h a l f b a k e r yAsk your doctor if the Halfbakery is right for you.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Fellow geeks, nerds and wonks - do you suffer from Big
Budget Movie Science Annoyance? Do you find yourself
quietly fuming as spacecraft explode noisily in the
vacuum?
Gritting your teeth as video enhancement reveals the
licence plate number from an impossibly low-res CCTV
image? Squirming
in your seat as yet another nuclear
bomb is shown with a prominent LED countdown timer?
Fume, grit and squirm no more!! The PSMM is a
confederation of militant scientific pedants who, upon
receiving a sufficient number of requests, will attend
screenings of the most scientifically implausible
Hollywood
blockbusters en masse.
Scattered inconspicuously amongst the audience, the
members of the PSSM will laugh loudly and infectiously
at
every on-screen violation of physical, chemical,
computational or biological laws, reducing even the most
specially-effected dramatic moment to comedy.
Ig Nobel prizes
http://en.wikipedia...iki/Ig-Nobel_Prizes
Maybe you don't want to win one … [8th of 7, Oct 26 2013]
Wikipedia: Suspension of Disbelief
http://en.wikipedia...ension_of_disbelief
[rcarty, Oct 26 2013]
Engineers Explained
http://bcn.boulder..../engineerhumor.html
Scott Adams tells it like it is. [8th of 7, Oct 28 2013]
Paramount News Reels
http://en.wikipedia...wiki/Paramount_News
[MechE, Oct 29 2013]
[link]
|
| |
As a development, the same mob should also
picket TV shows such as CSI, NCIS, Numbers,
or any other show where the facts are
blatantly disregarded (No matter how cute
Abbey Schuto is). |
|
| |
An annual award ceremony analagous to the
Ig-Nobel prizes should be instituted. |
|
| |
[rcarty] I'm happy to suspend disbelief, but I
prefer to suspend it from a fairly secure hook.
You want an asteroid to be heading toward
London? That's fine - there is no such
asteroid, but I'm happy to suspend my disbelief. |
|
| |
But then why screw up on minor details, the
upscrewing of which is not essential to the plot?
You wouldn't have Abraham Lincoln whipping out
an iPhone in a film. You wouldn't have WWII
rifles in a civil war film. |
|
| |
Given the millions spent on special effects, a
tenner spent on some technical advice wouldn't
go amiss. |
|
| |
Now see what you've done? You've made me go
and get all ranty. |
|
| |
It would appear as though Neil Degrasse Tyson agrees with you if his comments on the movie Gravity are any indication. |
|
| |
Wait... are you trying to tell me that nuclear
weapons don't have big LED countdowns on them?
Because I for one am not going to buy that. The laws
of physics on the other hand... |
|
| |
// nuclear weapons don't have big LED countdowns on them? Because I for one am not going to buy that // |
|
| |
They don't. Really and truly, they don't. They're actually disconcertingly nondescript. |
|
| |
Have you considered applying for a job as a CCTV security operative? |
|
| |
I'm afraid I must object. While it can be terribly
jarring for a movie to lose scientific accuracy -
Gravity, for instance, went to enormous effort to
keep the movements and mechanical physics and
general look of space accurate, but utterly failed
the laws of orbital mechanics- and yet I came away
enjoying it very much. Reducing such a movie to
farce by this form of obnoxiousness would surely
make things worse, not better. Those grating slip-
ups may diminish your enjoyment of the movie,
but (unless they're plot-critical), they generally
don't ruin the experience as a whole, as in a work
with a good story the narrative will quickly carry
you away from the obstacle and anneal your
shattered suspension of disbelief. Having those
same mistakes punctuated by loud laughter would
altogether ruin what would otherwise be a good -
or possibly great - story. |
|
| |
Plus, certain film genres come with a minimum
"your disbelief must be THIS suspended to ride"
marker. Superhero movies, or giant-robot works
like Pacific Rim, would be nothing but constant,
raucous laughter; some re-calibration would be
necessary to point out only the most odious flaws.
