Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 49 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 486

Thread: D-Day 65 years on

  1. #1
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    17,119
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default D-Day 65 years on

    Anyone reading Antony Beevor's book?

    Am half way through it. Eye watering.
    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair.

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member Malbekh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Carrickmines
    Posts
    2,972
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by He3 View Post
    Anyone reading Antony Beevor's book?

    Am half way through it. Eye watering.
    Not yet - saving it for the holiday read. Thanks for the reminder.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,433
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    There is a bit of a controversy waging at the mo, concerning the decision not to directly invite the British Queen to the commemoration of the D-Day landings. It strikes me as strange and amusing when big nations who are allies with well oiled diplomatic systems make such gaffes, the gaffe of not inviting her (or at least smoothing the decision properly beforehand) was compounded by Obama seemingly rebuking Sarkozy for the no-invite and stating that pressure was being exerted on Sarkozy to reverse his decision. Sarkozy initially blamed G Brown's government for the gaffe by hinting invites had been issued and it was a British decision not to pass one on to her.

    I think she deserved an invite, considering the role her nation played in liberating France, perhaps there is some personal friction there and a clash of personalities... Sarkozy strikes me as someone who does what he wishes, a 'brat' is how he has been described... In personality similiar perhaps to Berlusconi whose outbursts are notorious and whose shouting at the G8 meeting... 'Obama' apparently caused QE2 to turn around and ask 'why does he need to shout?'...

    Which can be seen here....

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFgCthVSUwo"]YouTube - Queen tells off Berlusconi[/ame]

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    324
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thranduil View Post
    There is a bit of a controversy waging at the mo, concerning the decision not to directly invite the British Queen to the commemoration of the D-Day landings. It strikes me as strange and amusing when big nations who are allies with well oiled diplomatic systems make such gaffes, the gaffe of not inviting her (or at least smoothing the decision properly beforehand) was compounded by Obama seemingly rebuking Sarkozy for the no-invite and stating that pressure was being exerted on Sarkozy to reverse his decision. Sarkozy initially blamed G Brown's government for the gaffe by hinting invites had been issued and it was a British decision not to pass one on to her.

    I think she deserved an invite, considering the role her nation played in liberating France, perhaps there is some personal friction there and a clash of personalities... Sarkozy strikes me as someone who does what he wishes, a 'brat' is how he has been described... In personality similiar perhaps to Berlusconi whose outbursts are notorious and whose shouting at the G8 meeting... 'Obama' apparently caused QE2 to turn around and ask 'why does he need to shout?'...

    Which can be seen here....

    YouTube - Queen tells off Berlusconi
    Tis a good job the horny old goat didn't do this to the old hag:

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww9YkEqyfa4]YouTube - Silvio Berlusconi.[/ame]

    That would have been a real gaffe.
    Beware of fearful masters

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    143
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by He3 View Post
    Anyone reading Antony Beevor's book?

    Am half way through it. Eye watering.
    I think that it should be read in conjunction with Clive Pontings " 1940: Myth and Reality."
    Otherwise there's a tendency to look on it as revisionist.

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Royalty toxic avenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,031
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I intend to read it, I read Stalingrad and the one on the Spanish Civil War, he's a great historian. Heard him on Simon Mayo's show yesterday, very interesting. Only quibble is that he goes into too much detail in his books, sometimes obscuring the greater narrative. There is no need to know about the precise trajectory of every bullet fired...

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    324
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toxic avenger View Post
    I intend to read it, I read Stalingrad and the one on the Spanish Civil War, he's a great historian. Heard him on Simon Mayo's show yesterday, very interesting. Only quibble is that he goes into too much detail in his books, sometimes obscuring the greater narrative. There is no need to know about the precise trajectory of every bullet fired...
    I have always been interested as to why the 'Third Reich' didn't invade Britain ("flamboyant" Goerings glaring and blatant incompetence is too obvious an excuse).. At its pinnacle of success the string pullers of that system decided not to invade Britain during 1940 and instead decided invade the mammoth that was the USSR a year later. When you look at who funded the 'Third Reich' into existence it is not surprising that events played out as they did.
    Last edited by EarlyBird; 6th June 2009 at 05:27 AM.
    Beware of fearful masters

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Royalty toxic avenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,031
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlyBird View Post
    I have always been interested as to why the 'Third Reich' didn't invade Britain ("flamboyant" Goerings glaring and blatant incompetence is too obvious an excuse).. At its pinnacle of success the string pullers of that system decided not to invade Britain during 1940 and instead decided invade the mammoth that was the USSR a year later. When you look at who funded the 'Third Reich' into existence it is not surprising that events played out as they did.
    They did attempt to invade, albeit without much enthusiasm from Hitler. The Royal Navy was massively superior to the German one. The only hope for the Germans was to gain air supremacy over the RAF, thus being able to knock out the navy. They failed, thanks to the Spitfires and Hurricanes. Hitler was never massively serious about invading Britain anyway, but not doing so enabled a war on two fronts and the eventual introduction of the Americans, plus allowed massive arms supplies and intelligence info to be given to the Russians.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Dublin Bay South
    Posts
    12,938
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlyBird View Post
    Tis a good job the horny old goat didn't do this to the old hag:

    YouTube - Silvio Berlusconi.

    That would have been a real gaffe.

    What did Berlusconi call out that annoyed Liz? I can't quite catch it.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member Catalpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dublin West
    Posts
    10,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlyBird View Post
    I have always been interested as to why the 'Third Reich' didn't invade Britain ("flamboyant" Goerings glaring and blatant incompetence is too obvious an excuse).. At its pinnacle of success the string pullers of that system decided not to invade Britain during 1940 and instead decided invade the mammoth that was the USSR a year later. When you look at who funded the 'Third Reich' into existence it is not surprising that events played out as they did.
    They didn't have the Operational means to invade Britain in 1940 unless and until the gained Air Superiority.

    The RAF blocked that threat for long enough until the weather turned and Sealion was cancelled.

    As for D-Day

    OK if the Allies want to commemorate it well and good but what in hell is RTE on about it for?

    This State was neutral in WWII - Montrose should learn to live with that fact!

    RTE even got the scale of the D-day landings wrong

    - it was not the largest amphibious Invasion of WWII

    - that particular accolade belongs to the Invasion of Sicily in August 1943.


    Although overshadowed by the Normandy invasion a year later, Operation HUSKY was actually the largest amphibious operation of World War II in terms of the size of the landing zone and the number of divisions put ashore on the first day of the invasion.

    http://www.history.army.mil/Brochures/72-16/72-16.htm
    Last edited by Catalpa; 6th June 2009 at 07:40 PM.

Page 1 of 49 1234511 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •