I must agree with Das Boot: details seemed very accurate; the acting
portrayed the stresses on the crew so well; magnificent sea scenes – but
perhaps most of all, even though a movie, I thought it protrayed the
boredom alternated with terror of what WWII submarining must have been
like….

Tom, Darwin, Oz

Bill,

I would be a bit more charitable to Full Metal Jacket. I think Kubrick
missed, but not by a large margin. The business of the woman sniper was
stupid. Yet the ending is very ambiguous. I knew anti-war types that
considered it a pro-war movie. My biggest criticism is that it was very
predictable. (Kubrick is an odd duck: the guy made both Dr. Strangelove and
Barry Lyndon: one of the greatest and one of the worst films in the history
of cinema.)

Among Vietnam movies I like 84 Charlie Mopic (A Sundance Festival winner
before Sundance became famous); and Go Tell the Spartans – it had some
clunky scenes but Burt Lancaster was in fine form and the period it dealt
with (1963-64 somewhere out in the Delta) made the tone of the movie work.
No jets, choppers or firepower: just a couple of US advisors out at some
broken down outpost with some terrified Vietnamese militia. Then of course
there is Dear America: Letters from Vietnam, one of the great military
documentaries and a perfect vehicle for introducing the war to a generation
who considers it history.
>
>As to Full Metal Jacket … I lump it in the same category with Apocalypse
Now.

Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

Finnish title is “Talvisota,” you can get it at Critics Choice Video at
www.ccvideo.com.

Timothy L. Francis
Historian
Naval Historical Center
email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
voice: (202) 433-6802

The above remarks are my opinions, not those of the U.S. Navy or the
Department of Defense

Dane wrote

>IIRC, the Turner Broadcasting people made the movie _Gettysburg_ on a
>shoestring budget. The reenacters were basically volunteers who
>received a few freebies as token recognition of their efforts. From what
>I’ve heard, a lot of those guys spent two or three weeks of their vacation
>time hanging around the location, waiting for the movie people to set up
>or run several takes.

A subscriber to this mailing list was one of those reenactors… What say
ye Patrick? Have you yet spent all the money you made on *Gettysburg*? 😉

Tom

Tom Robison
Ossian, Indiana
tcrobi@adamswells.com
_|_
–X-X-(ô)-X-X–

>> I know there were some political buttons pushed, but I do think that
>> Bavarian television’s production of Stalingrad was a damn good movie.
>> Violent, dismal, overall bummer. Sounds like the Eastern Front to me.
>
>Haven’t had a chance to see it yet, but I’ve heard it called the best
>movie on WWII land warfare, period.
>Steve Alvin

I think the 1989 Finnish “Winter War” beats “Stalingrad.” Mostly
because of the whole in-the-service-of-evil tragedy aspect of Germans in
Russia, which takes time away from combat scenes.

In the Finnish movie, while the tone of the movie is “brave,
family-oriented, god-fearing Lutheran christians defending their
homeland from the evil-commie-atheistic-hordes,” there is widespread use
of “artillery barrages,” either real or very good models of I-16s, a
dozen or so T-26, T-40, and BT-7 tanks–which they must have got out of
a museum, and lots of Russian human wave attacks (w/the conscripts in
those Civil War-era peaked cloth caps). Plus, you actually get to root
for the soldiers in the coal-scuttle helmets…

Timothy L. Francis
Historian
Naval Historical Center
email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
voice: (202) 433-6802

The above remarks are my opinions, not those of the U.S. Navy or the
Department of Defense

> ———-
> From: Steve Alvin[SMTP:salvin@ocslink.com]
> Reply To: mahan@microworks.net
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 3:50 AM
> To: mahan@microworks.net
> Subject: Re: Greatest War Movie of all Time
>

IIRC, the Turner Broadcasting people made the movie _Gettysburg_ on a
shoestring budget. The reenacters were basically volunteers who
received a few freebies as token recognition of their efforts. From what
I’ve heard, a lot of those guys spent two or three weeks of their vacation
time hanging around the location, waiting for the movie people to set up
or run several takes. Note that Pickett’s charge (I prefer
Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble’s charge, but that’s another topic) in the film
comes very close to lasting as long as the actual charge on 3 July 1863.

BTW, many historians have observed that Robert E. Lee was not himself
at Gettysburg. Perhaps he was using Martin Sheen as a stand-in.

Dane Hartgrove

> > I know there were some political buttons pushed, but I do think that
> > Bavarian television’s production of Stalingrad was a damn good movie.
> > Violent, dismal, overall bummer. Sounds like the Eastern Front to me.
>
> Haven’t had a chance to see it yet, but I’ve heard it called the best
> movie on WWII land warfare, period.

