On a more positive note...

[dan-cat]

No that's not what Churchill wrote, off the top of my head it goes something like
If Britain and its empire shall last for a thousand years men shall say this was their finest hour.
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few

Ok I was just wondering whether you could see the similarity in Shakespeare's words

 

[Rich]

Ok I was just wondering whether you could see the similarity in Shakespeare's words

I knew he borrowed it, as it were, do you have a point?
Oh and my Grandaughter wants to know why you look like Grommit ?

 

[dan-cat]

I knew he borrowed it, as it were, do you have a point?

Yes. From my English Literature studies I've learnt that it is generally recognised that the St. Crispian speech was a masterpiece of political speak.

I was wondering whether you thought Churchill used the same style of rhetoric in his remark for the same purpose? If so, do you think it is insulting, considering it's obvious parallels to a political maneouvre?

Oh and my Grandaughter wants to know why you look like Grommit ?

Tell her I don't but I do like a bit of Wensleydale

 

[Rich]

I was wondering whether you thought Churchill used the same style of rhetoric in his remark for the same purpose? If so, do you think it is insulting, considering it's obvious parallels to a political maneouvre?

Not really, I doubt that the vast majority of Brits are even aware of it's origins, what they were aware of was its masterful use of oratory to raise their flagging spirits and to pay tribute to those who defended us at such great cost and against overwhelming odds at the time.

Tell her I don't but I do like a bit of Wensleydale

She doesn't like cheese

 

[dan-cat]

Not really, I doubt that the vast majority of Brits are even aware of it's origins, what they were aware of was its masterful use of oratory to raise their flagging spirits and to pay tribute to those who defended us at such great cost and against overwhelming odds at the time.

So the fact that he borrowed that same style of rhetoric from a speech made for the stage and attributed that to real people who died doesn't bother you? Even though King Henry was acting aggressor in a foreign country when he supposedly made the speech. You don't think the political parallels are relevant, is that right?

 

[Rich]

So the fact that he borrowed that same style of rhetoric from a speech made for the stage and attributed that to real people who died doesn't bother you? Even though King Henry was acting aggressor in a foreign country when he supposedly made the speech. You don't think the political parallels are relevant, is that right?

No, you seem to be scraping around the bottom of the barrel here Dan, like you said it's only hearsay anyway.
Having said that here's a further insight into the topic

http://www.crisispapers.org/essays/henry-george.htm

 

[dan-cat]

No, you seem to be scraping around the bottom of the barrel here Dan, like you said it's only hearsay anyway.

I was just asking whether it bothered you. You said it doesn't. It doesn't bother me either. I thought it may have bothered you a little bit considering your reaction to the Iwo Jima memorial. But I was wrong.

http://www.crisispapers.org/essays/henry-george.htm

Thanks - a good read. The anti-Bush slant was very familiar.

 

[dan-cat]

This paragraph I found very interesting:

"Those who have seen the Olivier film are likely to agree: it is a
masterpiece. It is also a propaganda piece, produced in England during the
war when the Churchill government had an urgent need to remind the British
people of their historic capacity to prevail over hardship and overwhelming
military might. For this purpose, Henry V was the perfect choice."

Do you consider Churchill's quote as propoganda? Do you consider the film as propoganda?

 

[Rich]

Do you consider Churchill's quote as propoganda? Do you consider the film as propoganda?

Of course, but for different reasons to that of the battle flag raised over Iwo.
A/ Churchill was giving praise to a very small unit that stood up to the overwhelming odds it faced.
B/ It was also to boost the flagging morale of the civilian population that too was also paying a terrible price.
So he beg, stole and borrowed to achieve his goal, that cannot be compared to a stage managed event, especially when there was no threat to the American civilian, well other than the odd fire ballon.

 

[dan-cat]

So he beg, stole and borrowed to achieve his goal, that cannot be compared to a stage managed event, especially when there was no threat to the American civilian, well other than the odd fire ballon.

You don't consider the bombing of Pearl Harbour as a threat to American civilians?

 

[Rich]

You don't consider the bombing of Pearl Harbour as a threat to American civilians?

Well if my knowledge of WW11 serves me correct then the events at Pearl Harbor happened long before the battle of Iwo Jima.
Plus of course Pearl Harbor was a mainly military target.

NB American viewers will note that I've used the American spelling of Pearl Harbor in deference to those who lost their lives there

 

[dan-cat]

Well if my knowledge of WW11 serves me correct then the events at Pearl Harbor happened long before the battle of Iwo Jima.

However the war that Iwo Jima was a part of, was directly caused by this event. Yes?

Plus of course Pearl Harbor was a mainly military target.

In which American civilians died on US soil. Which means it was a direct threat against American civilians. Yes?

Weren't the RAF airfields in the UK mainly military targets?

 

[Rich]

Weren't the RAF airfields in the UK mainly military targets?