(When they present a premise of "this man flies
without wings or supports" or "giant robots punch
giant monsters" or "faster-than-light starships",
someone who could not overlook the basic
impossibility of these premises would not even
enter the theater, and so such errors are accepted
as low-level background nonsense. Skyscraper-
sized bipedal mo-cap robots fighting Godzilla with
swords? Acceptable. The same massive robots
being lifted by two normal-sized helicopters? Not
so much.) |
|
| |
Of course, in movies with constant errors beyond
background nonsense, bad-to-mediocre stories, or
both, the MST3K Brigade would be most welcome. |
|
| |
I believe this is how Phil Plait got started - he created the Bad Astronomy blog after being inspired by the ridiculous science in "Armageddon". |
|
| |
//Those grating slip- ups may diminish your
enjoyment of the movie, but (unless they're plot-
critical), they generally don't ruin the experience
as a whole// |
|
| |
But they needn't be there. A few are fundamental
to the plot, and it is for those that one suspends
disbelief. But most of them are just sloppy,
because nobody can be arsed to put the same
level of effort into the science as they do into,
say, the wardrobe. |
|
| |
If you reread my first annotation, you'll see that
I'm perfectly happy for key plot elements to be as
fictional as you like - there'd be no movies
otherwise. It's the needless inaccuracies in the
mechanics of things that vex me. I am vexed, a
vexee. Vexation has me in its thrall. |
|
| |
People get very huffy when period dramas screw
up on anything from the hairstyles to the cutlery,
and consequently film makers generally try to get
these things painstakingly right. So, if people get
start getting huffy when the science is needlessly
stupid, perhaps they'd take more effort there as
well. If everyone huffs together... |
|
| |
As a very-nearly-professional writer of fiction that involves
little if any science, I am naturally compelled to contribute
at this time. |
|
| |
From a writer's perspective, what this issue really boils
down to is how well you establish your premise and mood
with regard to the science. Genre helps, of course; when
I'm watching The Avengers I'm quibbling over whether Iron
Man could fight Thor to a standstill but there is no doubt in
my mind that aircraft carriers can not only fly but turn
invisible as well, yet minor gaffes such as the wrong color
Corvette in Apollo 13 are hard to ignore. Even so, both of
these examples are the product of skillful establishment: in
the former, even those not familiar with comic books have
been introduced to the unrealistic circumstances through a
cleverly arranged series of factoids, whereas in the latter
the realism has likewise been established so well that any
mistake sticks out like a 10-lb radish. |
|
| |
//faster-than-light starships", someone who could
not overlook the basic impossibility of these
premises// |
|
| |
Let me be clear. I'm perfectly happy with FTL
starships; with benevolent, malevolent or simply
involent aliens; with 8ft blue people who live in
trees; with genetically recreated dinosaurs;
indeed, with pretty much anything that forms the
premise of the film. |
|
| |
I'm just asking that, in those areas where things
can or should be realistic, they be so. This
depends very much on context, as [Alterother]
has stated eloquently in the superposed
annotation. |
|
| |
There is no excuse, of course, for poor establishment. |
|
| |
Oh, I don't know. Most of England's oldest
establishments are poor. |
|
| |
I thought it was our job on the halfbakery to get
from here to there using real science. The science
fiction is only really to give the target of there. |
|
| |
Future augmented reality, using memory drugs, may
make you access all the crash scenes of your lifetime,
allowing the spaceship's demise in auditory glory. |
|
| |
Well put sir. Gooozfrabba to you. |
|
| |
Even in a space opera (wherein the laws of physics take a
back seat to epic storytelling and spectacle) like Star Wars,
the ensuant franchise of novels and comics has occasionally
made attempts to reconcile the departures from reality.
