Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LJPV-x1l3s

So we're going to blame the British for the failure of Operation Market Garden? Not only does HBO do this but it argues that this is due to the stupidity of the British army and because they were holding back the American heroes. Lord forbid that in a supposedly realistic TV series the heroes would be shown to have flaws that would get them killed. But no, instead we are told that with American tanks, they would have won that battle and its all the Brits fault. This implies that the British are an inferior people because this is the ONLY time the allies lose in the entire series as opposed to the Americans who have won every battle whilst taking token casualties. This is HBO explaining away why their heroes lost by shifting the blame and being racist in the process. Why not come up with a scenario which means the heroes make a mistake for once? Have them actually fail and pay for their mistakes; don't offload blame? This is just bad writing on the part of HBO and it goes to show that under the surface Band of Brothers is just another piece of "Greatest Generation" propaganda where the heroes have victory after victory whilst mowing down larger armies of Germans.

Plus the fact that every US main character is invincible and kills 100 germans each during the course of the series; with even the number of extras from the 101st killed you could count on both hands. The Pacific has the exact same problem and aside from one or two set pieces where we finally get to see some equity in this kill ratio (infantry wave attack on Pelalu scene/Iwo Jima bit where Bastogne dies); but these are exceptions to the general rule of a hundred Japanese for every american. It gets real old. I can live with this sort of silliness in High Fantasy novels like Wheel of Time, or video games like Call of Duty; not from shows HBO proudly touts as realistic.

Is was a British planned operation and just because a character in a movie or book says something doesn't mean the story is saying that. It's just that character's opinion.

I'm sure many American military guys felt that way at the time. There was a bit of a rivalry going on.

You're probably just mad because the US captured the first Enigma machine, as we saw in U-571.

Congratulations.

You are offended and mad at a show that is more than 10 years old.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Is was a British planned operation and just because a character in a movie or book says something doesn't mean the story is saying that. It's just that character's opinion.

I'm sure many American military guys felt that way at the time. There was a bit of a rivalry going on.

They are our heroes. We are meant to accept their views uncritically as they are the ones we are empathizing with during the entire series. You are meant to care about the 101st. The views of the British colonel are portrayed in a negative light since there really is a tiger behind there and the town is clearly deserted. If you wanted to change the tone, the American would be unsure and they would blow up a house full of children. The Brit in this scene is clearly portrayed as the cause of the disaster. It is implied he has this opinion because he is British and that as a people they are weak willed and unwilling to make mature decisions expected of Americans. This is racism. So its not just that characters opinion because its held by all of our heroes vs the opinion of the guy who causes the disaster. HBO has consciously directed the scene to pin the blame for the disaster on the incompetence and weak willed nature of the British in this scene. Notice the bit where the Americans just all accept this and fight as best as they can to compensate for the weak british armor which is wiped out and even have a joke about this.

Most Americans during that time felt that black people had to go to the back of the bus and that women belonged in the kitchen making babies. These were not enlightened people whose every opinion should be glorified.

This isn't about Montgommery and the Allied High Command. The scenes HBO puts together are clear. Market Garden fails because they used British tank crews and not American ones. The US tanks would have snapped that ambush in half and been in Berlin by Christmas. If all the flaws are held by the British and this is the only time we see the 101st lose then obviously they are the ones at fault. HBO clearly doesn't want to blame its heroes and doesn't want them to have any flaws. As I said before, aside from the lack of John Wayne, this is just a "Greatest Generation" TV series that leaves realism by the wayside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:
Congratulations.

You are offended and mad at a show that is more than 10 years old.

I just watched the DVD.

Plus I don't like the fact that HBO has butchered Storm of Swords either.

Heh. You think this is bad? Just watch Patton

Market Garden was an Allied clusterfeth and I, personally, blame shrike.

 Ouze wrote:
You're probably just mad because the US captured the first Enigma machine, as we saw in U-571.

I think that you also colonised Britain, I'm sure I saw a Mel Gibson film about that anyway....

Half the cast of band of Brothers was British......

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Heh. You think this is bad? Just watch Patton

Patton is more of a drama that focuses on the character and it actually begins with the Americans having lost a battle. Shock, horror, I know. This sort of thing is just completely lacking in the Pacific and Band of Brothers. HBO simply refuses to have the heroes lose and when they do in Market Garden; they blame the British. Its just a series of spectacular victories over their enemy which they vanquish like they're space marines.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Is was a British planned operation and just because a character in a movie or book says something doesn't mean the story is saying that. It's just that character's opinion.

I'm sure many American military guys felt that way at the time. There was a bit of a rivalry going on.

They are our heroes. We are meant to accept their views uncritically

No, you're not and don't. These aren't fictional characters they were real people. I see you took no offense to the fact Guarnere is actually racist against Jews. Obviously HBO hates Jews.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
it actually begins with the Americans having lost a battle.

See, you lost us there because everyone knows that Americans never lose. If we win we win, if we die we die fighting so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Lord forbid that in a supposedly realistic TV series....

