No talk about the movie 1917?

[Historian]

14 hours ago, G21H30 said:

The above is quite a coincidence. My father was a railroad clerk before enlisting and when he was discharged he was able to resume his job with the AT&SF railroad. I spent 42 years with the AT&SF / BNSF building bridges. My dad passed away one month before my fifth birthday,but he did indeed see and experience a lot during his lifetime.My older brother got his railroad watch,but I have his dog tag,discharge papers,WWI Victory ribbon and promotion to Sergeant certificate.

Here's another coincidence.   My grandfather on my dad's side managed the train schedules in Miami.   I have his watch too.

[janice6]

2 hours ago, Historian said:

He got that from his aunt.  

Among other things he was a poet.  A technically good one.  Just odd in some ways.   He was an Olympic athlete and one hell of a fine skeet and trap shot.

There were many generals who were superior but none as colorful.   He was his own PR machine.  He also had a squeaky voice.

It would have been interesting to see how history would have turned out had he not died when his jeep turned over.

He's also the guy you want when there is a battle to win.  He fights!

[janice6]

I think if he had lived.  At the end of the war, the military would pass on him as not being the type of peacetime officer they wanted.  He was too flamboyant, much like MacArthur.

[Mrs.Cicero]

FWIW, if you like metal, Sabaton's latest album, The Great War, is all about WW1.  Even if you don't like metal, The Sabaton History Channel on Youtube has an 15 min video every week... about one of their songs and the battle or hero the song is about.  They have been working their way through their entire discography, so they aren't always about WW1, but the whole family is now hooked on the music and on the history videos.  

[railfancwb]

2 hours ago, janice6 said:

He's also the guy you want when there is a battle to win.  He fights!

Isn’t that what Lincoln said about Grant?

[railfancwb]

2 hours ago, janice6 said:

I think if he had lived.  At the end of the war, the military would pass on him as not being the type of peacetime officer they wanted.  He was too flamboyant, much like MacArthur.

Could he have taken Russia if unleashed and supplied?

[janice6]

2 hours ago, railfancwb said:

Could he have taken Russia if unleashed and supplied?

Under the conditions you have stated, I think it would be a very long drawn out war with way to many casualties.  I wouldn't be surprised to hear of an armistice if anything.

I would guess Stalin would accept attrition as a tactic.  Remember his hardware production was way to the West, as ours was way to the East.  But he had more bodies he was willing to throw away than we did.

[janice6]

2 hours ago, railfancwb said:

Isn’t that what Lincoln said about Grant?

There are those who sometimes show up when needed the most.  Hopefully we still have them.

[Historian]

28 minutes ago, Mrs.Cicero said:

FWIW, if you like metal, Sabaton's latest album, The Great War, is all about WW1.  Even if you don't like metal, The Sabaton History Channel on Youtube has an 15 min video every week... about one of their songs and the battle or hero the song is about.  They have been working their way through their entire discography, so they aren't always about WW1, but the whole family is now hooked on the music and on the history videos.  

Musically speaking i'm stuck in the 12th century.  Give me a fugue...perhaps a 15th century madrigal.

But...admit it...I really like Sabaton!  My favorite is Stalingrad (historically accurate for the most part).

It's like a high school history teacher has a metal garage band.  But they are reaching a hell of a lot of people and making history interesting.

[Historian]

31 minutes ago, railfancwb said:

Could he have taken Russia if unleashed and supplied?

No way.   The Russians had close to 400 rifle divisions and 50 tank divisions at the end of the war.   It was rather staggering their numbers.

It was the Siberians that broke Stalingrad.  It's an interesting story.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Historian

[tadbart]

On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2020 at 8:26 PM, Historian said:

 

It would have been interesting to see how history would have turned out had he not died when his jeep turned over.

Some conjecture that the Jeep had help, and perhaps he was assassinated.

[gwalchmai]

On 1/13/2020 at 8:26 PM, Historian said:

He got that from his aunt.  

Among other things he was a poet.  A technically good one.  Just odd in some ways.   He was an Olympic athlete and one hell of a fine skeet and trap shot.

There were many generals who were superior but none as colorful.   He was his own PR machine.  He also had a squeaky voice.

It would have been interesting to see how history would have turned out had he not died when his jeep turned over.

Patton? IIRC he broke his neck when he fell off the back seat of his staff car when it collided with a truck He languished in the hospital for a couple of weeks and then died. To your point, I think Patton would have been rotated home and put out to pasture. The Army never likes "hell-for-leather" generals during peacetime.

[Historian]

1 hour ago, gwalchmai said:

Patton? IIRC he broke his neck when he fell off the back seat of his staff car when it collided with a truck He languished in the hospital for a couple of weeks and then died. To your point, I think Patton would have been rotated home and put out to pasture. The Army never likes "hell-for-leather" generals during peacetime.

Pretty much my thoughts on the topic.  The rumors the accident was not an accident are pretty much like big foot and UFO stuff.   It was as you said, a stupid accident.   I don't think he had much of a future after the war.  He was a period actor so to speak.  The right man, in some cases, for the right job and a fine general.    He had great PR...and a movie propelled his image to something enduring.

 

[Dric902]

Patton and MacArthur were flip sides of the same coin.

MacArthur really wanted to be elected to something, but after Truman fires him, the democrats wouldn’t touch him and the republicans thought he was a flaming democrat (which was true)

Patton is harder to spot. He never showed any political motivation. But was a huge ass hat.

Hell of a general though

.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Dric902

[Historian]

37 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

Patton and MacArthur were flip sides of the same coin.

MacArthur really wanted to be elected to something, but after Truman fires him, the democrats wouldn’t touch him and the republicans thought he was a flaming democrat (which was true)

 

MacArthur was an egomaniac.  He would refer to himself in the third person often.    You either loved or hated him.  But he had a PR machine running all the time and people loved it.   He probably prolonged the war in some ways.  He had plenty of issues.

He's actually become a more controversial subject in the last 30 years.

He built is own museum and is buried in it.  The PODcast that come from the museum are universally pro MacArthur.   But still fun to listen to. 

Dan Carlin has a third episode on the Pacific War and he does a nice job of looking into MacAthur.

[Walt Longmire]

Saw the movie tonight. Was worth seeing.

[holyjohnson]

i went to see it last night and thought it was Great.

well worth me getting up and paying to sit in a room of annoying strangers, i didn't find the single camera shot thing gimmicky and it was well acted and did draw me in.

it made me very glad i am not British...

 

and that i wasn't fighting for the British in the First World War.

Great Flick i do Recommend.

[Historian]

It has been over 12 years since i went to a movie.

They sell beer now...and the seats adjust like a lounge chair.

I loved the movie and would like to see it again.  It was brilliant.  And should have come out in 2017.

[TXUSMC]

Grandfather was a U.S. naval officer in WWI.

Have not seen the movie, although I am certain it was well done. The war in general was a clash of 19th century tactics with 20th century weaponry, which could only result in slaughter on a scale never imagined. U.S. troops didn’t get into combat until 1918, and completely ignored the disastrous results of the British and French experiences in 1915 and 1916.