BF2S Forums Rate the last TV Show you've seen

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

There's a few minor inaccuracies in the movie, but it doesn't go out of its way to warp reality too much. It doesn't pull too many punches on the general, and George C. Scott won a NYFC for it.

I would probably have it in any WW2 dramatization library.

e: neat read about its troubled production

The Patton Film: From Real to Reel
https://www.historynet.com/patton-film-real-reel.htm

Thank you for helping me learn the actor was as much of a retard as Patton. But in fairness that might have been a reasonable reaction to living in the Cold War era.

I have an article for you that you are as a matter of reciprocal honor obligated to read.
"The woe of being a 'Westworld' fan in 2020"
https://www.insider.com/its-hard-to-be- … 2020-5?amp

RTHKI and Dilbert also need to read. This is required reading.

The war might indeed have been shortened if they hadn't redirected supplies to Montgomery's failed Operation Market Garden instead of to his charging tanks. The Germans were on the run and the delay allowed them to regroup.

Takes a deep breath

The people who think that the war would have ended quicker if Patton, a fool only good at one thing, was allowed to do what he wanted to do completely overlaps with the people who think America singlehandedly won the war. World War 2 was decided on the Eastern Front. By the time D-Day happened, it was clear that the Red Army was going to overrun Germany. D-Day and the western front's main contribution was tying up troops that would have been killed failing to defend Berlin. The biggest success of D-Day wasn't defeating the Germans in Normandy. It was liberating France before the Red Army got there.

Secondly, the Germans Patton led against weren't the best Germany had to offer. The German army was depleted on the Eastern Front while the U.S. were the best supplied army in the world. Let's not exaggerate his accomplishments as a general.

Third, Patton was a meathead and history proved his idea about launching a war on the Soviet Union was ridiculous. Multiple times his poor judgement almost lost him his command. And considering the outcome of the Cold War, patience proved to have been the best course of action. What would have happened if we declared war on the Soviet Union? Nuclear war, millions of more dead (a lot of them Americans) and unstable democracies across the Eastern Europe that would have elected comedians and little Putins just like they did in our timeline when they got democracy without having to nuke them repeatedly. The only person who would have been happy with this result? Gunslinger in our timeline once he saw the demographic death toll.

And finally, if you are going to study World War 2, the Eastern Front is the good stuff. Oh and the Pacific War was lame compared to the Sino-Japanese war.

Yes, the Soviets did the majority of the fighting and dying. The British and Americans got their butt kicked by Rommel and his numerically inferior forces in North Africa, and they took forever to defeat a numerically inferior opponent in Italy. Both our weapons and our tactics were inferior to the Germans. We, like the Soviets, simply overwhelmed German troops with artillery and air support, and interdicted their supply lines, thus refusing them resupply. The Germans we fought at Normandy were crippled, lame, or conscripts from conquered Eastern European countries. They still caused tens of thousands of casualties. The Germans we fought at The Bulge had a large number of teenagers.

A lot of the issue that American forces had was the stubbornness of the procurement bureaucracy. They didn't like new weapons or tactics. General McNair refused to upgrade the Sherman tank, stating that he felt it was adequate. He also insisted on having separate tank destroyer units rather than building heavier tanks. The Sherman tank was a piece of shit and was responsible for tens of thousands of American and British deaths.

Because the Sherman was such a piece of shit and a liability, it's only use was in exploiting breakouts and in movement. Once the Western Front bogged down in order to feed Montgomery supplies, the German forces were allowed to regroup and bring up Panther and Tiger tanks, and the American forces were once again forced to rely on the Sherman tank as they had in Normandy, slogging it out in attrition battles in which the Sherman crews took a beating. Pausing for Market Garden was a political decision made to stop the V-2 rockets. It extended the war and cost many lives. Patton should've been released to keep going.

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

The war might indeed have been shortened if they hadn't redirected supplies to Montgomery's failed Operation Market Garden instead of to his charging tanks. The Germans were on the run and the delay allowed them to regroup.

Takes a deep breath

The people who think that the war would have ended quicker if Patton, a fool only good at one thing, was allowed to do what he wanted to do completely overlaps with the people who think America singlehandedly won the war. World War 2 was decided on the Eastern Front. By the time D-Day happened, it was clear that the Red Army was going to overrun Germany. D-Day and the western front's main contribution was tying up troops that would have been killed failing to defend Berlin. The biggest success of D-Day wasn't defeating the Germans in Normandy. It was liberating France before the Red Army got there.

Secondly, the Germans Patton led against weren't the best Germany had to offer. The German army was depleted on the Eastern Front while the U.S. were the best supplied army in the world. Let's not exaggerate his accomplishments as a general.

