FAUXTON posted:

We shall never!



surrender!

(I haven't even seen the show but that clip from the trailer symbolizes the failure y'all have been illustrating. The actual speech was recorded, go have a listen and see how "epic" it was. It wasn't. At all. He may as well have been discussing budget procedure.)

duckmaster posted:

Er, if we're talking about the We Shall Never Surrender speech it wasn't recorded live. The only recording was made by Churchill several years after the war (Churchill was famously surly when having to speak into a microphone, and plus by then he'd suffered a stroke). Extracts were read out by a BBC radio newsreader a few hours after the speech was made, which is often mistaken for being Churchills voice.

By first hand accounts the actual speech in the House of Commons was far more moving but we'll never know for sure.

_{correct me if I'm wrong}

FAUXTON posted:

Hey, you're right - he usually re-read them over the air on the evening broadcast, but not that particular speech. The recording is from 1949. I guess that would explain the odd palate sound.

We will never know whether the 1940 speech was more moving, though it was after the Dunkirk evacuation and before the Battle of Britain had gotten underway in earnest so the tone taken in that Hitlery History Channel show is at least fitting for a dramatization.

duckmaster posted:

Er, if we're talking about the We Shall Never Surrender speech it wasn't recorded live. The only recording was made by Churchill several years after the war (Churchill was famously surly when having to speak into a microphone, and plus by then he'd suffered a stroke). Extracts were read out by a BBC radio newsreader a few hours after the speech was made, which is often mistaken for being Churchills voice.

By first hand accounts the actual speech in the House of Commons was far more moving but we'll never know for sure.

_{correct me if I'm wrong}

quote:

We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Yeah, I too found it even by History channel standards to be a very shallow treatment of the Great War. Galipoli got what, two minutes? And yes, the recreations are badly lacking authenticity.

SocketWrench posted:

Well, to be honest there this is a show about how the great leaders of WWII got their start through WWI. Same as they didn't focus on any other battle in detail, they didn't focus on Galipoli. Hell, the only reason it got mentioned at all was because it was Churchill's greatest failure that sets the wheels of change in motion. You might as well be screaming about why they didn't show anything on Japanese/Russian relations or focus any attention on the ANZACs; It's just not important or very relevant to the main focus of the show. In fact I'd actually argue that the former is more important as it plays a part in Stalin not going after Japan in WWII till they're nearly beaten

SocketWrench posted:

I liked watching the first two episodes, I just get a bit nitpicky and when i see Germans using Enfields and British using Mausers and Russians using Enfields and US troops using a mix of both and the last one showing b-17's being part of the Luftwaffe, it makes me a bit upset. Hell, it even looked like Hitler was using a Nambu

Acebuckeye13 posted:

Panzeh posted:

Here's a Romanian Me-109 used to repatriate a US PoW after Romania switched sides. The ex-PoW was tucked in the radio compartment. Not sure how that worked.

SocketWrench posted:

Well, to be honest there this is a show about how the great leaders of WWII got their start through WWI. Same as they didn't focus on any other battle in detail, they didn't focus on Galipoli. Hell, the only reason it got mentioned at all was because it was Churchill's greatest failure that sets the wheels of change in motion. You might as well be screaming about why they didn't show anything on Japanese/Russian relations or focus any attention on the ANZACs; It's just not important or very relevant to the main focus of the show. In fact I'd actually argue that the former is more important as it plays a part in Stalin not going after Japan in WWII till they're nearly beaten

Mightypeon posted:

Did they even mention Kalkhin Gol and operation August storm?

Raskolnikov38 posted:

No and not really. They talk about the Soviet invasion but don't mention that the allies specifically asked Stalin to do it years before and portray it as a stunning land grab on Stalin's part that takes the allies by surprise. Oh and they get Joe loving Lieberman to talk about it for some reason, unsurprisingly he doesn't know poo poo about it.

ThirdPartyView posted:

The 'best' part was having Rumsfeld and Cheney talk about going to war...

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Their entire portrayal of Stalin and the Soviet Union is so slanted and misrepresentative as to teeter on the line between "lazy triumphalist history" and "blatant propaganda." Of particular note is how badly wrong they get the motivations behind Molotov-Ribbentrop, and how the narration implies that Hitler was inspired to create his concentration camps from the gulags.

