THE WAR OF THE WORLD (Tonight 20.00 channel 4)

Discussion in 'Films, Music and All Things Artsy' started by banjotrooper, Jul 17, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. "THE ICEBOX" Historian Prof Niall Ferguson explains his theory on how, during the "Cold War", WW3 actually took place!
    Might be food for thought for the BAOR medal thread that was/is running!
  2. Counting down the minutes, I quite like his documentaries.

    Quite right about WW3, just look at the conflicts throughout Africa
    and the middle east.
  3. hmm just flicked over to watch this to find some random woman going on about bikes
  4. Interesting footage of Missile Silo's
    I like the cunning pile of logs disguise on the lid!
  5. yeah i liked that
  6. Ferguson is always worth watching and reading. The book/TV series on the British Empire is worth a go.

    He made some interesting points tonight, especially about Castro being the real winner of the Cuban missile crisis. After all he's outlasted the Soviet Union and every single US attempt to 'remove' him.

    Give it a few more years and he'll probably be able to write a sequel about China.
  7. Aside from the book, is there any chance this series will come out on DVD?
  8. Feckin missed it, got carried away with mastermind....

    Don't suppose it repeats?
  9. One thing i did not like about that documentry, it jumped back and forward in time, in no chronological order to it at all, now true its analysis not a descriptive story, but it was leaping from one occasion, fowards, backwards, start again..... odd!
  10. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    I noticed that, I wonder if this allowed for covering up holes in his arguments.... Good show though, might be downloadable.

  11. I wouldn't bother. so far the book is a more coherent argument than the tv series has been, naturally enough I suppose. However, this programme does seem to be cherry picking points to prove an argument he came up with in the pub one night, rather than an argument formed by a dispssionate look at evidence.
  12. Update:

    Having reached the outbreak of Blitzkrieg, Fergusson has so far produced a thorough, but pretty much workmanlike history of 1900-39. Although he gace some interesting insights to the Turks and Armenians, he isn't building a case to back up his posturing on TV. 400 pages, and he hasn't said anything new yet.

    Further update:

    Interesting fact came up, boy scouts were killed in Poland as they were a potential source of leadership for opposition. However, unforgiveably he misquotes and maligns George MacDonald Fraser.

    'When Indian soldiers serving with the British in Burma killed a group of wounded Japanese prisoners, George MacDonald Fraser, then an officer in the 14th Army, turned a blind eye'.

    1) GMF was a Lance Corporal in Burma.

    2) How GMF related this in QSOH, (there is no reference to GMF in Fergusson's 80 page bibliography)

    'One morning, after an Indian unit had been on guard, there were no Japanese to be seen in the buildings, and the central trench was full of rocks. The Japanese were found underneath them, dead. They had been thrown into the trench in the night, and the rocks hurled down on the.
    I heard this from one of the section, in the presence of my comrades. We didn't go to the building, so I had only that man's word for it, but from what I heard later from other sources, there was no doubt his report was accurate. I know it happened, although I never saw the evidence.
    What had happened was a "war crime", no question. So, what could I have done? Investigated, like a good n.c.o.? Informed my superior - and gone higherif necessary? Written to my MP?
    It did not cross my ming to do any of these things. I probably grimaced, remarked "Hard buggers, those jawans", shrugged and forgot about it.If I had made an issue of it with higher authority, I'd have been regarded as eccentric. I'd have regarded myself as eccentric. By the standards I have applied recently to those who turned a blind eye to similar incidents, and by all canons of popular moralists in 1991, I should have made a stir, demanded an enquiry, and not rested until the defenders were brought to book. I didn't, not because of any conscious decision on the point, or weighing of pro's and con's, but simply because it didn't matter to me. It had happened, beyond repair, and I feel no dereliction of duty, military or moral, in ignoring it. I still don't.
    That is not to say that I condone major war crimes, or would take any but a short way with those who commit them. I know that the killing 9or murder, which is what it was) of those Japanese was well beyond the civilised borderline. But being of my generation, in the year 1945, towards the end of a war of a peculiarly vicious, close-quarter kind, against an enemy who wouldn't have known the Geneva Convention if it fell on him, I never gave it a secong thought. And if I had, the notion of crying for redress against the perpetrators (my own comrades-in-arms, Indian soldiers who had gone the mile for us, and we for them), on behalf of a pack of Japs, would have been obnoxious, dishonourable even'.
  13. I'll keep everyone up to date after the last 100 pages.
  14. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    Thanks Barb, appreciated and especially thanks for pulling the QSOH quote.