Third, Patton was a meathead and history proved his idea about launching a war on the Soviet Union was ridiculous. Multiple times his poor judgement almost lost him his command. And considering the outcome of the Cold War, patience proved to have been the best course of action. What would have happened if we declared war on the Soviet Union? Nuclear war, millions of more dead (a lot of them Americans) and unstable democracies across the Eastern Europe that would have elected comedians and little Putins just like they did in our timeline when they got democracy without having to nuke them repeatedly. The only person who would have been happy with this result? Gunslinger in our timeline once he saw the demographic death toll.

And finally, if you are going to study World War 2, the Eastern Front is the good stuff. Oh and the Pacific War was lame compared to the Sino-Japanese war.

Yes, the Soviets did the majority of the fighting and dying. The British and Americans got their butt kicked by Rommel and his numerically inferior forces in North Africa, and they took forever to defeat a numerically inferior opponent in Italy. Both our weapons and our tactics were inferior to the Germans. We, like the Soviets, simply overwhelmed German troops with artillery and air support, and interdicted their supply lines, thus refusing them resupply. The Germans we fought at Normandy were crippled, lame, or conscripts from conquered Eastern European countries. They still caused tens of thousands of casualties. The Germans we fought at The Bulge had a large number of teenagers.

A lot of the issue that American forces had was the stubbornness of the procurement bureaucracy. They didn't like new weapons or tactics. General McNair refused to upgrade the Sherman tank, stating that he felt it was adequate. He also insisted on having separate tank destroyer units rather than building heavier tanks. The Sherman tank was a piece of shit and was responsible for tens of thousands of American and British deaths.

Because the Sherman was such a piece of shit and a liability, it's only use was in exploiting breakouts and in movement. Once the Western Front bogged down in order to feed Montgomery supplies, the German forces were allowed to regroup and bring up Panther and Tiger tanks, and the American forces were once again forced to rely on the Sherman tank as they had in Normandy, slogging it out in attrition battles in which the Sherman crews took a beating. Pausing for Market Garden was a political decision made to stop the V-2 rockets. It extended the war and cost many lives. Patton should've been released to keep going.

do you have any idea what you're talking about? the british beat rommel in north africa. 'got their butts kicked'? who won at al-alamein?

rommel might have been acknowledged as a master battlefield commander and tactician, but the germans did not defeat the allies in north africa.

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Takes a deep breath

The people who think that the war would have ended quicker if Patton, a fool only good at one thing, was allowed to do what he wanted to do completely overlaps with the people who think America singlehandedly won the war. World War 2 was decided on the Eastern Front. By the time D-Day happened, it was clear that the Red Army was going to overrun Germany. D-Day and the western front's main contribution was tying up troops that would have been killed failing to defend Berlin. The biggest success of D-Day wasn't defeating the Germans in Normandy. It was liberating France before the Red Army got there.

Secondly, the Germans Patton led against weren't the best Germany had to offer. The German army was depleted on the Eastern Front while the U.S. were the best supplied army in the world. Let's not exaggerate his accomplishments as a general.

Third, Patton was a meathead and history proved his idea about launching a war on the Soviet Union was ridiculous. Multiple times his poor judgement almost lost him his command. And considering the outcome of the Cold War, patience proved to have been the best course of action. What would have happened if we declared war on the Soviet Union? Nuclear war, millions of more dead (a lot of them Americans) and unstable democracies across the Eastern Europe that would have elected comedians and little Putins just like they did in our timeline when they got democracy without having to nuke them repeatedly. The only person who would have been happy with this result? Gunslinger in our timeline once he saw the demographic death toll.

And finally, if you are going to study World War 2, the Eastern Front is the good stuff. Oh and the Pacific War was lame compared to the Sino-Japanese war.

Yes, the Soviets did the majority of the fighting and dying. The British and Americans got their butt kicked by Rommel and his numerically inferior forces in North Africa, and they took forever to defeat a numerically inferior opponent in Italy. Both our weapons and our tactics were inferior to the Germans. We, like the Soviets, simply overwhelmed German troops with artillery and air support, and interdicted their supply lines, thus refusing them resupply. The Germans we fought at Normandy were crippled, lame, or conscripts from conquered Eastern European countries. They still caused tens of thousands of casualties. The Germans we fought at The Bulge had a large number of teenagers.

A lot of the issue that American forces had was the stubbornness of the procurement bureaucracy. They didn't like new weapons or tactics. General McNair refused to upgrade the Sherman tank, stating that he felt it was adequate. He also insisted on having separate tank destroyer units rather than building heavier tanks. The Sherman tank was a piece of shit and was responsible for tens of thousands of American and British deaths.