Having seen it in the cinema, and then on TV, I must say that this
was the only
film I ever saw that me feel shocked (though Glory was quite impressive too, I
think it came to late on TV to make me feel so.). If you haven’t seen
it yet, I
very much encourage you to do. From what I hear, several German schools have
demanded of the teachers that they take their classes into the movie.

Tim

Tim Lanzendoerfer | “I have just taken on a great
Amateur Naval Historian | responsibility. I will do my
Email: BWV_Wiesbaden@t-online.de | utmost to meet it” – Nimitz
—————————————————————–
The United States Navy in the Pacific War 1941 – 1945
http://www.microworks.net/pacific
Last Updated: 7th February 1998
—————————————————————–

In a posting way back on 26 January, dealing with the British Pacific Fleet,
the following exchange occurred:

>Brooks A Rowlett wrote:
>>
>> Also: Canadian Auxiliary Cruiser PRINCE ROBERT and possibly more.
>> If I read correctly the British submarines all stayed under the Eastern
>> fleet command.
>>
>> Gray’s OPERATION PACIFIC is unfortunately not thorough in attributing
>> ships to one command or the other.

To which Richard Osborne replied:

>The former Canadian AMC PRINCE ROBERT was not part of the British Pacific
>Fleet until mid 1945 having been converted to an auxiliary AA cruiser during
>January 1943 – July 1943 at Burrard Dry Dock in Esquimalt. Subsequently,
>from October 1943 to September she was based at Plymouth (UK) and
>escorted UK – Gibraltar convoys when she proved extremely effective against
>German Hs 293 glider bombs. PRINCE ROBERT returned to Esquimalt in
>September 1944 and did not recommission until 31st May 1945 and was
allocated to
>the BPF.

——–

I’ve been avoiding sending in this posting, because I sort of thought it
fell into the “Well, obviously….” file, so I didn’t want to waste other
listers’ time; however, I’ve now decided that “just in case” it is helpful
to somebody, I’d like to point out that John Winton’s excellent book “The
Forgotten Fleet: The Story of the British Pacific Fleet 1944-45”, (London:
1969), has the following appendices:

A) “BPF on 15 August 1945” 7.5 pages, [including the BPF’s senior command
structure — ie, from C-in-C down to sqdn/flotilla OICs); as well as a
complete(?) listing of all vessels from aircraft carriers/battleships down
to tugs, water-carriers, net tenders, and the like; moreover, the CO of each
unit on VJ Day is also given; the BPF’s 5 shore establishments are
also listed.]

B) “The East Indies Fleet, 15 August 1945”, 7.5 pages; (the same detailed
info as above is also given in this appendix).

c) “Aircraft of the BPF”, 1 page.

D) “Japanese Shipping Sunk By British and Netherlands Submarines in the Far
East: Sept 1944 – Aug 1945”. (gives dates, names, tonnage, area, and how sunk)

As I said, just in case this might be useful to know.

Cheers,
Glen

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Glen “I-was-a-teenage-fogey” Hodgins

A Medal Collector and Commonwealth/Empire Naval Historian
temporarily imprisoned at:

Her Canadian Majesty’s C/O Po Box 500 (CLMBO)
High Commission for Sri Lanka Station A
6 Gregory’s Road OTTAWA, Ontario, K1N 8T7
(PO Box 1006) Dominion of CANADA
Cinnamon Gardens
Colombo 7, Sri Lanka [still Canada’s OFFICIAL title!]

Fax, (from overseas): 94-1-687-815

Here come the immigrants. 🙂

The Mahan list (mahan@microworks.net) discusses past, present, and
future naval operations.

J. Patrick Hughes wrote:
> A number of people are interested in discussing current operations and
> future policies. While these to not fall under the scope of a history
> list, many of the people here would appreciate knowing where they
> could go
> to engage in such discussions. About four years ago I went through
> the
> process of looking up lists that deal with current polotical and
> military
> decisions. There were a great number. But tat information is very
> quickly stale as such lists start up and fold much quicker than a
> history
> list. Are there any that are on this list that wish to share the
> location
> of other lists that deal with current operations and policy?
>
> J. Patrick Hughes
> Listowner MILHST-L
> jphughes@raven.cc.ukans.edu

—

Steve Alvin
Dept. of Social Sciences
Illinois Valley Community College

salvin@ocslink.com

“I have snatched my share of joys from the grudging hand of fate
as I have jogged along, but never has life held for me anything
quite so entrancing as baseball.”–Clarence Darrow

The original subwar mailing list has been manually (!) shifted to as
formal (different) listserv program due to egregious spamming, which we
were fortunately spared for themost part. The new sub(scription) data
is:

THE SUBWAR NETWORK MAILING LIST

To post to the list, mailto:SUBWARNET@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

To unsubscribe, mailto:LISTSERV@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM with
“SIGNOFF SUBWARNET” (without quotes) in the body of the
message, and with a blank subject line.

All enquiries and any problems, mailto:taylor@bizbiz.com