al)
even if it is in a fictional account?

"Robert Sveinson" wrote in message
...
"arjay" wrote in message
m...

The only claim that the Kwai Bridge existed was the following:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
...

It may have been better if I had replied to this when it first appeared.
Mitchell did not claim the bridge existed. For all we know, he has long
been aware of the two fundamental facts misrepresented in the novel and the
film -- that there were two bridges and not one, and that they didn't
actually cross the Kwai.
All Mitchell did was quote the title of the novel as if it were the title of
the film. See immediately below.

And then there is British director David Leans' "Bridge
Over The River Kwai", which credited the British for an
action that in fact Americans accomplished.........

Yes -- but Mitchell (whose contributions here I greatly value) has not
clarified which action he referred to.
Perhaps he meant the destruction, rather than the construction, of the
bridge(s).

Is it "irony" or "farce" when some one claims
credit, (in all seriousness) for something which they know
nothing about except that it is creditted to some one
else in *fiction*?

Once again -- Mitchell referred to "an action that in fact Americans
accomplished."
In the twin contexts of this newsgroup and this discussion, I take the word
"action" to refer to what used to be called 'a feat of arms' in more
romantic times.
Building a bridge -- or even two bridges -- is not a feat of arms.
But destroying it (or them) most certainly is.
The muddle of records and claims indicate that there were several air
strikes against the real bridges, and that one or both were repaired and
restored to use at least once -- which necessitated the second (and perhaps
third) strike.
There is only one claim that one strike was _not_ flown by a pilot of the
U.S.A.A.F. And in that case the aircraft was of American manufacture, the
organizing force was the R.A.F., and the pilot was a member of the R.C.A.F.

Mitchell may have weakened his case somewhat (if he was trying to make a
case at all) by countering the example of "Objective Burma," made during the
last year of the war, with a reference to two post-war films of obvious
fiction -- "The Sound Barrier" and "Bridge Over The River Kwai."
But with that reference he abandoned this thread, after two more sentences:
"Movies have always taking liberty with reality, and military
movies are no exception. Much ado about nothing if you ask me."

I believe we have made more than enough ado about this, even if the topic
isn't "nothing."
We are not in a discussion group. The focus, here, is pictures related to
aviation.
I delight in them, but can supply none. (Don't recall seeing any from you,
either.)
I'm going back to lurking.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 22:22:01 -0400, GC wrote
(in article ):

A question to the group.
Is the History channel distorting the facts?

The Hitler Channel does little except distort the facts.

I have noticed in recent weeks a number of totally incorrect comments .eg
Americans landing in Rabaul during WW2,(its Rab owl by the way not Rab all)

The Japanese landed in 1942, and stomped all over the Australian defenders.
No yanks anywhere near.

The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..

Yep.

B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision bombers
not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?

A B-17 carried the same bomb load as a Mosquito... and was far less accurate.
See further Operation Jericho. Compare and contrast to, well, any B-17 raid
ever made.


They are a few of very many I can recall.

I watch the Hitler Channel strictly for amusement.

I have noticed in recent weeks a number of totally incorrect comments .eg
Americans landing in Rabaul during WW2,(its Rab owl by the way not Rab all)

The Japanese landed in 1942, and stomped all over the Australian defenders.
No yanks anywhere near.

The Allies deternimed that the Rabaul Fortress was not worth the loss
of life and would fold if by-passed as they moved up the island
chains.


The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..

Yep.

Yep (your agree) or Yep (I is a distortion)

If you agree why was it an assassination"

HF

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 16:52:06 -0400, HiFlyer wrote
(in article ):



I have noticed in recent weeks a number of totally incorrect comments .eg
Americans landing in Rabaul during WW2,(its Rab owl by the way not Rab all)

The Japanese landed in 1942, and stomped all over the Australian defenders.
No yanks anywhere near.

The Allies deternimed that the Rabaul Fortress was not worth the loss
of life and would fold if by-passed as they moved up the island
chains.

Yep. Rabaul was never invaded by the Allies. There were lots of air actions,
and lots of naval fighting close by, but no landings. (correction
requested...)



The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..

Yep.

Yep (your agree) or Yep (I is a distortion)

If you agree why was it an assassination"

It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route and mounted
an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook example of an
assassination.

hielan' laddie ignorantly stated
:


It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route and
mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook example
of an assassination.



And your problem with that is?????

Actually think logically... Was there a declared war?
Was this action within the boundaries of the conflict?
Were either of the individuals (shooter/shootee) out of uniform?
Were either of the combatants in non-military aircraft?

The facts point to "casualty of war" rather than "assassination."
I think you should try another textbook or two.
Your's is stretching an "example" to the point of breaking, or
maybe it's just your comphrehension of it.

Had Yamamoto been visiting Switzerland or Peru or anywhere war
had NOT been declared and some yank killed him then I might
tend to agree with your "textbook example."

B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision bombers
not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?

A B-17 carried the same bomb load as a Mosquito... and was far less accurate.
See further Operation Jericho. Compare and contrast to, well, any B-17 raid
ever made.


The Light Night Striking Force of Mosquitos during one phase of the war made bombing raids to Berlin on 43 consecutive occasions without a break. Sometimes the same aircraft would make a second raid on the same night. The Light Night Striking Force flew 553 sorties during April 1943 for the loss of only one aircraft.

