Jump to content

D-Day in Colour


Recommended Posts

Just in time for for the 73rd anniversary of D-Day,  YouTube put D-Day in Colour up on its home page right at the top. Haven't had a chance to watch more than a few minutes of the front end, which covers the events leading up to D-Day, but what I saw was good enough to merit posting here. Don't know whether the color is original or added later. The keyframe alone is juicy.

.Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 73rd anniversary of D-Day is here, and in searching for something appropriate I found this unexpected discussion of where the term "D" in "D-Day"came from to begin with. Believe you'll find it of interest.

https://www.army.mil/e2/rv5_downloads/d-day/the-meaning-of-dday-fact.pdf

And in a nice touch showing healing after the most bitter of conflicts is possible, US, French and German dignitaries got together to pay tribute at a commemorative statue of an Airborne soldier in Normandy at Sainte-Mere-Eglise called "Iron Mike" on June 4th. No idea why they didn't wait two more days.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1202655/ceremony-marks-73rd-anniversary-of-d-day-landings/

170604-A-TV238-357.JPG

U.S., German and French dignitaries salute as "Taps" is played during an "Iron Mike" wreath-laying ceremony in Sainte-Mere-Eglise, France, June 4, 2017. The ceremony commemorated the 73rd anniversary of the D-Day landings. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Tamika Dillard

Of course, war is only truly known through the eyes of those who were there.

 

Finally, I found an HD version of the video from the OP!

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

user1000,

You're welcome. It belatedly dawned on me I didn't see the British listed as attending the ceremony, and I thought I'd made a mistake. No mistake, for I checked. They weren't there. Wonder why not? Rather odd given their scale of involvement! 

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The top image is shot in italy from a set shown in LIFE mag. It makes me laugh why they do this. But a really good watch none the less and narrated by the late John Hurt. Cheers

Edited by NPye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2017 at 10:22 AM, John Kettler said:

And in a nice touch showing healing after the most bitter of conflicts is possible...

I hope you're right. But when I watch the news these days, I start to wonder if WW2 was really the most bitter of conflicts. Normal everyday guys did the fighting, but as I understand it, most of them fought because they had to, not because they were motivated by hatred towards their enemies. At least not in the West. The level of hatred on the Eastern Front was probably closer to what we see in Syria today, but even the Nazis didn't use suicide bombs.

I wonder if the Russians put up a statue of Iron Ivan the conqueror of Berlin, would the Germans attend the ceremony?

tumblr_mw2atrxqsM1spwf52o1_1280.jpg

 

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NPye,

Do you mean the keyframe of the troops in the landing craft? I am REALLY tired of BS keyframes which aren't about the actual video itself. I suppose, though, we should be grateful that it's at least about an amphibious attack!

Bulletpoint,

Even on the Eastern Front, based on what I've read, most of the soldiers didn't hate the enemy. The real whipping up of hatred was done by the various nations' leaders, and it had more to do with motivating men to fight in what rapidly became a simply stupendous meat grinder--for every country involved. In his magisterial Absolute War, Bellamy makes a strong case that Russian losses military and civilian during the GPW were so severe that it ultimately doomed the Soviet Union to collapse from a demographic standpoint alone. If you haven't read this yet, it is, I deem, an absolute must read. Your "Iron Ivan" question intrigues me. I believe they might, especially since Merkel only reluctantly imposed sanctions. Have read the Russians are most unhappy that people have been defacing and doing other interesting things with their war memorials in lands where they first liberated, then stayed! Speaking of commemorative military statues and such, I'm rather unhappy with what's been happening in the South with the Confederate ones, though I've read Alabama recently outlawed removing same. I shudder to think what may happen to Stone Mountain, which I've unfortunately not yet been able to visit. At the rate things are going, we'll have people screaming for the demolition of Mt. Rushmore--for any number of reasons, starting with what Washington et al. did to the Native Americans! To return to Civil War statues, my sometimes twisted self has come up with a real dilemma for the principally black agitators against Confederate statues. What could I possibly have in mind (evil grin appears and grows)? How about a statue to the blacks who served in the Confederate Army? Had Jefferson Davis not so staunchly opposed it, the Confederacy could've started recruiting free black soldiers en masse in early 1864, resulting in a considerable manpower increase. Instead, he didn't act until the waning days of the war. By then, it was too late to make a real difference.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

 

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's ironic that we despise people for destroying historical monuments (see ISIS and Palmyra) and here we are doing it to Confederate monuments.  Of course it's not as if destroying things some people hate hasn't happened b4 - viz Troy and Carthage.

But, this sort of destruction is always despised by later generations and regretted by history.  (Mind you, we destroyed a lot of Nazi stuff too.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Erwin said:

It's ironic that we despise people for destroying historical monuments (see ISIS and Palmyra) and here we are doing it to Confederate monuments.  

That is a false equivalence. Those ancient creations represent civilizations long gone and any people who they oppressed and could be legitimately offended by them are gone to. Those Confederate monuments represent what is at least continued racisim.

 

4 hours ago, Erwin said:

But, this sort of destruction is always despised by later generations and regretted by history. 

I'm not so sure about that. 

4 hours ago, Erwin said:

(Mind you, we destroyed a lot of Nazi stuff too.)

Yeah, that is more equivalent, having a governing class that continued to maintain those nazi symbols would be much more like the Confederate example. Possibly worst but closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has to be acknowledged that modern day "Confederates" have to be the sorest losers in history. They can't get over losing the Civil War, and they can't get over losing to the Civil Rights Movement. As a Limey I'd be quite happy for Lee Circus in NOLA to be renamed Victory Circus, and to have a statue depicting the death of Ned Packenham. Most British tourists wouldn't know who he was anyway. Alternatively, name it Liberation Circus, and erect a statue of Admiral Farragut.

Edited by Warts 'n' all
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:

It has to be acknowledged that modern day "Confederates" have to be the sorest losers in history. They can't get over losing the Civil War, and they can't get over losing to the Civil Rights Movement.

That was certainly true when I lived in the South, but that was over 50 years ago. My impression now is that it is just some hard core "rebel rousers" who feel that way and most Southerners wish they would go away and leave them alone. And as for residual racism, I'm not so sure it is worse in the South than in most parts of the country. God knows, it's pretty bad in most places where there is a large minority community.

As for tearing down monuments to the Civil War, I have to wonder if psychologically it isn't an attempt to wish the whole thing away and deny it ever happened. Believe me, it happened and it was horrific and we need to remember that we are capable of doing such things to each other.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point.  In the same way that Auschwitz has been kept as a memorial. 

Some of the ACW statues are wonderful art.  Can't see why obliterating "records" of ACW helps.  What's next?   Emptying all the museums of ACW memorabilia?   It sets a bad precedent.  ISIS feels the same way about us, and we call that evil. 

The purpose of history education is to define what happened, what is good or bad.  An attempt to destroy evidence/records could well backfire and create a mythos that will be romanticized in the future. 

Edited by Erwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/06/2017 at 9:53 PM, John Kettler said:

NPye,

Do you mean the keyframe of the troops in the landing craft? I am REALLY tired of BS keyframes which aren't about the actual video itself. I suppose, though, we should be grateful that it's at least about an amphibious attack!

 

 

Na I mean the image you posted at the very top, its from Italy but the video is called D-Day in colour.

Edited by NPye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...