Initially yes, but then as we all know by the end of what's termed the Battle of Britain the Nazis had long since made civilians the primary target.
Of course although the Battle of Britain was over the Nazis turned their entire effort against Britain by singling out civilians during the continued Blitz of the country.
So whilst Churchills speech was a tribute to the RAF it was also an attempt to bolster civilian morale during which time the only defence they had was courage.
Would you like some true stories from those who lived through the carnage that ensued?

Now whilst it's true there were civilians killed during Pearl Harbor, they weren't the primary target, neither was the American civilian population.
So I have to ask what the purpose of the image over Iwo was, were the American population loosing interest, the will to carry on etc.?
Was it to boost the sale of war bonds

 

[dan-cat]

Would you like some true stories from those who lived through the carnage that ensued?

I've read plenty thanks. I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to the Imperial War Musuem at Duxford, UK. My visit to the American Cemetry at Cambridge, UK was also very moving.

Now whilst it's true there were civilians killed during Pearl Harbor, they weren't the primary target, neither was the American civilian population.

I didn't say they were Rich. I'm just trying to make you understand that Japan's attack is seen by the US as a direct act of aggression against the United States. From that it was a threat against US civilians. You said it wasn't a threat. I disagree.

So I have to ask what the purpose of the image over Iwo was, were the American population loosing interest, the will to carry on etc.?
Was it to boost the sale of war bonds

It was a piece of propoganda to convey the sentiment that good must triumph over evil. A rousing for the war weary troops. Much like Churchill's propoganda. It now serves as a reminder of what those troops went through far from their own homes.

Japan attempted to invade US soil - we quelled that threat. Just like the allied troops did in Europe. The similarities to me are obvious.

 

[Rich]

I didn't say they were Rich. I'm just trying to make you understand that Japan's attack is seen by the US as a direct act of aggression against the United States. From that it was a threat against US civilians. You said it wasn't a threat. I disagree.

No, I'm saying civilians didn't shoulder the brunt of the attack.

Japan attempted to invade US soil - we quelled that threat. Just like the allied troops did in Europe. The similarities to me are obvious.

Well not really, she violated American soil, she was too far stretched to ever pose a direct threat of invasion to America, Australia maybe

 

[dan-cat]

No, I'm saying civilians didn't shoulder the brunt of the attack.

That's true. I hope you understand how it was seen as a threat though.

Well not really, she violated American soil, she was too far stretched to ever pose a direct threat of invasion to America, Australia maybe

From my understanding, Japan had every intention of occupying Hawaii. Did Britain not have to surrender Singapore to them? This was to remove the main presence of resistance against their plans of conquest in the south pacific. The US didn't allow this to happen. It was just as crucial for the US to keep a presence in the South Pacific as it was for the UK to remain in Europe. To quell the plans of conquest from nations with obvious mal-intent.

Are you getting any closer to understanding why I don't find the Iwo Jima memorial offensive?

 

[dan-cat]

Here is an article regarding the attack on Singapore.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/fall_of_singapore.htm

Can you believe that they actually doused gasoline on the retreating allied troops and set them on fire?

It's crystal clear to me why we have a memorial depicting the defeat of such savagery.

 

[Rich]

Did Britain not have to surrender Singapore to them?

Only because of the prat who was in charge ther, plus the ineffectiveness of the American torpedoes at the time

The US didn't allow this to happen.

That's down to the good fortune and luck that the carriers were out on exercise at the time

Are you getting any closer to understanding why I don't find the Iwo Jima memorial offensive?

I never suggested that you found it offensive, nor would I expect you too

Just curious here, do you know why this event was kept secret for so long ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3656939.stm

 

[Rich]

Here is an article regarding the attack on Singapore.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/fall_of_singapore.htm

Can you believe that they actually doused gasoline on the retreating allied troops and set them on fire?

It's crystal clear to me why we have a memorial depicting the defeat of such savagery.

I'm fully aware of the savagery those thugs displayed, that's why this American hating Anti American Brit stoutly defended the dropping of the A bombs on this forum earlier.
Of course if the forum hadn't been hacked I could have posted it to disprove the charges against me, couldn't I ?

 

[dan-cat]

Only because of the prat who was in charge ther, plus the ineffectiveness of the American torpedoes at the time

I think both Britain and the US were guilty of complacency.

That's down to the good fortune and luck that the carriers were out on exercise at the time

Thank God!

I never suggested that you found it offensive, nor would I expect you too

I know Rich. I was just asking whether you were any closer to accepting my opinion that the Iwo Jima memorial isn't offensive and that I have good reasons for that opinion.

Just curious here, do you know why this event was kept secret for so long ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3656939.stm

Obviously for propaganda reasons during the war. I have no idea why it's taken so long to be revealed thereafter. Do you have a theory?