Found this WWII picture.
- Thread starter Mk-211
- Start date
- Status
DocRock
member
British glider-borne troops. That’s hard core.
What , indeed, are those quarter-pike looking weapons? Can’t say that I’ve seen them before.
What , indeed, are those quarter-pike looking weapons? Can’t say that I’ve seen them before.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
Geez, pictures like that make you realize what a giant bunch of weenies we are now.
Like most military surplus you used to find them pretty regularly. I had one, but I have no idea if I still do or not.
lemaymiami
Member
My Dad was airborne gliders - Corps of Engineers, all those years ago... As he told me, he was sure glad when they cancelled the program before it was his turn to go since there was a very high casualty rate on landing in gliders - particularly among units like engineers that had miniature construction gear aboard (that wasn't that small when you're coming in at 90mph in a canvas and wood glider..). He also said they were trained to lock arms and raise their feet just before hitting the ground... Doesn't sound like much fun to me...
Wish my Dad were still around - he went on to do 28 years in the engineers 1942 - 1970 and passed away in the early nineties..
Wish my Dad were still around - he went on to do 28 years in the engineers 1942 - 1970 and passed away in the early nineties..
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
"Here's a special axe to try and cut yourself free from the wreckage. Assuming you survive the crash, of course. And it doesn't catch fire. Or the Jerry's get you first. Or....."
Giant cast iron stones on those chaps. Im terrified by powered flight let alone the very thought of a glider.
My Grandfather barely survived Leyte and Iwo. He was the most gentle, soft-spoken man Ive ever known- and the bravest.
Giant cast iron stones on those chaps. Im terrified by powered flight let alone the very thought of a glider.
My Grandfather barely survived Leyte and Iwo. He was the most gentle, soft-spoken man Ive ever known- and the bravest.
Come now, no engines to go wrong on a glider. Got my sail plain license back in college (my dad thought I was nuts and he learned to fly in WWI biplanes between the wars). Of course those lads were subject to everything from flak to ground fire and were issued those crash axes because of the high potential for having to bash their way out of the wreckage.
There are still plenty of people ready and able to go in harm's way should the need arise. Korea, Viet Nam, Kuwait, Iraq and Afpak have all proven it. None of those places were exactly picnic grounds. I'm sorry but it bothers me more than it should when I read those kinds of statements. To me, it's very disrespectful of the brave men and women who still serve today.
Edit: No, I'm not sorry.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
No dis intended to our volunteer warriors of today. Certainly none to the volunteers of yesterday either.
But the fact that the vast majority of those brave souls were conscripts and still managed to face almost certain death with that kind of resolve is all the more amazing considering the general lack of backbone amongst the general populace in the West now. There were no "safe spaces" in 1944- or 1951 or 1969 for that matter.
There was great reluctance on the part of the American public to become entangled in the strife in Europe and increasing tension in the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere. Roosevelt had his mandate, and those who elected him wanted nothing to do with the disagreements of others. Yes, some elements were hawks, but they were in the minority, until Pearl Harbor. True, the greatest generation rose to the occasion once there were no alternatives, but is is not as if they couldn't wait to wage war.
I agree that the rules and discipline of that era, coupled with a sense of duty, seem to be missing today.
I agree that the rules and discipline of that era, coupled with a sense of duty, seem to be missing today.
It made me smile when I read what was written on the side of the glider. It looks like they had misspelled, svinhund, and scrubbed it out and rewritten it.
They had written, Remember, Coventry, Plymouth, ? , London, all place that had been heavily bombed. Those lads were out for a lot of pay back.
They had written, Remember, Coventry, Plymouth, ? , London, all place that had been heavily bombed. Those lads were out for a lot of pay back.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,106
I took it as “We” the collective vs “they” the members of the armed services.
The WW II veterans were viewed as hero’s. Not even sure the term “baby killer” was even coined back then. Extensive use of carpet bombing though…
Larger portions of the collective that makes up “we” had different views a few decades later.
One can say what they want about the goals, methods, etc of how politicians chose to deploy those brave men, but the men that fought were of the same character.
I think there are many weenies, like the people that protest police then call them when they need help…
I have tremendous respect for the boys who fought in all of our wars. But don't fall into the trap of believing the myths. My dad was a WW-2 vet and not everyone who went off to fight did so willingly. Dad was rushed from Texas to NYC at the onset of the Battle of the Bulge and put on a ship to France as a replacement.
Dad told me that every time the train stopped along the way there were more empty seats than before, and that there were quite a few. Deserters simply got off the train rather than go. What happened to those guys was kept pretty quiet and has been lost to history. While I do agree that that may have been the greatest generation, not all of them were great.
I'm just a few years too young to have served in Vietnam, but my views have changed 180 degrees about that war. As a teenager during the final years of the way I detested the protesters. But history has proven they were right. I hold the Vietnam vets in high regard, it is the politicians of the time who let us down.
Dad told me that every time the train stopped along the way there were more empty seats than before, and that there were quite a few. Deserters simply got off the train rather than go. What happened to those guys was kept pretty quiet and has been lost to history. While I do agree that that may have been the greatest generation, not all of them were great.
I'm just a few years too young to have served in Vietnam, but my views have changed 180 degrees about that war. As a teenager during the final years of the way I detested the protesters. But history has proven they were right. I hold the Vietnam vets in high regard, it is the politicians of the time who let us down.
DocRock
member
I digress.
At the end of WWII, the OSS were in contact with and coordinated with the Viet Minh in actions against the Japanese designed to protect Chiang Kai Shek’s flank from Japanese incursions from Indochina. By contemporary accounts, it was a good working relationship and French educated Ho Cho Min was quite pro-US in the hope that the US would be anti-colonialist in its post war policies.