Yes, nothing tops war criminals talking about other war criminal. Oh wait.

Nessus posted:

How would Hitler have gotten information about the gulags? I suppose there's certainly parallel evolution between the "concentration" camps vs. the "extermination" ones like Auschwitz. However, I believe the modern concentration camp was invented by the British, who amusingly enough were using it on the Boers.

SocketWrench posted:

I'll see your b-17 and raise you a Stuka


As far as the Maginot Line thing, it just shows German paratroops jumping in, which they did, followed by scenes of random fighting between infantry and armor. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a "hurr duh durr" for limeincoke's friends though

Nessus posted:

How would Hitler have gotten information about the gulags? I suppose there's certainly parallel evolution between the "concentration" camps vs. the "extermination" ones like Auschwitz. However, I believe the modern concentration camp was invented by the British, who amusingly enough were using it on the Boers.

Nessus posted:

How would Hitler have gotten information about the gulags? I suppose there's certainly parallel evolution between the "concentration" camps vs. the "extermination" ones like Auschwitz. However, I believe the modern concentration camp was invented by the British, who amusingly enough were using it on the Boers.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

The British use of concentration camps against the Boers is the first instance of that tactic being used that I know of, but in the German instance I've always suspected they had more to do with institutional memory left over from the Herero genocide (in which Hermann Goerring's father was present) than any conscious effort at mimicking the British.

ArchangeI posted:

Did the Herero genocide use concentration camps as a means of annihilation? As I understood it, the main way of genociding the Herero was to drive them into the desert.

ThirdPartyView posted:

The 'best' part was having Rumsfeld and Cheney talk about going to war...

Mightypeon posted:

Did they even mention Kalkhin Gol and operation August storm?

Acebuckeye13 posted:

Yeah, but I doubt that was used in combat. The Germans, in their infinite wisdom, regularly decided to appropriate much of the war material that they captured for themselves, often without taking consideration into "Logistics" or "Friendly Fire" into account. See: Entire units of captured T-34s.



Not that they were alone in doing this, of course, going by the Panther that was captured by the British and nicknamed "Cuckoo".



Overall, fine examples of the proud European tradition of "The other guy has some cool stuff, let's nick it".

Mightypeon posted:

Not so known fact about Kalkin Gol:

It got started by Japan because some Major (yes, a friggin Major was capable of starting a war with the Soviet Union) saw a little bush war with the Mongolians/Soviets as an absolutly great chance to gain glory/honor for future promotions.
As things go, that dude survived the clash, and after Japan tried to figure out exactly what happened and how, said Major was quickly moved to Japan so the gouverment could watch the guy.
Well, chastened by his experience of being on the wrong of Soviet artillery, he immidiatly "reformed his ways" and became a great agitator for seizing the Dutch and British colonies!

The reason for this "leadership from below" was that Japanese culture places a premium on age. Pretty young officers werent exactly impressed by the leadership of the "old geezers" who were "too cautious/cowardly" and werent willing to "do what it takes" (these "leaders from below" had a disproportionate share of atrocities to their names) or "innovate enough".

These guys, hilariously enough, lived in an even more intense propaganda bubble than Japanese official leadership.

Pornographic Memory posted:

It wasn't an unprecedented occurrence, either, when you look at the Mukden Incident and the history of Japanese involvement in China generally. Pre-World War II the Japanese military basically ran wild and the civilian government was powerless to stop it.

Pornographic Memory posted:

It wasn't an unprecedented occurrence, either, when you look at the Mukden Incident and the history of Japanese involvement in China generally. Pre-World War II the Japanese military basically ran wild and the civilian government was powerless to stop it.

mllaneza posted:

What civilian government ?

The Prime Minister during the Mukden Incident was Prince Konoe, connected to the Throne at the highest levels. For Nomonhan, the PM was Hiranuma Kiichirō, a baron, member of the Privy Council, advocate of the alliance with Nazi Germany, and one of Hirohito's senior wartime advisors. The PM during the 1939 skirmish with Russia was Nobuyuki Abe, a senior general. Two of the longest-tenured PMs in the 30s were both admirals. Of the 16 men who were Prime Minister from the start of Hirohito's reign to the end of WW2, 9 were military officers, one was a prince of the realm, and one of the civilians was hanged as a war criminal for his part in the war in China and the Rape of Nanking.