The LNSF used to operate in the most appalling weather and one night Air Vice Marshal Donald Bennett was visited by Mrs. Ogden Reid of the New York Herald Tribune. She had asked to witness the start of a raid. This distinguished lady of the American press arrived with a member of the British Government and was immediately driven to the end of the runway by Bennett. Fog caused heavy bomber raids to be cancelled but as the mist swirled around the signal caravan at the end of the runway Mosquitos could be seen taxying on from both directions to save time, lining up and taking off for Berlin in quick succession. She turned to Bennett and said, "I see they have got a bulge - they're carrying a "Blockbuster" aren't they?" She asked what it weighed and Bennett told her 4000 lbs which was 500 lbs more than a B-17 Flying Fortress could carry to Berlin. In any case, he pointed out; a Fortress would not accommodate a 4000 lb "cookie" because it was too large for its bomb bay. The famous Press lady pondered for a few moments before replying "I only hope the American public never realises these facts."

One young Mosquito pilot of those days was Wing Commander 1. G. Broom (later Air Marshal Sir Ivor Broom DSO, DFC and two bars, AFC). "We did 25 nights to Berlin. You could fly there and be back in the mess before the bar closed. We could carry more to Berlin with a crew of two in a Mosquito than could a Flying Fortress with a crew of ten. They had to fight their way there and back in daylight. We went fast at night, at 28,000 ft."



John B

"John B" wrote in message ...


B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision bombers
not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?

A B-17 carried the same bomb load as a Mosquito... and was far less accurate.
See further Operation Jericho. Compare and contrast to, well, any B-17 raid
ever made.


The Light Night Striking Force of Mosquitos during one phase of the war made bombing raids to Berlin on 43 consecutive occasions without a break. Sometimes the same aircraft would make a second raid on the same night. The Light Night Striking Force flew 553 sorties during April 1943 for the loss of only one aircraft.

The LNSF used to operate in the most appalling weather and one night Air Vice Marshal Donald Bennett was visited by Mrs. Ogden Reid of the New York Herald Tribune. She had asked to witness the start of a raid. This distinguished lady of the American press arrived with a member of the British Government and was immediately driven to the end of the runway by Bennett. Fog caused heavy bomber raids to be cancelled but as the mist swirled around the signal caravan at the end of the runway Mosquitos could be seen taxying on from both directions to save time, lining up and taking off for Berlin in quick succession. She turned to Bennett and said, "I see they have got a bulge - they're carrying a "Blockbuster" aren't they?" She asked what it weighed and Bennett told her 4000 lbs which was 500 lbs more than a B-17 Flying Fortress could carry to Berlin. In any case, he pointed out; a Fortress would not accommodate a 4000 lb "cookie" because it was too large for its bomb bay. The famous Press lady pondered for a few moments before replying "I only hope the American public never realises these facts."



January 1, 1945 to April 21, 1945



"A tally at this point showed that Berlin had been the target for close
on 3,900 sorties and that about 4,470 tons of bombs had fallen from the
Mosquitos of 8 Group on to the capital, between 1 January, 1945 and
21 April, 1945. One thousand four hundred and fifty-nine x 4,000 lb.

(1,459X 4,000 lbs.)
bombs were dropped on the city. In addition 71/88 Oboe Mosquitoes
bombed Berlin during April.

From: Mosquito by C. Martin Sharp & Michael J. F. Bowyer.

Only heads of state are protected by Convention rules. He was a
leading military leader of the war and was fair game.

HF


On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 01:14:04 GMT, "David B."
wrote:

hielan' laddie ignorantly stated
:


It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route and
mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook example
of an assassination.



And your problem with that is?????

Actually think logically... Was there a declared war?
Was this action within the boundaries of the conflict?
Were either of the individuals (shooter/shootee) out of uniform?
Were either of the combatants in non-military aircraft?

The facts point to "casualty of war" rather than "assassination."
I think you should try another textbook or two.
Your's is stretching an "example" to the point of breaking, or
maybe it's just your comphrehension of it.

Had Yamamoto been visiting Switzerland or Peru or anywhere war
had NOT been declared and some yank killed him then I might
tend to agree with your "textbook example."

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 21:14:04 -0400, David B. wrote
(in article ) :

hielan' laddie ignorantly stated
:


It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route and
mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook example
of an assassination.



And your problem with that is?????

Absolutely none.


Actually think logically... Was there a declared war?
Was this action within the boundaries of the conflict?
Were either of the individuals (shooter/shootee) out of uniform?
Were either of the combatants in non-military aircraft?

The facts point to "casualty of war" rather than "assassination."
I think you should try another textbook or two.
Your's is stretching an "example" to the point of breaking, or
maybe it's just your comphrehension of it.

'Casualty of war' would be if a few P-38s happened by and whacked some Bettys
and later on found out that they'd got Yamamoto; that's what happened to the
#1 Japanese fighter ace, Nishizawa Hiroyoshi. He was KIA while a passenger
aboard a bomber while en route to pick up replacement fighters, in a chance
encounter with some Hellcats. Totally unplanned, and the American fighters
had no idea that they'd just killed the #1 ace in the Pacific, with over 100
victories, mostly against American aircraft.

'Assassination' is when the mission is planned with the specific objective of
killing one particular person. There's a difference.


Had Yamamoto been visiting Switzerland or Peru or anywhere war
had NOT been declared and some yank killed him then I might
tend to agree with your "textbook example."

Had he been shot down the way Nishizawa was, it would not have been an
assassination. He wasn't, and it was.