(angie999 @ Nov 20 2005, 12:07 PM) [post=41853]As for the Times and other papers, due to limited availablility of newsprint and the small number of pages they could print, the amount of political comment was a lot less then than now. [/b] You know Ang, if it were just political commentary then I would chalk that up to a difference of opinion and would not take exception with it. The problem that I have that I do believe was alive and well back then as well as today, is rhetorical spin. The Fourth Estate is alive and well in the earth. Somewhere between limiting the intrusion of the government on free press, do you empower a more insidious monster called the "free press". This can be such a breath of fresh air and inspiration to the enemy. In fact the AP should start charging Al Jazeera as a subscriber since they post comments by AP reporters more than that of radical Islamists. The AP reporters tend to be a more anti-American/anti-Bush. The comments that Churchill made, caused me to think of tendency to exploit a tense time to build political favor. Like the recent hurricane that blew the levies that the liberal govern in city and the state had wasted money allocated by federal funds to build up the levy so it could take anything thrown against it. The governor and the Mayor with the help of the liberal news media in the US to blame Bush even though the Mayor didn’t mobilize hundreds of school buses. The media also spun it into a massive disaster saying loss of lives would be in the 10s of thousands it was more like 1000 and also spun it into a racists thing because NO is mostly black. They simply generate distrust and blames whoever they wish to destroy and do not print counterargument. I have to believe this happened in WWII from different comments by various members of Parliament usually from the Labor Party. The issue about Churchill switching sides and then coming back is quite perplexing. Don’t believe anyone has duplicated that feat. Especially considering Churchill said “Anyone that is not a liberal by the age of 20, has no heart, anyone not a conservative by the age of 30, has no brain”.
I think that discussing the British press and politics in WWII any further here would be going too far off topic, but if anyone wants to do so, why not start a new topic on UK Home Front?
(angie999 @ Nov 20 2005, 05:07 PM) [post=41853]Churchill never really claimed that he was writing accurate history after WWII. He was writing books which made him look good and said as much, but I cannot remember the actual quotation. [/b] I think that the quote was 'History will be kind to me as I intend to write it.'
OK, guys, sorry for coming too late, but, as a moderator of this forum, I must say that this topic needs a severe warnings on three things: 1) Personal remarks will NOT be tolerated against anyone and from anyone. Please edit your own offensive posts if you do not want them to be edited or deleted by the moderator. Please, behave. 2) Stay on topic. No 'liberal media' and parcial things like that, which are, for one, personal non-objective views, and two, not regarding WWII. If you want to discuss 'Liberal Media' screwing things up and anti/pro Bush stuff, there are other forums within this forum (and there are many spaces outside it as well), as well as Churchill and British WWII political issues. 3) So-called 'conspiracy' theories can be discussed to a certain extent, when backed by high-level sources and no cheap assumptions. Please keep all that to yourselves. Now, as a footnote, I'd like to add that the Western Allies did care much about their men, since they didn't want to waste them as in WWI, and Ike may have been thinking not on long-term casualties, but short-term morals. Also, someone mentioned about not having been any friendly-fire on the bombing of Caën... what about the thousands of French civilians killed? As far as I know, no one complains about it, since it was part of the price to pay for liberation.
(Friedrich H @ Nov 21 2005, 12:22 PM) [post=41903]Now, as a footnote, I'd like to add that the Western Allies did care much about their men, since they didn't want to waste them as in WWI, and Ike may have been thinking not on long-term casualties, but short-term morals. Also, someone mentioned about not having been any friendly-fire on the bombing of Caën... what about the thousands of French civilians killed? As far as I know, no one complains about it, since it was part of the price to pay for liberation. [/b] You do make a good point. They would take no risk for soldiers, but civilians are considered a casualty of war. Seems hypocritical but I guess the rationale is that if citizen's didn't flee the city then they did so willingly. To me it falls under the category of "You have to break some eggs to make an omelet".
(jimbotosome @ Nov 20 2005, 03:38 PM) [post=41862][Especially considering Churchill said “Anyone that is not a liberal by the age of 20, has no heart, anyone not a conservative by the age of 30, has no brain”. [/b] The actual quote is "Anyone who is not a Communist at the age of 21 has no heart. Anyone who is a Communist over the age of 21 has no head." I do not believe it was Churchill's. And I think the entire diatribes about the Clinton administration and the views of Democrats are offensive and completely off-topic. There are plenty of websites where you can argue current events and denounce the Clintons as traitors....this is not one of them.
Actuially the bombing happened twice to Canadian troops. I am currently reading "The Guns Of Normandy" by George Blackburn which is an account of his time in the Artillery. The first one happened during Operation Totalize when for the first time large scale bombings were being used in support of the infantry. The first wave of RAF bombers worked perfectly. The second wave, USAF, was off target and bombed the Canadians and Polish. I cannot remember hopw far off it was but it was by miles. Not a little mistake and there was more than a little concern about how the USAF could be so far off target. A few weeks later in Operation Tractable I believe it was(doing this from the top of my head now and what I read last night) the Canadians were bombed AGAIN. This time the operation was during the day. Orange smoke was uspposed to make the front line of the Allied troops but due to some miscommunication the Bombers were told that it marked the Enemy. There is an amazing story from this one of how an Air Artillery office seeing yet another wave of bombers heading for his lines took off and flew UNDERNEATH the bombers and successfully diverted them. And to make things a tad bit ironic the Air Marshall of the RAF was on the ground ith Gen Simmonds watching the whole thing. Mr Blackburn writes that being bombed once by your own bombers was bad, but two times sent many over the edge. Some never recovered from the shock of the second experience and he recalls hardened veterans descending into madness later in Holland when shelling made them recall their time under fire.