SocketWrench posted:

They didn't mention any of North Africa either, it went from "Hitler takes Europe, attacks Russia" to "Americans invade Sicily to get a foothold for invasion".


Yes, but none of that really was the point. The point was the show had b-17s as Hitler's bombers, and not just one or two, but a whole squadron...in 1939....b-17g models....that weren't around till late '43-'44\

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

You think that's bad? In the invasion of France segment the Germans were using T-72 tanks!

SocketWrench posted:

They didn't mention any of North Africa either, it went from "Hitler takes Europe, attacks Russia" to "Americans invade Sicily to get a foothold for invasion".


Yes, but none of that really was the point. The point was the show had b-17s as Hitler's bombers, and not just one or two, but a whole squadron...in 1939....b-17g models....that weren't around till late '43-'44
And as was mentioned, using captured equipment is completely understandable and an ongoing thing that's existed since a cave man figured out a sharpened rock on a stick makes a better fighting tool. They also continued to manufacture some of this stuff too since it was easier than retooling factories they captured. They didn't even scrap the old P1's and P2's, just scraped the tops off and mounted guns to turn them into tank destroyers and mobile artillery. Their production sucked, and they knew it, so why not repurpose stuff you captured?

Pornographic Memory posted:

To be fair to the Germans, there was no way they were going to outproduce the Allies and they knew it, so it would have been kind of silly to have these gigantic stockpiles of captured equipment sitting around doing nothing while the Germans struggled to equip their armies with sufficient motorized vehicles of their own design and manufacture. Manpower was a huge bottleneck in their production (hence the massive use of slave labor) so scrapping tens of thousands of vehicles, artillery pieces, etc to use the materials to build German designs may not have been feasible either.

Acebuckeye13 posted:

As for captured equipment, it can be a double-edged sword. For certain pieces of equipment (Particularly the Czechoslovakian stuff, for which they were able to secure the facilities intact), it makes sense to use and isn't a major problem. The issue, however, is that even the philosophy of "Use it until it breaks down, then throw it away" can cause tremendous issues with logistics. Say you're commanding a German armored unit, and you've captured a good number of T-34s. Compared to your other tanks, which would probably be a mix of Panzer IIIs, IVs, and (Post-1943) Panthers, the T-34s don't share anything in common with your other tanks. Ammunition, parts, even fuel is all non-interchangeable, which complicates supply lines immensely. Now, you can alleviate this somewhat by forming units of captured tanks if you have enough of them, but even then it complicates logistics on the grand scale of things. Thus, even if you have lots of captured equipment, they can easily become more trouble than it's worth, turning a short-term gain into a long-term loss.

Acebuckeye13 posted:

Oh, I'm well aware that The World Wars is awful, just thought it would be funny to mention that the Germans did use the B-17, in combat even!* Not in massed formations in '39 though, for obvious reasons.

As for captured equipment, it can be a double-edged sword. For certain pieces of equipment (Particularly the Czechoslovakian stuff, for which they were able to secure the facilities intact), it makes sense to use and isn't a major problem. The issue, however, is that even the philosophy of "Use it until it breaks down, then throw it away" can cause tremendous issues with logistics. Say you're commanding a German armored unit, and you've captured a good number of T-34s. Compared to your other tanks, which would probably be a mix of Panzer IIIs, IVs, and (Post-1943) Panthers, the T-34s don't share anything in common with your other tanks. Ammunition, parts, even fuel is all non-interchangeable, which complicates supply lines immensely. Now, you can alleviate this somewhat by forming units of captured tanks if you have enough of them, but even then it complicates logistics on the grand scale of things. Thus, even if you have lots of captured equipment, they can easily become more trouble than it's worth, turning a short-term gain into a long-term loss.

Acebuckeye13 posted:

That's certainly true, though it's also worth mentioning that many of Germany's production and logistic woes were self-inflicted. The heavy bomber projects, for instance. THE HEAVY BOMBER PROJECTS

SocketWrench posted:

Believe me, I understand that. It used to amaze me reading about the US Civil War how many different caliber weapons they had and how it must have driven people mad trying to supply it all.

The Germans were even using captured French tanks at least till '44 since they shored up the rebuilt 21st Panzer with captured French equipment with re-engineered parts