History Channel

"Robert Sveinson" wrote in news:7Gm%j.31$%g5.8
@newsfe13.lga:


"GC" wrote in message
...



My question on the B17's probably related to the fact the program
totally
ignored the Dams,the Tirpitz,etc all involving a touch of precision

Yes the so called pundits with the most resources to get A message
out to the public are the ones ignoring the facts, but it is also
the consumers of these so called facts who want their
fables fed to them by spoon rather than consulting
reputable historians who are at fault as well.

There was that fairey tale about U-571 which claimed
that the US Navy intercepted secret signals from a U-Boat,
decyphered the signals and using these spectacular results
sent a force and captured said U-Boat. A true work of fiction,
however people who saw this fairey tale asked me
in all seriousness whether I had heard about this
heroic episode of the anti submarine war.


For military movie fiction you can't "The Sound Barrier"
showing the British being the first to achieve supersonic
flight.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044446/



The final raid on the Tirpitz was made by 2 squadrons
of Lancasters each carrying 1 (one) bomb each of 12,000 lbs.
and scored 3 hits, causing the Tirpitz to roll over.
Rather a precision attack, one bomb each per
Lancaster rather than the SHOT GUN method using
many smaller bombs.



I figured the shooting down of Yamamoto whilst obviously a payback was
done during wartime hence not an assassination but I see your point.

As Yamamoto wore the military uniform of his country
I believe that he was a legitimate target.

There were some incomplete plans by the British
to assasinate Hitler, although nothing in the end was
done. These same British planners were not sad
at not being able to kill Hitler, as they believed
that Hitler alive suited their purposes more
than Hitler dead.
And he wore a military uniform as supreme commander
of the German armed forces.

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
...
"Robert Sveinson" wrote in news:7Gm%j.31$%g5.8
@newsfe13.lga:


"GC" wrote in message
...



My question on the B17's probably related to the fact the program
totally
ignored the Dams,the Tirpitz,etc all involving a touch of precision

Yes the so called pundits with the most resources to get A message
out to the public are the ones ignoring the facts, but it is also
the consumers of these so called facts who want their
fables fed to them by spoon rather than consulting
reputable historians who are at fault as well.

There was that fairey tale about U-571 which claimed
that the US Navy intercepted secret signals from a U-Boat,
decyphered the signals and using these spectacular results
sent a force and captured said U-Boat. A true work of fiction,
however people who saw this fairey tale asked me
in all seriousness whether I had heard about this
heroic episode of the anti submarine war.


For military movie fiction you can't "The Sound Barrier"
showing the British being the first to achieve supersonic
flight.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044446/

I am surprised that you could find that one
what with the extensive air brushing out of any
British accomplishments.
I assume that you are stating that the British
did nothing in the attempts to fly faster
than the speed of sound. No surprise there.
Air brush away!

GC wrote in
:

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


IMHO:
The history channel is Notorious for being inaccurate
both in facts and film...

I have plenty of video / film archived on mountains of discs / tape /
film even!

But I never let all that I have amassed stand in the way of reading a
book.

Watch the history channel all you want. As long as you use it
correctly - as inspiration to read all you can.

Waldo.



On Wed, 28 May 2008 09:35:09 -0500, John Szalay
wrote:

GC wrote in
:

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


IMHO:
The history channel is Notorious for being inaccurate
both in facts and film...

John Szalay wrote in
2:

GC wrote in
:

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


IMHO:
The history channel is Notorious for being inaccurate
both in facts and film...

Y-y-you mean... there ~isn't~ a black hole in the Bermuda Triangle?!?

http://www.history.com/shows.do?acti...isodeId=276744

;^}

On Wed, 28 May 2008 02:22:01 GMT, GC wrote:

A question to the group.
Is the History channel distorting 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 shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..
B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision bombers
not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?

They are a few of very many I can recall.

I'm the channel is getting more and more "popular american", ie,
showing more and more only american-based fights, and those shown only
as goodie-goodie as possible...

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."