The sound of a TIE Fighter, for example, is in one novel
explained as 'ion scatter' across the narrative ship's energy
shields. I've also come across the 'radio feedback' and
'auditory targeting' explanations, but I don't like them as
well. |
|
| |
//the laws of physics take a back seat to epic storytelling and spectacle) like Star Wars, |
|
| |
Obviously some new use of the word 'epic' I have not come across. Just my ha'pennies worth, the laws of physics change pretty much every century, so I won't be too surprised when they change again...sticky tape making x-rays etc. |
|
| |
Saying that, I guess vacuum will never transmit sound, I'm sticking to that like a cat to man on fire. |
|
| |
Epic (an off-the-top-of-my-head definition, feel free to
check me): a long and involved story telling of exciting and
amazing adventures and events. The word is Greek in
origin. |
|
| |
The original Star Wars trilogy fits that description. |
|
| |
Just make a website for the group, so they pay you
instead of paying the movie theater. |
|
| |
// exciting and amazing adventures and events |
|
| |
Yes, that was my point, the lack of. |
|
| |
If one could join who only reads books then I would cite a quote from a recently read novel, " He was driving a green Corvette with a dent in the right rear fender". |
|
| |
I had to actually think about that one; probably wouldn't have noticed it at all "live". |
|
| |
Yes, but that's acceptable within the paradigm of space
opera. If anything, the other explanations try to hard to
legitimize it and seem too commonplace by comparison. |
|
| |
I hate to say it but, for the audience at the time, sound was needed for impact. Imagine the same movies without the sound effects...
...right? |
|
| |
Whacking a stretched cable with a monkey wrench is one of my favorite sounds now because of those films.
That may not be the sound a laser makes in reality.
It's the sound a laser would make if given the choice. |
|
| |
I don't approve of this approach. It's inconsiderate to the other members of the public - and worse, it would be quite ineffective. |
|
| |
I suggest that you target your scorn at the people who might actually make a difference. If you could hit the premiere showing, that would be acceptable. |
|
| |
However, that would be difficult to do. So, as an alternative I suggest public humiliation via TV show. There are numerous programs with names like "greatest movie mistakes". I find these are always disappointing, because what they consider to be great mistakes are actually boring continuity errors.
Instead, they should be ridiculing the Wachowski brothers for the matrix==battery scene. |
|
| |
For the most part I don't really care about timers on nuclear bombs. There's nothing which disallows such an installation, and it might be useful under some circumstances. I care much more about the apparently widespread use of bright red LEDs on supposedly covert equipment.
The assumption that nuclear reactor==nuclear bomb is also starting to grate. |
|
| |
// If you could hit the premiere showing, that would
be acceptable. // |
|
| |
I agree, and had considered posting this as a
premiere-disrupting flashmob. Never having been to
a premiere (or even a secondiere), I don't know how
easy it would be to arrange. |
|
| |
// If you could hit the premiere showing, that would
be acceptable. // |
|
| |
I agree, and had considered posting this as a
premiere-disrupting flashmob. Never having been to
a premiere (or even a secondiere), I don't know how
easy it would be to arrange. |
|
| |
// I care much more about the apparently
widespread use of bright red LEDs on
supposedly covert equipment. // |
|
| |
Invariably, bright red FLASHING LEDs … |
|
| |
// The widespread assumption that nuclear
reactor==nuclear bomb is also starting to
grate // |
|
| |
Perhaps Professor Brian Cox could have a
regular TV programme where he mocks the
ignorance of the general public, journalists
and
politicians ? |
|
| |
[8th], I am now looking very sternly at you.
Professor Brian "Amazing" Cox has far too much
exposure (sadly none of it to vacuum). |
|
| |
Yes.
And please extend to stupid driving films such as Fast
and Furious. What do you do in a race and you're
about to be overtaken? Change down and accelerate?
WTF aren't you in the correct gear already!! |
|
| |
I like the idea though I believe it should be applied to government officals' speeches, etc. |
|
| |
I am 100% behind a Political Jeering Team - not PMQs, which is Punch and Judy rubbish, but a proper non-affiliated public service whereby political talking heads are jeered, barracked and otherwise verbally abused for refusing to answer questions, repeating themselves or generally being obnoxious (cf Michael Gove). The PJT will be styled in the manner and mode of Sue Lawley's Lesbians. |
|
| |
I am 100% not behind the proposed PSMB, as it is yet another example of the false exceptionalism of the scientifically inclined. There are a great many entertainments available to boffins, eggheads and nerds (for example, reading books by people with middle initials, or tugging themselves to sexual climax while thinking of companions of Doctor Who) which are not generally appealing to those outwith the boffingroup. Just as some louty young tough of limited educational attainment would not deign to burst in a nerd's wankfest shouting "Your mum" or "Bella Emberg", why should dweebs we afforded any opportunity to ruin others' fun in the rather futile name of establising a narrow strip of superiority by demonstrating strong boffinhood? It will not win ye girls. |
|
| |
So, we're all agreed then... |
|
| |
"ffsssssthth..tt.ttt.kkk k.k..gg.g....g..<clang>" ? |
|
| |
// why should dweebs we afforded any opportunity to ruin others' fun in the rather futile name of establising a narrow strip of superiority by demonstrating strong boffinhood? It will not win ye girls. // |
|
| |
What are these "girls" of which you hu-mons speak ? Your words are strange to us ... |
|
| |
And it's all about "establishing ... superiority". Go read Scott Adam's "Engineers Explained". <link> |
|
| |
// Professor Brian "Amazing" Cox has far too much exposure // |
|
| |
We entirely agree. We made the suggestion in the earnest hope that if he winds the proles up enough, he will be visited by a mob of peasants waving flaming torches and farm implements, equipped with a goodly supply of feathers and hot tar, and the brief remainder of his life will be painful and full of incident. |
|
| |
Pondering more closely this issue of things silently blowing up in space, I think one would hear a noise, albeit only transiently. |
|
| |
Imagine a large keg of gunpowder, floating in space. You are nearby. You fire your fricking laser at the fuse, causing it to ignite. On explosion, would the expanding spherical wave of gas not produce a sound as it collided with you? |
|
| |
// Imagine a large keg of gunpowder, floating in space. You are nearby. You fire your fricking laser at the fuse, causing it to ignite. |
|
| |
Could it ignite in an oxygen-free environment? |
|
| |
//Could it ignite in an oxygen-free environment?// |
|
| |
Yeah, fuses, in nearly all their implementations
contain oxidizer. |
|
| |
The original idea has been somewhat baked by the
showing of SF movies at my (engineering/science)
university. Bad science was worth it for
comments. |
|
| |
With respect to the (apparent) trigger for this
idea, I'm less than horribly disgusted by the
science in it. There were some problems, but
mostly acceptable ones. The trigger, a Kessler
Syndrome event, is a serious concern. Yes, they
horribly simplified orbital mechanics, and brought
the various targets (Hubble, ISS, Tiangong) into
close proximity (although if they are close enough,
you can point and go). But much of that can be
justified for simplifying the story telling. Spending
a half hour of the movie describing orbital
mechanics would not have worked. If you assume
there was a reason the Hubble was placed in LEO
in that ficton, I think it was a good movie. |
|
| |
I wasn't particularly thinking of Gravity (haven't
seen it yet). Morealso, if Gravity requires things
to be in different orbits or whatever - fine. |
|
| |
As I pointed out, I'm happy to suspend disbelief
for an important plot point, as long as it's
reasonably half-plausible within the context of
the film. So, hovercars in Star Warts are fine -
there's a whole alien civilization, so why not hover
cars? |
|
| |
What pisses me off is the trivial disregard for basic
facts - things that could have been done right if
anyone had bothered. |
|
| |
Ditto. In Saving Private Ryan, which I consider to be one of
the most technically perfect and accurate widely-viewed
films, there are four historical errors and three continuity
errors that gaffe me every time I watch it. |
|
| |
Sure, there'd be noise from a space explosion. But it wouldn't be the "Boom!" of an indirect atmosphere shockwave. |
|
| |
It'd come from direct impingement of the exploded particulate matter. First to hit an observing vessel would be ions, atoms, molecules, then dust particles, all moving pretty fast, then sand, etc. slightly slower, lastly paint chips, the odd carburetor or engine block, etc. |
|
| |
But it wouldn't be a roughly spherical sound wave. You could be in the shadow of a large piece of hull and not hear anything. |
|
| |
Incidentally, from what I remember, 2001 A Space
Odyssey was pretty well done. They had no sound
transmission in vacuo (as far as I recall), for
example. In fact, they used the silence of space -
interspersed with the claustrophobic sound of an
astronaut's breath in his own helmet - as an effect
in itself. Point being that, done right, reality can
make a good backdrop to a fictional scenario. |
|
| |
Not sure about artificial gravity on the
interplanetary ship - did they have the ship
rotating? |
|
| |
// Saving Private Ryan // |
|
| |
... after which we have to sit in the "muttering" section of the cinema, while everyone else sits in the "non-muttering" section ... |
|
| |
// one of the most technically perfect and accurate widely-viewed films // |
|
| |
Actually, "Valkyrie" is pretty good. |
|
| |
// there are four historical errors and three continuity errors that gaffe me every time I watch it. // |
|
| |
There are four historical errors in the first eight minutes and twenty-four seconds ... |
|
| |
Don't get us started on "U-571" ... it's about time the U.S. government made a formal apology for that one. |
|
| |
Valkyrie is pretty good, but I was going for a movie that
just about everyone has seen. |
|
| |
//four historical errors in the first eight minutes and
twenty-four seconds// I call your collective bluffs -
name them. |
|
| |
That's just one president … what's required is
200 million Americans dressing in sackcloth,
then getting down on their knees and
throwing ashes over themselves while
chanting, "We're sorry ! We're so, so sorry !
Nos maxima culpae ! We don't have enough
World War history of our own because we
showed up late both times !" |
|
| |
It's like those vermin who wear uniforms and
medals they aren't entitled to. Disgusting. |
|
| |
[MB] you're going to regret asking that … |
|
| |
//[MB] you're going to regret asking that …// |
|
| |
I doubt it. I am hoping that you will list the
requisite errors, whereupon I will say "ok". |
|
| |
Incidentally, the fact that WWII was not, in reality,
introduced by the Paramount logo does not count as
an historical error. |
|
| |
//laughing our collective asses off// |
|
| |
Oh, and Gr.: "laughing off our collective arses" |
|
| |
To paraphrase Stan Lee: "Determine the rules for your story, but then stick to them"
Many of the annoying sciency bits are because they break their own rules (they may not realise they have a particular rule to break, of course). |
|
| |
[MB] An awful lot of of people's WWII experience did
start with a Paramount logo. [link] |
|
| |
We'll see your Chamberlain, and raise you a Lindbergh. |
|
| |
And that doesn't change the fact that it was the British and Poles that cracked Enigma, and the Royal Navy that captured the codebooks; and US forces would not have endured the slaughter on Bloody Omaha if (a) they had launched their DD tanks close in like they were supposed to, and (b) they had accepted some of of Hobart's other "funnies" like the AVRE. |
|
| |
Admittedly the Rangers did use D.M.W.D.'s Rocket Grapnel at Point du Hoc, where they successfully captured numerous heavily-defended but gunless casemates. And with admirable doggedness in the face of overwhelming facts, the USAAF persisted in daylight raids over occupied Europe using the "self-defending" B-17 bomber until the losses became unsustainable. And if Mark Clark hadn't been grandstanding in Rome and had done his job, the Axis forces in Italy would have been outflanked and rolled up in 1944. |
|
| |
Perhaps a little more concern about the Ardennes front in December 1944, where the line was left inexcusably undermanned despite reserves being available, would have helped, but not to worry - at least Monty was there to pull the chestnuts out of the fire ... |
|
| |
// I can't find a reference to Chicken Pathé News. The BBC has carefully erased all traces of it. // |
|
| |
[bigs], IWRC it was a running gag on the Jasper Carrot show. |
|
| |
I agree with [neutrinos_shadow] - as long as the rules
are consistent with themselves - then fair's-fair! |
|
| |
If, if, if...and you're right. But let's also talk about some
other 'ifs'; for instance, if Monty had taken Cherbourg in the
time promised (an unrealistic boast in the first place), or if
he hadn't ignored the intelligence gathered (at great
expense) before Market-Garden...of if he hadn't made a
regular practice of ignoring valuable and accurate
intelligence throughout the post-Overlord campaign. |
|
| |
And don't you go quoting Gough at me. |
|
| |
// Monty had taken Cherbourg in the time promised // |
|
| |
... which was assaulted by Bradley's forces on the Allied Right. |
|
| |
"... listed according to an order of precedence for the purposes of parading. This is the order in which the various corps of the army parade, from right to left, with the unit at the extreme right being highest. ..." ... and traditionally, in linear infantry tactics, the best unit was at "the right of the line" ... |
|
| |
// hadn't ignored the intelligence gathered (at great expense) before Market-Garden... // |
|
| |
It was relying on a narrow thrust up a single road that was the real mistake. And the weather. |
|
| |
// a regular practice of ignoring valuable and accurate intelligence throughout the post-Overlord campaign // |
|
| |
It is clear that apart from the Poor Science Mockery Mob there is an equal, if not greater, opportunity for a Poor History Mockery Mob ... |
|
| |
//
... which was assaulted by Bradley's forces on the
// |
|
| |
Caen, whatever. You knew what I meant. |
|
| |
//
It was relying on a narrow thrust up a single road that
was the real mistake. And the weather.
// |
|
| |
Oh yeah, because dropping airborne infantry armed with
nothing heavier than PIATs directly onto several fully
operational panzer divisions _when your own intelligence
has clearly identified and located weeks prior to the
battle_ is just a trifling error by comparison. |
|
| |
// Poor History Mockery Mob ... // |
|
| |
Bun to that, my collective friends! |
|
| |
Hear that whirring ? It's Cornelius Ryan,
spinning in his grave ... |
|
| |
Daniel L. Robbins is your man there. I took such inspiration
from his way of shaping an engaging fictional narrative out
of true events without compromising his fanatical
adherence to period that I wrote to him (this was about
fifteen years ago, when I was far less wise but no more
foolish than now) asking for advice as a writer. He actually
wrote back, too. |
|
| |
I think our world policing for the past 60 years or so
more than makes up for showing up to WWII late. |
|
| |
// Caen, whatever. You knew what I meant // |
|
| |
And there, in a nutshell, you have the USAF's bombing policy. "Doesn't matter where you drop the stores, just as long as you don't bring them back with you". |
|
| |
A very old and smelly fish for this idea. I shall certainly be renewing my subscription to the Theatre Sniper if this were to be implemented. There are more than enough annoying people in cinemas as it is (-).
(+) for Brian Cox hatred.
(-) for worrying about explaining explosion noises in space (there isn't any transmitted sound, of course, but your brain, as is its wont, just fills in the gaps for you; the answer is in psychology not in ridiculous ion theories).
(+) for reminding the world of Sue Lawley's lesbians.