Because the Sherman was such a piece of shit and a liability, it's only use was in exploiting breakouts and in movement. Once the Western Front bogged down in order to feed Montgomery supplies, the German forces were allowed to regroup and bring up Panther and Tiger tanks, and the American forces were once again forced to rely on the Sherman tank as they had in Normandy, slogging it out in attrition battles in which the Sherman crews took a beating. Pausing for Market Garden was a political decision made to stop the V-2 rockets. It extended the war and cost many lives. Patton should've been released to keep going.

do you have any idea what you're talking about? the british beat rommel in north africa. 'got their butts kicked'? who won at al-alamein?

rommel might have been acknowledged as a master battlefield commander and tactician, but the germans did not defeat the allies in north africa.

Against two understrength panzer divisions with no fuel, and Italian divisions with coffins for tanks. Yes, Montgomery won at El Alamein, but more correctly, the RAF and Royal Navy won it by holding out at Malta and destroying all the German supplies before they could land in Tripoli. Rommel chased the British out of Libya twice, and his supply lines stopped him at the Egyptian border both times.

Patton overextended his Jeep into a tree.

You have to build people up to make knocking them down an achievement.

Rommel did well because an American officer was forwarding all the British plans back to America in a weak code which the Germans had broken.
Montgomery did well thanks to the British breaking the German codes and being able to intercept their supplies before they reached Africa.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-05-08 07:07:10)

Whats more interesting is that most recent history refers to WW2 as a  war against 'the nazis', as if the average german was on our side.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-05-08 07:08:49)

SuperJail Warden wrote:

uziq wrote:

Larssen wrote:

In all honesty the second world war saw commanders much more competent than Rommel, such as von Manstein, Guderian - his reputation was not totally undeserved but in large part a product of media hype on the western front. Particularly because of his role fighting the British.

On the eastern front however the numbers and complexity of the war was of a totally different calibre.

yep, this is very true. the british weirdly love rommel. he is by far the most written about military figure from the anglophone perspective.

I feel like World War 2 is losing its salience in American culture. Conservative Americans lament the war with Germany because they vaguely identify with the social conservatism of Nazi Germany. And it's only conservatives who carry the water for the troops in our culture.

I wrote this post before I saw the last two.

I mean the evolution of historiography about the war had quite a bit to do with the creation of the division between 'germans' and 'nazis'. After the series unsere Mütter, unsere Väter (generation war in english I believe, terrible name) was televised it caused a pretty big public debate on the memory of the war. Plenty of those who fought were everyday people sucked into a conflict and ideology they scarcely understood.

Nonetheless I do feel that even there the racist nationalist elements that were so widespread still got muted somewhat. Then again, they were prevalent elsewhere as well.

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

uziq wrote:

yep, this is very true. the british weirdly love rommel. he is by far the most written about military figure from the anglophone perspective.

I feel like World War 2 is losing its salience in American culture. Conservative Americans lament the war with Germany because they vaguely identify with the social conservatism of Nazi Germany. And it's only conservatives who carry the water for the troops in our culture.

What on earth are you talking about?

Whenever I read conservatives talk about World War 2 in Europe they speak about it like it was an American tragedy. They add a certain sadness to the story that they don't add to the Japanese narrative. Conservatives have more pity for Germans occupying France than they have for civilians in Hiroshima.

The Russians meanwhile are no cucks. They own that they won a great civilization altering victory over the Germans.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I suppose its easier to forget the people who were mostly hanged than forgive the people who joyfully elected them.

Not to say that Germany shouldn't be rehabilitated but not by rewriting history.

But did they? World war 2 was so vast it is impossible to write one definitive history about this timeperiod. The blanket view of 'german = nazi' was also wrong, not to mention many of the attributed traits somewhat hypocritical. The allies had committed war crimes of their own, east and west, and were provably racist against jews in particular. How do you think the gestapo managed to find so many of them if it wasn't for the local French, Belgian, Dutch, Polish citizenry ratting them out? I believe there was only about 1 gestapo officer for every 1 million people in 'nazi territory'.

DesertFox- wrote:

Yeah, fuckin' weirdos with their adoration of Rommel as some strategic genius.

i never said it was weird to admire a man’s military genius. i was talking more about it being a weirdly british trait. that is, what it says about british values and readers. historiography in academia and reading tastes in the public at large say a lot. i used to commission bookstore-level ‘trade’ history nonfiction, so i thought about this sort of stuff quite a bit.

another weird fact is that napoleon is strangely popular with english readers. as well as hitler/stalin/mussolini, of course.

uziq wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Yeah, fuckin' weirdos with their adoration of Rommel as some strategic genius.

i never said it was weird to admire a man’s military genius. i was talking more about it being a weirdly british trait. that is, what it says about british values and readers. historiography in academia and reading tastes in the public at large say a lot. i used to commission bookstore-level ‘trade’ history nonfiction, so i thought about this sort of stuff quite a bit.

another weird fact is that napoleon is strangely popular with english readers. as well as hitler/stalin/mussolini, of course.

I was more referring to my dumb ass picking a gaming nick in the early 2000s.