The US was anti-colonialist but its premier policy was containment of the Soviet Union and promotion of NATO, which meant appeasing its European allies. So, the US support for the French in Indochina (and North Africa) soured Ho ChinMin on the US while US policy of containing Communism, especially after the “loss” of China, led inexorably toward confrontation with Communist North Vietnam.
It’s all very well and fine with hindsight saying that our politicians let us down. But what about Ho Chi Min? Are there any examples of the North Vietnamese seeking to reassure the US that they were purely nationalists (and so what, we know for a fact that they were not)? The concept of the “domino theory” was valid. Containment of Communism was a valid strategy that ultimately won the Cold War.
The political and policy issue in Vietnam was that after MacArthur had ignored the threat of Chinese intervention in North Korea to our detriment, Johnson wanted to fight Communism in Vientnam without fighting the Soviets or the Chinese and with strict control over the military. This fear created the absurd rules of engagement and restrictions on military action that cost tens of thousands of US lives with no hope of a possible “victory”. And yet the military pursued a goal of military “victory” without the possibility of ever achieving it.
The war in Vietnam was never “winnable” because Johnson was unwilling (rightly so) to risk widening the war to the Chinese or Soviets. But failing to confront Communism in Vietnam could have lost more than Laos and Cambodia.
The key failure in Vietnam was relatively early, probably with Kennedy still in office (perhaps a reason he was inconvenient) when a settlement with Ho Chi Min may have been possible. But there is no evidence to suggest that the North Vietnamese were in any way open to such a settlement. Communists want absolute power and view people as entirely expendable assets in its attainment. The Communists wanted absolute power in Vietnam. They had won such power in North Vietnam by fighting the French, the Japanese, and the French again. They fancied their chances against the US as well.
The war in Vietnam was inevitable and unwinnable. But it was actually only a battle in a larger, longer war. As an iteration of the policy of containment, it almost certainly saved Thailand and Malaysia from Communist domination, discouraged the Chinese from further adventurism, and made it clear to the Soviets that our resolve was real. We lost the battle in Vietnam but we won the Cold War against the Soviets. We are now paying the price for not having pursued a similar containment against the Chinese.
Last edited:
lemaymiami
Member
From my limited perspective I'd say that none of us... is any braver than we have to be in whatever circumstances we find ourselves in. Pray you never have to find out.
As far as how the country treats those that go in harm's way (whether in the military or in related professions - or sometimes just as an on the spot volunteer in an emergency of some kind...) that's another matter entirely. When I returned from Vietnam in 1971 we snuck back into the country - not wanting to be seen in a uniform or wanting to talk about where we'd been or done...
Nowadays the best bad example of our country at its worst falls to our law enforcement professions. As a retired cop what I've seen and heard about makes me sick... I'm betting that in a few years time public opinion will turn the other way and most will regret this time in our history... Doubt that I'll live to see that.
As far as how the country treats those that go in harm's way (whether in the military or in related professions - or sometimes just as an on the spot volunteer in an emergency of some kind...) that's another matter entirely. When I returned from Vietnam in 1971 we snuck back into the country - not wanting to be seen in a uniform or wanting to talk about where we'd been or done...
Nowadays the best bad example of our country at its worst falls to our law enforcement professions. As a retired cop what I've seen and heard about makes me sick... I'm betting that in a few years time public opinion will turn the other way and most will regret this time in our history... Doubt that I'll live to see that.
Hope you do.
Most of us have a healthy respect and appreciation for those who put themselves out there to keep us safe. We understand that a few bad actors (and they are with us in all careers and professions) are not typical. We also live in an era in which a pedestal can become a liability, with every news video edited for maximum shock and agitation. As we mature, we get a little wiser, but never quickly enough!
Speedo66
Member
Police officers resigning from the job are up 45% nationwide over last year, retirements are up 18%, according to a NY Times article.
Same problem attracting new recruits, from the Times article: "Many cities are also finding it harder to attract recruits, with the number of new hires in Portland falling to 30 from 69, and in Seattle to 44 from 119.
After skipping any police training last year for budgetary reasons, St. Paul, Minn., received 178 applications this year, down about half from the 366 received in 2016, said Sgt. Natalie Davis, a police spokeswoman."
So current officers are leaving, no rush by anyone to fill the ranks.
For those who want to defund the police, be careful what you ask for.... Who you gonna call, it ain't gonna be Ghostbusters responding.
Same problem attracting new recruits, from the Times article: "Many cities are also finding it harder to attract recruits, with the number of new hires in Portland falling to 30 from 69, and in Seattle to 44 from 119.
After skipping any police training last year for budgetary reasons, St. Paul, Minn., received 178 applications this year, down about half from the 366 received in 2016, said Sgt. Natalie Davis, a police spokeswoman."
So current officers are leaving, no rush by anyone to fill the ranks.
For those who want to defund the police, be careful what you ask for.... Who you gonna call, it ain't gonna be Ghostbusters responding.
WestKentucky
Member
Saddest part of this is that the hard numbers are true. The lack of manpower will push a modernization of the police force in which they have more pressure to respond with fewer people. They will have to modernize which typically looks like militarization, and militarization of the police has been cited as one of the reasons people distrust the police now. It’s not Barney and Andy going after Ol Ernest T Bass anymore for sure, and it doesn’t look like it’s going back that way any time soon. Technology and trust are the keys. Technology like body cameras will ultimately show the 99.99% good policing and will rightly expose the bad parts as well, but it doesn’t serve to instill any trust in any group to heavily publicize the one anal-headcover that makes a mistake and shoots an unarmed man, or chokes out a guy on the street. Tech will sort itself out, trust needs to be the focus, and again it seems to be headed in the wrong direction these days.
- Status