(-) for reminding the world of Sue Lawley. |
|
| |
// "Doesn't matter where you drop the stores, just as
long as you don't bring them back with you". // |
|
| |
As opposed to the RAF: "Not getting shot at is a higher
priority than hitting the target, so let's drop our bombs at
night and cross our fingers." It's like conducting a feud with
one neighbor by letting your dog crap in every yard on the
block. |
|
| |
Oh, and not bringing the ordnance back after missions led
to a dramatic reduction in the number of exploding
airstrips on English soil, so, um, you're welcome. |
|
| |
[Ray], we weren't late to the war. We were keeping the
Japanese off the backs of the Commonwealth in Burma in
'41, and before that we were trying to stop them from
raping China and crawling up Russia's giant red arse. Then
we headed over to Africa and fought our way halfway up
Italy before Overlord was even a wet dream smeared on
Churchill's linens. |
|
| |
// conducting a feud with one neighbor by letting your dog crap in every yard on the block // |
|
| |
To be fair, that approach does actually work. Pretty soon, you will be in feuds with ALL you neighbours ... |
|
| |
//before that we were trying to stop them from
raping China// |
|
| |
You should explain all that to the people of
Manchuria and especially Nanking. |
|
| |
^ It's Halloween, and guess what's crawled out
from
under its rock ... ? |
|
| |
// we headed over to Africa // |
|
| |
Amazed you actually found it. You were probably
intending to go to Borneo ... USAAF navigation
again, presumably. |
|
| |
// and fought our way halfway up Italy // |
|
| |
Yes, doing things by half seems to be a recurrent
theme ... |
|
| |
// You should explain all that to the people of Manchuria
and especially Nanking. // |
|
| |
We did. We told them that we tried, and we offered to
help clean up the mess afterward. Uncle Mao declined and
released an official commendation to the 4th Marines.
History tends to forget little things like that. |
|
| |
Speaking of things that may have been forgotten, the
Aussies were also quite grateful for our help back then.
This 'late to the party' bullshit seems to have begun in the
late '60s. |
|
| |
// Yes, doing things by half seems to be a recurrent theme
... // |
|
| |
We typically rely on you Brits to do the other half. Are you? |
|
| |
//the Aussies were also quite grateful for our help
back then// |
|
| |
Till Eagleburger's boys sat down and refused to fight,
leaving the Australians to do all of the work at Buna,
Gona and Sanananda. |
|
| |
Guys, why are you still recriminating each other over a war which your allied side won almost 70 years ago? |
|
| |
Did the British or the American command make mistakes? Sure, and they cost lives. Who made more mistakes? The Germans. |
|
| |
I'll settle the view through a pair of binoculars in a film not being depicted as two intersecting circles. HELLO film makers!!! Try actually looking through binoculars and tell me what you see? |
|
| |
//and before that we were trying to stop them from raping China |
|
| |
A) Pardon? I do seem to recollect a certain country floggin` great loads of scrap metal to the Japanese, which presumably end up as warships and guns, almost up to the Pearl Harbour attack. See the strike at the port of Astoria, with the dockers refusing to load scrap metal onto freighters going to be Japan, which broken up by the Police. |
|
| |
B) Go check out "the four pests campaign" where the newly installed Communist government...cuts to the chase... huge ecological disaster which killed somewhere between the same number of the Imperial Japanese Army did, or depending on who you ask, three time more people than the IJA managed. |
|
| |
//
Guys, why are you still recriminating each other over
a war which your allied side won almost 70 years ago?
// |
|
| |
Because all of us are right, and it can be fun to argue when
you're right. |
|
| |
Interestingly enough, a strong case can be made that the
Germans made fewer mistakes than anyone else in WWII,
but they made bigger ones overall (i.e. attacking the
USSR). |
|
| |
//why are you still recriminating each other over a
war which your allied side won almost 70 years
ago? // |
|
| |
Because there's no obvious way of blaming the
errors and omissions on the french, of course.
Apart from the fact that they ran like rabbits in
1940, but then that was always on the cards. |
|
| |
// three time more people than the IJA managed.
// |
|
| |
Locally-produced genocide is always more cost-
effective. |
|
| |
Hey, guys, all I said was let's laugh at space
explosions. |
|
| |