Well they shouldn't have had Cromwells and Sherman Vs in the same unit either

Market Garden was a British failure by the way, mostly due to faulty planning, poor intelligence and simple bad luck.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Is was a British planned operation and just because a character in a movie or book says something doesn't mean the story is saying that. It's just that character's opinion.

I'm sure many American military guys felt that way at the time. There was a bit of a rivalry going on.

They are our heroes. We are meant to accept their views uncritically

No, you're not and don't. These aren't fictional characters they were real people. I see you took no offense to the fact Guarnere is actually racist against Jews. Obviously HBO hates Jews.

Theres a cast of fifty characters and they keep changing; I am not going to remember what one character says offhand.

With the British guy. In that scene, you are simply not meant to see his views as acceptable because the American has seen a tiger tank and he drives into an ambush. This is incompetence and the US characters rightly acknowledge this because thats how the scene is set up. Its like when they are in boot camp and the guy from friends is training them. We are not meant to like this man and there is no nuance. Our heroes are the good guys put in a bad way by this guy and are constantly joking about him to undermine his authority. Likewise in the arhnam scene, there isn't ambiguity here, its made very plain that he is in the wrong and gets the American heroes in trouble. Thats more than just an expression of anglophobia typical during the period among American males in the 16-25 bracket. That scene is trying to make a point and it is consciously blaming the British extras for the defeat rather than the 101st who are our heroes. Thus HBO are bad writers because they don't give these characters flaws and make them lose and pay for it.

Really, so these old men said they all killed 200 Germans apiece and nobody questioned this?

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Heh. You think this is bad? Just watch Patton

Patton is more of a drama that focuses on the character and it actually begins with the Americans having lost a battle. Shock, horror, I know. This sort of thing is just completely lacking in the Pacific and Band of Brothers. HBO simply refuses to have the heroes lose and when they do in Market Garden; they blame the British. Its just a series of spectacular victories over their enemy which they vanquish like they're space marines.

I meant in terms of offending the British. Like that one scene where Patton in making a speech, and when the camera turns to face the audience, all of the British women are ugly.

Band of Brothers is so racist against us Brits

British is a race now?

Race means any cultural grouping, so nationalities, by and large, can be described as races.

Jews, for example, are commonly thought of as a race, but their actual ethnicities are many and varied.

Its quite an old definition but it is still valid.

Racism can be anything that is offensive to people from another nation. Insult french people and you are being racist. Same principle applies.

It is not just color and religion although obviously those are the two biggest ones.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


Theres a cast of fifty characters and they keep changing; I am not going to remember what one character says offhand.

With the British guy. In that scene, you are simply not meant to see his views as acceptable because the American has seen a tiger tank and he drives into an ambush. This is incompetence and the US characters rightly acknowledge this because thats how the scene is set up. Its like when they are in boot camp and the guy from friends is training them. We are not meant to like this man and there is no nuance. Our heroes are the good guys put in a bad way by this guy and are constantly joking about him to undermine his authority. Likewise in the arhnam scene, there isn't ambiguity here, its made very plain that he is in the wrong and gets the American heroes in trouble. Thats more than just an expression of anglophobia typical during the period among American males in the 16-25 bracket. That scene is trying to make a point and it is consciously blaming the British extras for the defeat rather than the 101st who are our heroes. Thus HBO are bad writers because they don't give these characters flaws and make them lose and pay for it.

Really, so these old men said they all killed 200 Germans apiece and nobody questioned this?

I can't recall when HBO released this Band of Brothers documentary. Oh, they didn't. Band of Brothers is a fething TV show. I think your rage is misplaced, Totalwar1402.

Besides, the honorable Izzard already covered this. You Brits are always the bad guys because of the Revolution. Sorry.

Give me a break, claiming 'racism' in this case is silly. Very silly.

This thread made me realise that I never looked at Band Of Brothers as anything other than a series about characters going through hard times with war as a backdrop.
Historical accuracy never came into it for me.
I do believe that Gallipoli is also racist against Brits as they order the Australians straight into machine gun fire.
RACIST!

 CptJake wrote:
Give me a break, claiming 'racism' in this case is silly. Very silly.

Perhaps, but the term can be legitimately used in this situation. Besides nationalism means something else entirely


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bullockist wrote:

I do believe that Gallipoli is also racist against Brits as they order the Australians straight into machine gun fire.

Not to mention French and British troops being asked to assault up a cliff. I'm amazed that Winston Churchill managed to salvage his political career after that little escapade.

Bullockist wrote:
This thread made me realise that I never looked at Band Of Brothers as anything other than a series about characters going through hard times with war as a backdrop.
Historical accuracy never came into it for me.
I do believe that Gallipoli is also racist against Brits as they order the Australians straight into machine gun fire.
RACIST!

