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.

 Palindrome wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

C1 [C or U] a group, especially of people, with particular similar physical characteristics, who are considered as belonging to the same type, or the fact of belonging to such a group:

link

Take it up with the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1288231.stm

But has there ever been such a thing as a British race?

It all depends on which definition you chose for "race" itself.

The Oxford English Dictionary broadly defines the word as "a group of persons connected by common descent".


That seems to open the door to the idea of a British race, although since modern Britain only became an entity with the Act of Union in 1707 we are still a relatively young race.

But the OED's primary definition for "race" is more specific, siding with the idea that race can transcend national borders.

It classes a race as one of the "major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics".

In which case, the modern-day British are not a single race but a hotchpotch of ethnic groups that have settled within these shores down the centuries.

Certainly then, the notion of racial purity among the British is a fallacy, and our multiculturalism dates back to the Dark Ages and beyond

 LordofHats wrote:

British tankers have one of the most negative reputations of the war.

I think that is a little harsh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

But the OED's primary definition for "race" is more specific,

Its almost as though a word can have more than 1 meaning!

 Palindrome wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

British tankers have one of the most negative reputations of the war.

I think that is a little harsh.

I'm sorry? Facts seem to have a hard time being received here, so I don't know what to tell you.

 Palindrome wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

British tankers have one of the most negative reputations of the war.

I think that is a little harsh.

Its harsh in that overall, Americans and Brits walked out of the war with very good relations. Maybe 1 in 5 (random guess from reading experience) American soldiers had any strong negative opinions of British soldiers over all and even then, their overall experience may still have been positive. British tankers though often enough pop up in oral accounts and unit histories as the targets of criticism from American troops. More than often enough to say that they were not the most liked chaps.

If it makes you fell better, Brits hated US anti-air teams. We shot at a lot of British planes... poorly but still XD

This is a criticism against HBO and this particular scene.

It is not an argument about Montgommery, or Arnham, or the planners missing the Panzer Divisions. This scene IS NOT HBO using it as a simplified explanation to the audience about why the British operation failed because it doesn't really mention the actual reasons why the operation failed.

It is specifically related to this scene and the way that scene reflects on Brits.

To argue that this scene demonstrates poor writing because these characters never lose a single battle and the one time they do is blamed on a third parties incompetence.

Taking one or even a group of isolated instances and putting that in a film where you give a general impression is wrong. Do you consider that one guy in wikileaks in the apache mowing those civilians indicitive of the entire US military? No. Then why would a director pick one example and use that to portray the Brits. I am pretty sure there'd be instances of Americans, or French, or any other pair of forces where the chain of command was confused having similar problems.

Yeah a few dozen guys equals massive casualties? As opposed to the hundreds of germans they kill every episode. Thats like saying a few space marines die in a Black Library book. I get that because they are telling the story of real people and of a real historical unit so they are limited to how many Americans they can kill and it makes their characters untouchable. Obviously theres never a time where half the unit was dead in one battle. However this doesn't work for me because

1- They take no account of the kill ratio of the 101st, they wipe out hundreds of germans in the show and this is clearly inflated for the sake of action. This makes things very disproportionate with plot armor characters and a cap on the number of American deaths.

2- Theres no real sense of danger because you know the 101st and most of our heroes are going to survive the war becuase how else could their story have been told

3- Points 1 and 2 just turn this into an endless list of unbroken triumphs and makes it seem one sided. This makes for a poor plot because our heroes never suffer a major setback. Why is Game of Thrones so well liked atm. Because our heroes can die. They can lose. They can suffer setbacks and be made to look like fools. None of this exists in Band of Brothers.

You sounds like you want to watch a reenactment rather than a drama.

 Medium of Death wrote:
You sounds like you want to watch a reenactment rather than a drama.

Theres no drama in a bunch of plot armor space marines mowing down hapless Germans as you wait to learn how they survived the war which you know that the 101st survives intact. They don't even have the courtesy to cover this plot armor by having lots of random extras from the 101st killed in what supposed to be an extremely dangerous and bloody war. So where is the drama? Wheres the risk? Wheres the threat? Wheres the suspense?

Again, I make the comparison to Game of Thrones. Not everyone should be safe. Heroes should be allowed to lose and armies of goodies be destroyed. This creates great suspense and makes you much more invested rather than a bunch of space marines mowing down Nazis for 10 hours as they walk towards inevitable victory to tell their grandchildren how they won the war single-handedly.

Ok, I'm going to say this just once then I'm done with this farce.

Go read Hell's Highway, written by George Koskimaki.

Then you can come back and start this back up.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
This is a criticism against HBO and this particular scene.

You're criticism means little as the scene appears in original source material which was compiled by Stephen Ambrose from eye witness* and was taken from an actual incident. Calling it racist is like telling police officer he's racist because he arrested a black youth for possession with probable cause.

