Bill Riddle wrote:

> Did any one have a look at that Scripps Institute web site I mentioned
> before Christmas?

No, Bill, I didn’t, and I don’t recall the original note, but I think some
of my e-mail disappeared into the ether, thanks to my former server.

Judging from the subject line, I take it this was about the five or seven
destroyers that went on the rocks in the 20s-30s?

Can you post the URL again?

Thanks,
Tom

Tom Robison
Ossian, Indiana
**Please Note NEW E-mail Address*
tcrobi@adamswells.com

At 05:58 PM 1/6/98 -0500, Eric Bergerund wrote:
>>I prefer to believe in the following exchange:
>
>Lady Astor: “Winston, if you were my husband I would put poison in your tea.”
>
>Churchill: “Lady Astor, if I were your husband, I would drink it.”

Both exchanges occurred, and both with Lady Astor (who was reared less than
100 miles from where I type this, incidentally, in Danville, Virginia).

The ECONOMIST just printed a grand Churchill tale from the days after his
defeat in 1945 and the gloom and despair that ensued. Churchill was
relieving himself in the House of Commons lavatory when the door opened and
the new Prime Minister, Clement Atlee, walked in. Churchill swung away
from him, still finishing the task at hand.

“Feeling a bit standoffish today, Winston?” queried Atlee.
“Feeling scared,” responded Churchill. “Everytime you see something big,
you want to nationalize it.”

Marc

msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315
Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!

I’ve just finished reading Edward Von der Porten’s _The German Navy
in World War II_. He talks about two pre-dreadnought battleships
(survivors of six allowed Germany by the Treaty of Versailles) which
were used as training vessels and operationally, although he doe not
mention them by name. I am fairly certain one was the Schleswig
-Holstein and I think the other was the Schlesien. I have four multi-
part questions to present to the list:

1. What happened to the remaining four ships allotted to the
Weimar Republic by the Versailles Treaty?

2. Were any of these ships updated or upgraded during the
inter-war years and, if so, what changes were made?

3. I know one of these ships was used operationally during the
Polish campaign and also, I believe, during the occupation
of Denmark. Were they used operationally after this? If so,
where?

4. After Hitler ordered the heavy ships scrapped, what
happened to the pre-dreadnoughts? Did they survive like
Tirpitz and Scharnhorst or were they actually broken up?

Thanks in advance, Ed.

Edward Wittenberg
ewitten507@aol.com

Louis R. Coatney wrote:
>
> Not wanting to be a source of misinformation about the objective truth
> of the tragedy, I thought I should post this … and thank Steve and
> Chris for their input.
>
> I *am* disappointed that noone has asked about Churchill’s riposte to
> Lady Astor. 🙂
>

Dids’t someone not post an answer?

Was this the occasion, legendary, anecdotal or real, of Churchill’s
riposte (No! Counterattack is more descriptive!) upon being accused of
being drunk: “…And you’re ugly, Madam. Fortunately, by morning, I’ll
be sober.” or words to that effect?
—
“A little learning is a dangerous thing,
But more is inevitably catastrophic!”
****************************************************************
TMOliver/8225 Shadow Wood/Woodway/TX/76712/254-772-2859/776-3332
****************************************************************
“The road to Hell is paved with pleasurable chugholes.”

Louis R. Coatney wrote:
>
> Not wanting to be a source of misinformation about the objective truth
> of the tragedy, I thought I should post this … and thank Steve and
> Chris for their input.
>
> I *am* disappointed that noone has asked about Churchill’s riposte to
> Lady Astor. 🙂
>

Dids’t someone not post an answer?

Was this the occasion, legendary, anecdotal or real, of Churchill’s
riposte (No! Counterattack is more descriptive!) upon being accused of
being drunk: “…And you’re ugly, Madam. Fortunately, by morning, I’ll
be sober.” or words to that effect?
—
“A little learning is a dangerous thing,
But more is inevitably catastrophic!”
****************************************************************
TMOliver/8225 Shadow Wood/Woodway/TX/76712/254-772-2859/776-3332
****************************************************************
“The road to Hell is paved with pleasurable chugholes.”

Not wanting to be a source of misinformation about the objective truth
of the tragedy, I thought I should post this … and thank Steve and
Chris for their input.

I *am* disappointed that noone has asked about Churchill’s riposte to
Lady Astor. 🙂

Lou
Coatney, www.wiu.edu/users/mslrc/ (Free model ship( plan)s)

Lou Coatney had written:
> >Also, I had thought CAPT. Smith survived the sinking, but he is shown
> > going down with his ship.

On Mon, Jan 5, 1998 at 11:03:28 PM, Steve Keifer wrote:
> The captain did go down with the ship. I saw the Titanic artifacts
> display at Memphis last year. They have brought up an incredible amount
> of stuff.
> It’s a very sobering exhibit to see all the little parts of these
> people’s lives that have been on the ocean bottom for 80 years.
> I bought one of those little pieces of the Titanic’s coal they sell for
> $30 imprisoned in clear plastic.
**********
There is an unverified account that Captain Smith was last seen swimming
around after helping a little girl into a lifeboat. This was detailed in a
Discovery or Learning Channel 4 hour documentary that I saw about a year or so
ago.

