Alhadder
Super Anarchist
Another 69'er. It was a good vintage. About 6 weeks younger than you.53, for one more week
Another 69'er. It was a good vintage. About 6 weeks younger than you.53, for one more week
The incredible story of the U.S. Army Rangers who assaulted the 100 foot-high cliffs of Pointe du Hoc on June 6, 1944, just before the amphib landing at Normandy, where 6 German cannons were supposed to be located and taken out.
The Ranger battalions were commanded by Lieutenant Colonel James Earl Rudder. The plan called for the three companies of Rangers to be landed by sea at the foot of the cliffs, scale them using ropes, ladders, and grapples while under enemy fire, and engage the enemy at the top of the cliff. This was to be carried out before the main landings. The Rangers trained for the cliff assault on the Isle of Wight, under the direction of British Commandos.
225 Rangers made the assault, 77 killed and 152 wounded - 90 standing in the end, and nearly all had more then one wound.
This is a superbly accurate account of the Rangers successful attack on the gun battery at the Pointe du Hoc, Normandy, on D-Day. It is the first one I have seen that shows how the guns were tracked down and destroyed by an incredible act of bravery by two Ranger sergeants, which is something that was ignored by book and film "The Longest Day", and many other accounts since then.
Other smaller but interesting details include the correct spelling and pronunciation of "Pointe du Hoc", and also "Ben-my-Chree", one of the Manx Steam Packet vessels that carried the LCA craft to the Pointe.
It was not until years later, while watching Band Of Brothers a few years ago - and looking at the accuracy in regards to history, that I found out that the raid had been a success, after years of believing that all they had found were telegraph poles.
Even today there are people in the area who are trying to dismiss the attack as a failure for the purpose of promoting their own visitor attraction, so it is a joy to be able to hear the first-hand accounts of the brave Rangers, sadly now all passed away, who scaled the cliffs, and overcoming strong opposition, tracked down and destroyed the guns which were ready to fire, camouflaged in a nearby apple orchard. One of the photos in the film shows a captured gun being examined by General Eisenhower. It was certainly not a telegraph pole.
View attachment 572161
This.
WW II is the only "good" war I can think of - all the rest were political/economic bullshit.
Well, maybe Korea and the first Gulf war were valid as well but prior to that you'd have to go back to Napoleon.
Some of them did. Some of them had to fight after WWII. The European colonial powers were loathe to give up their profitable colonies. France in Indochina and the Brits in India come to mind. There were others as well.well, the people of those countries did so, with the right amount of the right kind of help.
Only because of the Marshall Plan - IMO the most generous act in human history.We removed the closest thing to a really evil government, and built reasonable democracies with functioning economies... well, the people of those countries did so, with the right amount of the right kind of help.
Yeah well, some people got their hair mussed...Some of them did. Some of them had to fight after WWII. The European colonial powers were loathe to give up their profitable colonies. France in Indochina and the Brits in India come to mind. There were others as well.
Amphibious assaults were develeoped by Seabees and Marines in the Pacific, where Seabees are the first ashore with Marines to clear the beaches. At Normandy Seabee Combat Demolition units were in each US Army Combat Demo Unit. When the sun came up in the morning revealing their presence, these hybrid Army/Navy Combat Demo Units, who came under fire, resulting in 52% casualty rate.We took a one day guided tour of the Normandy beach area, chilling.
It was a beautiful sunny day without a cloud in the sky and people were enjoying the beach, eerie and unexpected sensory disconnect.
It was to keep Europe from becoming more communist than it did, being generous was the least of the reasons.Only because of the Marshall Plan - IMO the most generous act in human history.
There's no doubt it took U.S. efforts and a combined effort by all the allies, to neutralize the evil Axis powers, for the betterment of all. Patton saw that dividing Eastern Europe wasn't a good thang, and wanted to continue on towards Russia. Patton, although he might have wanted eventually to get to Moscow, made the case for pushing the Soviets back to their pre-war borders. And history tells us that was possible. His 3rd army was the best in US history, and with a force of 500,000. Stalin feared them and so did the Germans. You would adjust their strategies according to the location and direction of the 3rd. It was a risk, but was it worth pushing back Red Army to the original lines in Eastern Europe to give those people a chance at 20th century democracy. Patton would say hell yeah! Unfortunately, that didn't happen.Well, one of the things about WW2 is that the end actually worked out for the greatest good of the greatest number... often aspired to, rarely achieved. Did the Allies fuck some things up, like letting Stalin take over Eastern Europe, yes. That sucked. But it's arguably better than either continuing to fight, or stopping fighting sooner and leaving the Nazis in charge of a reduced Germany, the other two main options.
We removed the closest thing to a really evil government, and built reasonable democracies with functioning economies... well, the people of those countries did so, with the right amount of the right kind of help.
It was to keep Europe from becoming more communist than it did, being generous was the least of the reasons.
I suppose you think the US and Great Britain won the war single handedly too.
Churchill and Roosevelt were as much to blame as Stalin was. Especially Churchill. The map Stalin used was essentially drawn up by a Brit in the 1920s. Churchill showed Stalin, and Stalin liked it. Go figure.There's no doubt it took U.S. efforts and a combined effort by all the allies, to neutralize the evil Axis powers, for the betterment of all. Patton saw that dividing Eastern Europe wasn't a good thang, and wanted to continue on towards Russia. Patton, although he might have wanted eventually to get to Moscow, made the case for pushing the Soviets back to their pre-war borders. And history tells us that was possible. His 3rd army was the best in US history, and with a force of 500,000. Stalin feared them and so did the Germans. You would adjust their strategies according to the location and direction of the 3rd. It was a risk, but was it worth pushing back Red Army to the original lines in Eastern Europe to give those people a chance at 20th century democracy. Patton would say hell yeah! Unfortunately, that didn't happen.
That's not quite close but whatever.One view of it, the capitalists figured out that if they filled the moat with $100 bills, the peasants' revolt would be much less severe!
Dutch in Indonesia...Some of them did. Some of them had to fight after WWII. The European colonial powers were loathe to give up their profitable colonies. France in Indochina and the Brits in India come to mind. There were others as well.
Some of them did. Some of them had to fight after WWII. The European colonial powers were loathe to give up their profitable colonies. France in Indochina and the Brits in India come to mind. There were others as well.
My father was Dutch fought in the Dutch underground then joined US Forces going up through Italy, after being demobbed the Dutch Army sent him to Indonesia to restore order.Dutch in Indonesia...
Dutch in Indonesia...
You could take that up with the Dutch, the UN, Sukarno & Kennedy but it's probably a bit late for that.Indonesia is still a colonial empire run by the Javanese.
Just ask the Papuans in 'Irian Jaya'.
FKT