*And I'm the first to stand up and say Stephen Ambrose makes gak up, cause he does, but this particular incident is factual and can be confirmed against official reports.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
This is a criticism against HBO and this particular scene.

You're criticism means little as the scene appears in original report and was taken from an actual incident. Calling it racist is like telling police officer he's racist because he arrested a black youth for possession with probable cause.

You're wrong. If you are making a TV show and you take one example of a black person having possession and then make a show about black people with drugs; then you are implying that all black people do drugs which would definitely be racist. This scene in Band of Brothers is not presented as an isolated incident. It is clearly meant to be seen in light of why the operation failed and as it is a British operation there is a clear undertone of blame the British. Therefore this example is not just one tank commander meant to be seen in isolation. It is inditing all British people. This is furthered because in the episode where they rescue the British from their own mess at Arnham the British are portrayed and speak like effete dandies which leaves the audience in no doubt as to why they failed and need rescuing by the Americans.

HBO chose this scene from a historical source and put it into a context where it would absolve our heroes from any responsibility in their only defeat. Which is poor writing.

It is clearly meant to be seen in light of why the operation failed and as it is a British operation there is a clear undertone of blame the British.

You're reading into it too much. I highly doubt HBO's artistic thought with that scene was 'lets blame the Brits' and more like; *reads Band of Brothers* Lets put this on the big screen followed by *puts it on the big screen*. A lot of what you use as evidence is more the outcome of filming a scene based in a book using source material from about 20 guys than any attempt to bemoan the British.

That said, you're still reading into it too much.

This thread is bad and you should feel bad...

Maybe the failure of Operation Market Garden was due to the uberness of the Waffen SS...

 Khornholio wrote:
Maybe the failure of Operation Market Garden was due to the uberness of the Waffen SS...

Das Reich man. Arguably the MOST battle hardened unit in the entire German war machine. That said, the plan's major failing is well surmised by the title of the film 'A Bridge Too Far.' The allies tried to do too much with too little. The unknowns that popped up just made it worse, like sealing the fate of the 1st Airborn Division.

The British refusal to utilize the Dutch Underground was another huge factor. The US forces did, and it's a large part of why they were so successful in achieving their objectives.

There are loads of other TV series out there, why bother with ones you don't like? For example I was getting a bit bored with TV, so I'm currently watching/re-watching the X-files.

So where we are at with this, as a thread, is that yeah it was mostly the fault of the British, but HBO pointed that out in a gauche way and they should do something about something brah brah brah... it's 12 odd years old. Right?

 Medium of Death wrote:
For example I was getting a bit bored with TV, so I'm currently watching/re-watching the X-files.

And re-watchable it is, amiright? Clyde Bruckman for realz.

At the risk of setting myself up here, I'm going to propose an alternative. The British didn't loose, the Germans won.

There is truth that the British didn't follow up on many of the glaringly obvious dangers during planning, for example, actually asking Dutch Officers if it was a good idea (it wasn't). Asking the Dutch resistance for help (We thought the resistance had been compromised by the germans). Ignoring the reports of tanks (see above) in the area and so on. Ignoring locals telling the advancing tank column of an undefended bridge in favour of attacking a defended one. But one thing that is consistantly overlooked is that the German defence on engaging, containing and holding such an attack is now the basis of lessons within the Military.

Did the Brits do everything right? No.
Did the Germans do everything right? Yes.

Cheers

Andrew

 djones520 wrote:
The British refusal to utilize the Dutch Underground was another huge factor. The US forces did, and it's a large part of why they were so successful in achieving their objectives.

Well, the 1st Airborn also had the hardest to capture objective and took the biggest brunt of the beating. Dutch Underground probably couldn't have saved them from that or the operation.

Waffen SS? Most of the initial units were the Sick, Lame and Lazy!

Cheers

Andrew

 LordofHats wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The British refusal to utilize the Dutch Underground was another huge factor. The US forces did, and it's a large part of why they were so successful in achieving their objectives.

Well, the 1st Airborn also had the hardest to capture objective and took the biggest brunt of the beating. Dutch Underground probably couldn't have saved them from that or the operation.

It could have prevented them from walking into the meat grinder blind though. The 1st Airborne turned away vital intelligence that could have allowed them to move towards the closer Driel ferry instead of the bridge in Arnhem. At the time of their airdrop, it was relatively undefended and it's capture could have meant success of the operation, instead of failure.

 AndrewC wrote:
the Germans won.

That is losing. That said, the allies lost, not the British. You could actually point out that Market Garden amounted to a double edge sword. The Allies did achieve most of their objectives, just at a massive cost (the bulk of 1st ABD was wiped out, a huge loss), but the Germans at most just delayed the inevitable and they lost a lot themselves.

There is truth that the British didn't follow up on many of the glaringly obvious dangers during planning, for example, actually asking Dutch Officers if it was a good idea (it wasn't).