Mel Gibson made that film as a piece of propaganda to argue that Australia should be a republic and not be part of the Commonwealth. He did this by playing on a popular stereotype that it was only Australian troops being killed by cowardly and callous British officers. Watching his film you would believe that only Australians fought the war and that the British wanted to lose the war as long as they killed as many Australians as possible. Which is lie, British people died under bad officers and to this day there is a war memorial to an Anzak medic in my home town. So Mel Gibson is a liar.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
This thread made me realise that I never looked at Band Of Brothers as anything other than a series about characters going through hard times with war as a backdrop.
Historical accuracy never came into it for me.
I do believe that Gallipoli is also racist against Brits as they order the Australians straight into machine gun fire.
RACIST!

Mel Gibson made that film as a piece of propaganda to argue that Australia should be a republic and not be part of the Commonwealth. He did this by playing on a popular stereotype that it was only Australian troops being killed by cowardly and callous British officers. Watching his film you would believe that only Australians fought the war and that the British wanted to lose the war as long as they killed as many Australians as possible. Which is lie, British people died under bad officers and to this day there is a war memorial to an Anzak medic in my home town. So Mel Gibson is a liar.

Seeing as how Gibson neither directed, produced, nor wrote the script for Gallipoli I suspect your rage may be misdirected.

The Band of Brothers TV Show for one is not 100% historically accurate. They took some liberties, but much of it while not being 100% was based in fact. Case in point Nuenen was completely made up, but it was drawn from events faced by other units within the 101st. The debacle with the British tanks drew from an instance when the 101st was attempting to dig out a strongly entrenched German position. 4 British tanks were sent to help, and when they showed up they refused to work with the Company Commander they were assigned to. While sitting there arguing that they won't act without orders from the British, a single Tiger came out and destroyed all 4 of them, without them returning a single shot.

And you are greatly twisting the facts of the show. "Taking token casualties", go back and watch the episode that rounds out the end of the Normandy invasion. It mentions the massive casualties they took. Bastogne as well, massive casualties were received. Market Garden on the other hand, the 101st accomplished almost all of it's objectives as assigned. Nearly every bridge it had been sent to capture, they did. The loss of the operation was due to the British, since they screwed the pooch at Arnhem (through no fault of the Red Devils), and Montgomery's insistence that his armor proceed slowly and orderly through the Netherlands ensured that they couldn't achieve their objectives in time either. Market Garden was a British failure. You can take offense to that all you like, but it doesn't change the truth of the matter.

As with all TV shows, sometimes liberties have to be taken to show what happened in a condensed period. If not, they'd have had to have built 5 seasons to get the show done. But just because some things were altered for the interest of time, it does not mean the overall thing they were trying to show was any less wrong.

you should check out the german 'band of brothers' called 'generation war', great character development!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFF5SoZKd_g

 Palindrome wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Give me a break, claiming 'racism' in this case is silly. Very silly.

Perhaps, but the term can be legitimately used in this situation.

So you are shaky on what both 'legitimately' and 'racism', it seems.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Racism can be anything that is offensive to people from another nation. Insult french people and you are being racist. Same principle applies.

It is not just color and religion although obviously those are the two biggest ones.

No it doesn't. Racism is making preconceived notions about someone, because they of their race. Saying you're a tea drinking child-buggerer simply because you are British, is racist*. Saying Market Garden was lost due to Montgomery's incompetence is not racist.


*making a point, not actually calling you that.

 Palindrome wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Give me a break, claiming 'racism' in this case is silly. Very silly.

Perhaps, but the term can be legitimately used in this situation. Besides nationalism means something else entirely


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bullockist wrote:

I do believe that Gallipoli is also racist against Brits as they order the Australians straight into machine gun fire.

Not to mention French and British troops being asked to assault up a cliff. I'm amazed that Winston Churchill managed to salvage his political career after that little escapade.

I've been to Gallipoli and I agree with you, the whole place was a death trap, I'm surprised anyone survived. Not only are the hills/cliffs all covered in loose scree making it hard to go up them at one point whilst bush bashing a bush lodged in my clothes and managed to totally halt any chance of forward momentum (it had to be the most elastic bit of greenery I have ever encountered).
Though that all being said the British did have a lovely green field to play cricket on.

Try watching Bridge of the River Kwi. If BoB annoyed you that movie will infuriate you (cause that one is actually about the British fething up and getting people killed).

That said, most of the planning behind Market Garden was British (really blame Monty). It was poorly planned from the onset so yeah, it was a screw up. We can call it a British screw up if we want to I guess, even if it's a little unfair as a label. Many operations look much better before they happen and we'd just completed Operation Overlord, one of the most ambitious and arguably insane military operations in history and made it work. Market Garden can easily be seen as a hick up that happened because the allies got cocky.

Taking offense though is a little thin skinned, especially since many soldiers at the time (who formed the basis for Ambrose's book) did have a negative opinion of British soldiers and Monty.

The debacle with the British tanks drew from an instance when the 101st was attempting to dig out a strongly entrenched German position.

The incident itself actually wasn't uncommon. There was a TD battalion that encountered a similar problem. British tankers refused to stop 'tea time' to help them defend their position (from a minor attack granted). British tankers have one of the most negative reputations of the war.

 djones520 wrote:

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

C, + sing/pl verb] a group of people who share the same language, history, characteristics, etc.:

link