FYI, I remember reading back in the 70s that several witnesses reported that
the ship broke in two, but that most people discounted this theory.

chrisw
caw@wizard.net

DAS BOOT was too “poor us.” I question how many German Kapitains were
such demonstrative, soul-searching “Captain Kirk”s … and the scene
in which Herr Kapitain indignantly demanded to know why the *British*
hadn’t rescued/evacuated the crew of the tanker they were about to
polish off was downright enraging. ENEMY BELOW was similarly
questionable, although reasonably accurate, technically.

Yeah, soulless Nazi fighting machines, all of them.

Markus Stumptner

On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Eric Bergerud wrote:
> I can top that one . Last night I watched Leslie Howard’s production of
> SPITFIRE the 1941 “docudrama” of RJ Mitchell and the development of the
> Spit. Howard and David Niven star. (Niven, already a famous actor, went out
> of his way to put his neck on the line in North Africa. Doesn’t fit the
> image really, but there you are.) The film is propaganda but good. Some
> marvelous footage of the Schneider Cup and some fine combat scenes from the
> Battle of Britain.

Agreed, but I’ve read little of Niven’s actual whereabouts during the
war.

What *did* he do, Eric? (… besides “Spitfire” and “Immortal Battalion.”
🙂 ) … and where has it been covered?

Lou
Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

Eric Bergerud wrote:

> >
> >Overall, it is a stunning, beautiful, and educationally significant
> > film … despite some egregious errors of production/directiion
> > judgment.
> >
> I certainly agree that TITANIC is well worth seeing and, in many ways,
> is a
> very impressive film. I must quibble with Lou on a couple of points,
> however.
>
> 1. Director James Cameron, probably wisely, did not want to make a
> “docudrama” and a lot of good history is left out. Kind of funny when
> you
> think about it – what story has more REAL drama than the fate of the
> Titanic. Two things bugged me. First, there was not ONE mention of the
>
> CALIFORNIAN – a ship that probably could have been standing by before
> Titanic went down had luck been kinder. Carpathian is mentioned but
> nobody
> notes that had it not arrived when it did, those lifeboats might well
> have
> sailed off and casualties been 100%. Even in a lifeboat, hypothermia
> will
> kill quickly.

I was also surprised that the _Californian_ wasn’t mentioned. But, I
think I know what happened to her–she ended up on the cutting room
floor! There is a picture in the Jan.
issue of _Sea Classics_ on p. 46 that shows a set used in the movie with
the following caption: “A replicas of the wireless office used for
scenes featuring the SS _Californian_, the ship that did not respond to
_Titanic’s_ pleas for assistance. Catherine Lanzaro and her daughter
occupy the highly accurate rendition of the ship’s radio room.”

If you are interested in the making of the movie, there is a large
picture book, called _James
Cameron’s Titanic_ avaliable at most bookstores.
—

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

>
>Overall, it is a stunning, beautiful, and educationally significant
> film … despite some egregious errors of production/directiion
> judgment.
>
I certainly agree that TITANIC is well worth seeing and, in many ways, is a
very impressive film. I must quibble with Lou on a couple of points, however.

1. Director James Cameron, probably wisely, did not want to make a
“docudrama” and a lot of good history is left out. Kind of funny when you
think about it – what story has more REAL drama than the fate of the
Titanic. Two things bugged me. First, there was not ONE mention of the
CALIFORNIAN – a ship that probably could have been standing by before
Titanic went down had luck been kinder. Carpathian is mentioned but nobody
notes that had it not arrived when it did, those lifeboats might well have
sailed off and casualties been 100%. Even in a lifeboat, hypothermia will
kill quickly.

2. The script was well acted, although not inspired. The vocabulary was NOT,
however, by any stretch of the imagination, true to the spirit of the
Edwardian age. The characters’ dialog sounds as though it comes from a
1990’s TV drama. Cameron obviously did this intentionally. I think he could
have been true to the period without driving away the audiance. Perhaps I am
wrong. Furthermore, although the ship’s “Britishness” is never hidden,
almost all of the major characters are American. One might have concluded
that it was the SS United States that hit the berg.

3. I don’t think the digital age is quite here yet. The limitiations
inherent in digital special effects were never better shown than in Titanic.
They were good, mind you, and far superior to the klutzy efforts in many
older war movies, but when they had wide angle scenes of Titanic cutting
through the Atlantic, I could tell it wasn’t “real.” (Computer graphics are
something I’ve beeing futzing with for a decade: maybe other viewers would
be more charitable.) The special effects that WERE impressive were
traditional. Cameron built a 750 foot model of the Titanic that served as an
numbing backdrop to the scenes of the ship’s sinking. In addition, the
attention given to recreating the interior shots are extremely impressive
and, as I understand it, incredibly expensive. Technically these scenes
could have been done 30 years ago – nobody had the money to try it.

That said, definite thumbs up.
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930