SNAFU & FUBAR & PBS

[amicus]

SNAFU, Situation Normal, All Fucked Up.

FUBAR, Fucked UP Beyond All Recognition.

War terms, world war two, but said out loud during the introduction to Ken Burns, "The War" Episode Five, PUBLIC BROADCASTING SYSTEM, PBS.

Hmmm...I thought you couldn't say the word, 'Fuck'. on FCC controlled broadcast stations, eh?

Amicus...

 

[starrkers]

The polite version was "FOULED up" - at least that's how my mum knew it (a Wren back in WW2). They could've used that if they were worried.

 

[amicus]

The polite version was "FOULED up" - at least that's how my mum knew it (a Wren back in WW2). They could've used that if they were worried.

~~~

Yup, I know that, have heard it a hundred times and chuckled, but PBS aired it, which did, as you notice, catch my attention.

Appreciation to your mum, but I have forgotten the literal meaning of WREN, and even WAAC, although I could google...others might like to know.

Amicus...

 

[starrkers]

A Wren was a member of the Women's Royal Navy (Naval?) Service (WRNS).

 

[amicus]

A Wren was a member of the Women's Royal Navy (Naval?) Service (WRNS).

~~~

Kay...I think WAAC's were Women's Army Air Corp's, but I may be wrong, and join the Navy and ride the WAVES....women in the Navy, but I don't think I ever knew what the initials stood for....dumb me...


Amicus...

 

[reignophelia]

~~~

Kay...I think WAAC's were Women's Army Air Corp's, but I may be wrong, and join the Navy and ride the WAVES....women in the Navy, but I don't think I ever knew what the initials stood for....dumb me...


Amicus...

Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service

I'm a big fan of Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAVES

 

[amicus]

Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service

I'm a big fan of Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAVES

~~~

Thanx switch witchery...I was pre-occupied and too lazy to google tonight...and in a mood...such as it is...


ami

 

[reignophelia]

~~~

Thanx switch witchery...I was pre-occupied and too lazy to google tonight...and in a mood...such as it is...


ami

You're very welcome Literotica Guru. I was afraid that you were questioning your overwhelming intelligence when you called yourself "dumb". I just wanted to give your ego a boost and keep your inflated head intact.

What's the matter?

 

[amicus]

You're very welcome Literotica Guru. I was afraid that you were questioning your overwhelming intelligence when you called yourself "dumb". I just wanted to give your ego a boost and keep your inflated head intact.

What's the matter?

~~~

Intuitive you are, my dear, and thank you...

Have been mulling over the following, which is not directed at you at all, but rather whether I wish to incur further wrath from the forum in general concerning the Ken Burns series I referred to.

The loose definition of 'professional' is someone who is paid to provide a service. Well, according to that definition, I am a 'professional' logger, tree faller, bulldozer operator, fisherman, radio announcer, television announcer, teacher, newspaper reporter and dozens more including 'critic', as I have been, 'paid' as a freelance critic of films, books and music.

I was thinking of how I would rate the Ken Burns series were I to fire off a critique to various paying outlets.

As a young man, full of piss and vinegar, I rather enjoyed reviewing films and books, ( I got free passes and free books and free music), it was, I thought, the beginning of an exciting and profitable pursuit.

But the amount of 'trash' in all venues that I had to wade through, soon dampened my enthusiasm and , I must confess, made some errors in my perceptions and all that shortened my reins somewhat.

I have watched and read hundreds of documentaries concerning all theater's of war in the conflict of the second world war. I learned to weigh the patriotic and nationalistic ones, and the ideological ones and all other variations on a theme.

Ken Burns is exacerbating the 'class conflict' in a Marxist sense, by concentrating on the common man and the common soldier and the atrocities of war and the ignorance of command to make a very clever and subtle point that is difficult even to identify.

I have learned some things about the logistics of warfare, of the planning and implementation of campaigns and I was well aware of the 'Market Garden', venture, described by Burns, from several aspects and I find his approach deeply questionable in many ways.

I am also aware and informed of the Philippine saga and the St. Thomas refuge for prisoners of war and the 'island hopping' campaign in the Pacific.

Mulling all this over, I know I cannot offer a full and consonant critique of the series and I had not yet admitted that when I read your post.

On a scale of ten, for documentary evidence and entertainment value, I would rate Ken Burns as a three, and that is generous.

So....smiles...thas what was the matter...and I am, 'dumb', in many aspects, far too many...

but thanx anyway...



Amicus....

