Originally posted by scipio7777777Maturity? You're the one who began this whole mess by going through every thread and responding to it. I simply wanted you to get a life, but then you had to start insulting me by calling me a "poohead." I hurt deep inside because of that. :'(
quit arguing pointlessly with me and show some maturity and then well talk
Originally posted by Wildfirei hope so i hope your so hurt you go and slash your wrists
Maturity? You're the one who began this whole mess by going through every thread and responding to it. I simply wanted you to get a life, but then you had to start insulting me by calling me a "poohead." I hurt deep inside because of that. :'(
but you suck to my level so that means youy as bad as me
Originally posted by scipio7777777Not exactly. I, being the good Samaritan that I am, attempted to set you on the right path. However, you continued to press the issue despite numerous attempts to save you from utter failure in life. I am not as "bad" as you because I am trying desperately to help a friend in need.
i hope so i hope your so hurt you go and slash your wrists
but you suck to my level so that means youy as bad as me
Originally posted by Wildfireso know im your friend?
Not exactly. I, being the good Samaritan that I am, attempted to set you on the right path. However, you continued to press the issue despite numerous attempts to save you from utter failure in life. I am not as "bad" as you because I am trying desperately to help a friend in need.
and on the flipside i was trying to save your life because you seemed suicidal
Originally posted by no1marauderHmmm, yes, marauder, but that one is quite a stretch: quite apart from the leap it takes to assume two primarily defensive, antequated, immobile armies (and in the UK's case, one chiefly organized for imperial purposes as a glorified gendarmerie, light tanks, etc.) could deploy rapidly to fight a distant conflict at a time when even FDR was merely suggesting a defensive conflict behind French lines asks too much. The air disparity was huge, and not just in terms of size, but in terms of tech strategy (the preponderance of bombers over fighters) - defense expenditure lagged way behind Germany's, and the delay enabled materiel to be passed through the system and activated. In the end, what-iffery is very engaging, but the fact is that British re-armament did not begin until 1937, and was limited even then; the Third Reich was leagues ahead. We can all agree that the appeasers were a parochial, unpleasant, deeply immoral bunch, but the fact is that their immorality bought us survival at the cost of Czechoslovakia: in 1940, this country survived by the slimmest of margins. An offensive war was simply not on the cards at that stage - survival was the priority.
I would argue that Britain was worse off vis-a-vis Germany in air power in September 1939 than the year before which is when Munich occurred.
As it happens, though, I place no blame on the United States for not intervening until 1941. I have no faith in any nation-state at all, and FDR was one of the few decent-ish heads of state at the time.
Originally posted by DelmerHaha, you know something, Delmer, I'd heard so much about Riefenstahl's genius that I bought this last year...I have to say, even judging it in context, I thought it was the worst example of propaganda I had ever seen, not in terms of its message, but in terms of its expectations: the only really imaginative moment is Hitler's descent and that bit where the sun illuminates his raised hand. Aside from that I found myself watching interminable marching, flags, bunting, and amateurish, sweaty, greasy-looking apparatchiks like Baldur Von Schirach and Rudolf Hess (who appears to be having an epileptic fit) mouth off vacuous statements about economic progress on the rostrum. I don't know, I was expecting something more demonic and satanically gripping...it was certainly diabolical, but frankly I'm amazed that the Nazis didn't bore Germany into collective suicide long before 1945.
And have you seen "Triumph of the Will"? It's available on a very well produced DVD now.
Originally posted by AmauroteYou did'nt care for the planes coming in like birds of prey to the feast?
Haha, you know something, Delmer, I'd heard so much about Riefenstahl's genius that I bought this last year...I have to say, even judging it in context, I thought it was the worst example of propaganda I had ever seen, not in terms of its message, but in terms of its expectations: the only really imaginative moment is Hitler's descent and that bit where ...[text shortened]... rankly I'm amazed that the Nazis didn't bore Germany into collective suicide long before 1945.
2 edits
Originally posted by NyxieThe opening five minutes is promising, Nyxie, I'll grant you, but the thing is two hours long, and 115 minutes of it is comprised of unattractive German teenagers waving standards and limp-looking bannerets...
You did'nt care for the planes coming in like birds of prey to the feast?
No, if you want great propaganda, you have to go for Eisenstein's October, which predates TotW by nearly a decade and yet remains superb to this day: my political hero is Alexander Kerensky, and yet even I feel like cheering at some of the character assassination scenes, the montages are so astutely handled. More recently, JFK - you can say what you like about the absurdity of its conspiracy theories, but I think that is still Stone's best film by a wide margin.
1 edit
Originally posted by AmauroteOne point about the appeasers - they exhausted the possibilities of peace. A war started in 1937 would have had many questioning the necessity to fight - by 1939 the need was obvious.
Hmmm, yes, marauder, but that one is quite a stretch: quite apart from the leap it takes to assume two primarily defensive, antequated, immobile armies (and in the UK's case, one chiefly organized for imperial purposes as a glorified gend ...[text shortened]... and FDR was one of the few decent-ish heads of state at the time.
In a democracy, the politically best time is not necessarily the militarily best