dambusters remake off?
doesn't bode well
http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/news/Dambusters-remake-delayed/art icle-912531-detail/article.html
Oh god, I do hope so. The remake idea should never have been floated.
Just reading some of the crap on here about the name of the dog is enough to send me back to the original. Let's leave it alone.
Couldn't agree more. There is nothing wrong with the original - leave it be.
sharehow many amazing real life stories/actions from WWII are there that havn't been told? I dont know of any film of the commando raids at st. nazarre, or the royal navy sinking the french fleet to provent it falling into German hands. Instead it is decided to remake one of the best and most accurate war films ever. Furthermore, everyone knows the story of the dams raid, and i guarantee a remake will contain a wishy washy romance. If they want to do more from 617 squadron then they could show how they perfected the use of tallboys and grand slam bombs against tirpiz, bridges, viaducts and submarine pens. these tell how 617 moved on from being the 'one-op' squadron. Some consolation is Stephen fry is writing it. Still why spoil a classic that needs no makeover. And gibsons dog was called *beep* why change history?
(N.B. I'm an instrutor in the Air Training Corps)
Please don't jump down my throat for raising this ... I seek only clarification from someone who seems to know what he is talking about ... I remember reading somewhere that the raids were more of an Allied morale boost than an actual severe disruption to the German war effort ... is this true?
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
It wasn't intended as such, but that's what it wound up being. If they had managed to breach both major dams, then it would have been a heavy blow to German production, but since only one dam was destroyed the Germans were able to recover fairly soon.
The feat of pulling off such a high-risk raid was a great morale boost back home, but all it really accomplished militarily was to put a minor blip in Axis production, kill a bunch of German civilians (and foreign slave labour), and tie up a number of German troops for a while. Not bad, but not the effect the Allies were hoping for.
That's pretty much what I read ... thank you.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
>kill a bunch of German civilians (and foreign slave labour)
About 1200 german civilians and about 1200 prisoners of war (allied forces) were drowned. The prisoner camp was there to keep british forces from destroying the dams, and accordingly the british high command had been informed about its presence. But these prisoners were not british.
>Not bad
Yeah, fantastic. Hurray!
Sorry, not sure why you posted. Maybe you didn't like my use of the words "not bad?" If so, please recall that I was writing from the Allied military perpsective where the results of the raids would indeed be considered "not bad," but not what they were aiming for.
From a human perspective, of course, the results were tragic (as are the results of any bombing raid that takes the lives of non-combatants) and would have been more so had the raids been completely successful.
As for your numbers, I've read reports that give as few as 700 and as many as 1300 people were killed including civilians, POWs and foreign forced labourers. These numbers do not include the 56 airmen who lost their lives in the raid.
>I've read reports that give as few as 700 and as many as 1300 people were killed
These are more or less the numbers for the Möhne lake alone (a bit too low still), where most of the POWs were kept, so I suppose you confused that. Two dams had been destroyed: Möhne lake and Eder lake.
Anyway, I guess the british forces got more or less the desired result. Of course the effect on the german industry was close to zero, as the dams were easily rebuild within a few weeks. That was to be expected; I mean, how difficult is it to rebuild parts of a dam crest? Thus any impact on the steel production in the Ruhr area cannot really have been aimed for. Instead quite a few non-british people had been drowned, lots of French, Belgian, Dutch and Ukrainian POWs. And the local population had been decimated, mostly women (working as farmers) and children, as 1943 the men were off to war. But of course they had it coming; after all the 3 year old kids in the area were the same who invaded Poland 4 years ago, right?
I suppose you could say, well, that's war. What puzzles me about the entire affair is how this is celebrated as wonderfully heroic and honorable deed instead of discussed as a typical example of the maniac absurdity that is war. In 1956, and still in 2012.
Well I can see we're using different sources, then. I'll stick with my un-confused numbers. They are similar to the Mohne-only numbers because from what I can tell the death toll at Eder was under 100.
No, the British forces didn't get the "desired result." Had they breached all the dams they were going for the impact on German industry would have been immense. Even Armaments Minister Albert Speer said the British came close to a success greater than anything they had achieved to that point.(That's from his book Inside The Third Reich, but I probably don't have the words exactly as printed. I can get it for you if you want.)
Your last paragraph starts with, "I suppose you could say, well, that's war." If you meant that sentence literally and were writing about me in particular then you are wrong. I do not take a casual view of war and I do not glorify it, but I do like to see accuracy and have no problem discussing it or trying to answer questions where I can. On the other hand, what can you say about someone who responded to my post with "Yeah, fantastic. Hurray!" Sounds fairly casual to me, even if meant ironically.
I really don't like assuming things about people, preferring instead to judge only what they say. But I have to wonder about your motives, whether you have a particular pro-German/anti-English slant on history. You've been very heavy on the "non-British" casualties aspect and completely ignored the fact that a lot of the casualties were forced labourers, mostly Russian. You insist that the official numbers quoted under-represent the true death toll of these raids. And your line about the victims, especially the 3-year-olds who "had it coming" is just the type of thing one would expect to hear from a propaganda ministry. You're starting to sound like a Nazi apologist. I hope I'm wrong, but until I'm convinced otherwise this will be my last exchange with you.
>Had they breached all the dams they were going for the impact on German industry would have been immense.
That is utter rubbish and entirely baseless. Do you even know the purpose of these dams, why they have been build?
>Even Armaments Minister Albert Speer
Oh yeah, when some top Nazi says it, that's the ultimate seal of trueness, right?
>completely ignored the fact that a lot of the casualties were forced labourers
And here I was thinking that in fact I was stressing that point when I said "Instead quite a few non-british people had been drowned, lots of French, Belgian, Dutch and Ukrainian POWs" and when I said "The prisoner camp was there to keep british forces from destroying the dams". I do think though that for these people it turned out to be more crucial that they were kept as hostages than that they were forced to work.
>, mostly Russian.
Russians, huh? Because you "do like to see accuracy"? Looks like I hit the nail on the head with "non-british" being what counts to you. Sorry, no russians. BTW you already lost your credibility concerning "accuracy" when you wrote "If they had managed to breach both major dams". And when you believed that this "tied up a number of German troops for a while". Guess again who rebuilt the dams.
>You're starting to sound like a Nazi apologist.
Ah, my opinion differs from yours, thus I am a Nazi. Who is the guy reading books by Albert Speer here? The "official numbers" of the death toll, geez. Which office would that be? Looks like you are all out of arguments.
About WW2 untold or forgotten stories, in addition to your list :
- The Norwegians' April'40 extraordinary feat of sinking the "Blucher"
in the Oslo Sound with 1,000 Gestapo thugs on board.
- The February'44 airborne attack by RAF Mosquitos springing up French
Resistance hostages from the Gestapo prison in Amiens.
It was made into a movie once not long after the war as "Operation Jericho"(1946)
which was very good, but in need of a serious remake.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Basil Embry, a real fighting general, was forbidden
to lead the raid although he planned it.
Group-Captain Pickard who commanded the operation gave his life.
- The valiant RN destroyer "Glowworm" which rammed and severely crippled
the Nazi heavy cruiser Hipper in the '40 Norway Campaign.
Just to mention these 3.
But beware of the abomination of political correctness in the remakes,
that never misses an opportunity to tarnish and sully the brave soldiers.
I hate John Bull only when He caves in before his enemies.
Now, Late Former PM Mrs. Thatcher, she was a Real Man Of A Lady !
Rule Britannia !