It's also a little unfair to peg that as a flaw. The British had actually tried working with resistance fighters in several operations and experienced major problems. Many resistance cells were in fact being spied on and the Germans were always marginally aware of what they were doing. The British feared that involving the resistance would be a detriment (turns out the Dutch resistance had in fact been infiltrated by a double agent though what he knew is unknown). The Americans lacked the negative experiences the British had, so we reached out when the British tried not to.

There were very rational reasons not to trust the Dutch (many Dutch served in the SS as well). Hindsight is a bitch.

Didn't they think that the ferry lines had already been cut at that point in the war though?

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
Didn't they think that the ferry lines had already been cut at that point in the war though?

Cheers

Andrew

Yeah, bad intel. When supplied with fresh intel saying otherwise, they ignored it.

As Lordhat says, they had reasons to do so. The British spy network had been penetrated, and they suspect the Dutch Underground has been as well.

 LordofHats wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
the Germans won.

That is losing. That said, the allies lost, not the British. You could actually point out that Market Garden amounted to a double edge sword. The Allies did achieve most of their objectives, just at a massive cost (the bulk of 1st ABD was wiped out, a huge loss), but the Germans at most just delayed the inevitable and they lost a lot themselves.

There is truth that the British didn't follow up on many of the glaringly obvious dangers during planning, for example, actually asking Dutch Officers if it was a good idea (it wasn't).

It's also a little unfair to peg that as a flaw. The British had actually tried working with resistance fighters in several operations and experienced major problems. Many resistance cells were in fact being spied on and the Germans were always marginally aware of what they were doing. The British feared that involving the resistance would be a detriment (turns out the Dutch resistance had in fact been infiltrated by a double agent though what he knew is unknown). The Americans lacked the negative experiences the British had, so we reached out when the British tried not to.

There were very rational reasons not to trust the Dutch (many Dutch served in the SS as well). Hindsight is a bitch.

Isnt it just....

You'll need to forgive me on my memory if I get a few facts wrong. I do think that not asking was a flaw, as this proposal had been the subject of the Dutch Military Academy passing out exams, and the worst answer was to follow the road, as the we did.

The resistance had, as you point out, been infiltrated, but I thought that that was a seperate cell, I know it cost the allies a lot of men and material, but the Arnheim cell was still secure, but because of burnt fingers, we were shy in involving them.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:


You'll need to forgive me on my memory if I get a few facts wrong. I do think that not asking was a flaw, as this proposal had been the subject of the Dutch Military Academy passing out exams, and the worst answer was to follow the road, as the we did.

The resistance had, as you point out, been infiltrated, but I thought that that was a seperate cell, I know it cost the allies a lot of men and material, but the Arnheim cell was still secure, but because of burnt fingers, we were shy in involving them.

My memory is probably as hazy as yours. I do remember that British Intelligence only suspect an infiltration, which was only confirmed long after the war in like the 60's. I have no idea what exactly the double agent knew or how involved he was. i merely bring it up because it shoves home the point that there were very good reasons for the British to be suspicious of asking the dutch for help.

The bulk of my study in WWII is about strategy, North Africa, and tank destroyers not paratroopers XD

The British intelligence in Holland had been severely compromised earlier in the war. This led to their unwillingness to involve the Dutch resistance in any planning or intelligence gathering later on.
It's what should have been done given the circumstances. If they had still been compromised and they had used them it might have gone even worse.
Given how poorly the operation went it's surprising how close it came to succeeding...

 LordofHats wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:


You'll need to forgive me on my memory if I get a few facts wrong. I do think that not asking was a flaw, as this proposal had been the subject of the Dutch Military Academy passing out exams, and the worst answer was to follow the road, as the we did.

The resistance had, as you point out, been infiltrated, but I thought that that was a seperate cell, I know it cost the allies a lot of men and material, but the Arnheim cell was still secure, but because of burnt fingers, we were shy in involving them.

My memory is probably as hazy as yours. I do remember that British Intelligence only suspect an infiltration, which was only confirmed long after the war in like the 60's. I have no idea what exactly the double agent knew or how involved he was. i merely bring it up because it shoves home the point that there were very good reasons for the British to be suspicious of asking the dutch for help.

The bulk of my study in WWII is about strategy, North Africa, and tank destroyers not paratroopers XD

As far as I ever read, it was only suspected. It was British intel itself that had been infiltrated, so they assumed the Dutch had been as well. The US Divisions use of the Dutch Resistance was towards nothing but good results. I think it showed the Resistance remained pretty secure.

IIRC, it was a completely different area that had been compromised, it was a poorly thought out knee jerk reaction. Understandable, but hampered a lot of intel work. Low level local cells were still able to operate securely.

The US never had that reaction, and so accepted everything at face value and had great sucesses.

Cheers

Andrew