 

[reignophelia]

~~~

Intuitive you are, my dear, and thank you...

Have been mulling over the following, which is not directed at you at all, but rather whether I wish to incur further wrath from the forum in general concerning the Ken Burns series I referred to.

The loose definition of 'professional' is someone who is paid to provide a service. Well, according to that definition, I am a 'professional' logger, tree faller, bulldozer operator, fisherman, radio announcer, television announcer, teacher, newspaper reporter and dozens more including 'critic', as I have been, 'paid' as a freelance critic of films, books and music.

I was thinking of how I would rate the Ken Burns series were I to fire off a critique to various paying outlets.

As a young man, full of piss and vinegar, I rather enjoyed reviewing films and books, ( I got free passes and free books and free music), it was, I thought, the beginning of an exciting and profitable pursuit.

But the amount of 'trash' in all venues that I had to wade through, soon dampened my enthusiasm and , I must confess, made some errors in my perceptions and all that shortened my reins somewhat.

I have watched and read hundreds of documentaries concerning all theater's of war in the conflict of the second world war. I learned to weigh the patriotic and nationalistic ones, and the ideological ones and all other variations on a theme.

Ken Burns is exacerbating the 'class conflict' in a Marxist sense, by concentrating on the common man and the common soldier and the atrocities of war and the ignorance of command to make a very clever and subtle point that is difficult even to identify.

I have learned some things about the logistics of warfare, of the planning and implementation of campaigns and I was well aware of the 'Market Garden', venture, described by Burns, from several aspects and I find his approach deeply questionable in many ways.

I am also aware and informed of the Philippine saga and the St. Thomas refuge for prisoners of war and the 'island hopping' campaign in the Pacific.

Mulling all this over, I know I cannot offer a full and consonant critique of the series and I had not yet admitted that when I read your post.

On a scale of ten, for documentary evidence and entertainment value, I would rate Ken Burns as a three, and that is generous.

So....smiles...thas what was the matter...and I am, 'dumb', in many aspects, far too many...

but thanx anyway...



Amicus....

Well I plan to watch "The War", but I had to work all of the evenings it was on this past week.

I watch "The Daily Show" for laughs, and Ken Burns happened to do an interview regarding this most recent documentary. From the way he spoke about "The War" in his interview, he gave the appearance of wanting to simply give a new perspective on what WWII was really like.

As a child WWII was presented to me as being a very black and white affair.
Good guys vs. bad guys. We won because we were the Allies, the good guys. Ya know, ya know. I used to spend sunday afternoons watching very idealized and patriotic films with my dad - who was always drinking a scotch in his easy chair.

-A few people lost their lives, but it was for the greater good.

What I took from Burns' interview was that he wanted to stress a very "human aspect" to the war. He wanted to give the average soldier an unadulterated non political (he actually said in his Daily Show interview that he took a non-political approach to the film) voice if you will, never touched by propaganda.

I dunno though. He smells like a dirty hippy to me. Dirty peace loving hippy with dirty hippy politics! You can tell just by looking at his insidious hair cut...



What's wrong with a little marxism every now and then?
He he he...

But like I said, I haven't seen it yet. I think it will be interesting to say the very least.

Here's an interview regarding the documentary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BNHBLCEzw4

Here's something I thought you'd get a kick out of. This guy is something else entirely.
Some candy for Amicus:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vx0J9WN3-4&mode=related&search=

 

[amicus]

Well I plan to watch "The War", but I had to work all of the evenings it was on this past week.

I watch "The Daily Show" for laughs, and Ken Burns happened to do an interview regarding this most recent documentary. From the way he spoke about "The War" in his interview, he gave the appearance of wanting to simply give a new perspective on what WWII was really like.

As a child WWII was presented to me as being a very black and white affair.
Good guys vs. bad guys. We won because we were the Allies, the good guys. Ya know, ya know. I used to spend sunday afternoons watching very idealized and patriotic films with my dad - who was always drinking a scotch in his easy chair.

-A few people lost their lives, but it was for the greater good.

What I took from Burns' interview was that he wanted to stress a very "human aspect" to the war. He wanted to give the average soldier an unadulterated non political (he actually said in his Daily Show interview that he took a non-political approach to the film) voice if you will, never touched by propaganda.

I dunno though. He smells like a dirty hippy to me. Dirty peace loving hippy with dirty hippy politics! You can tell just by looking at his insidious hair cut...



What's wrong with a little marxism every now and then?
He he he...

But like I said, I haven't seen it yet. I think it will be interesting to say the very least.

Here's an interview regarding the documentary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BNHBLCEzw4

Here's something I thought you'd get a kick out of. This guy is something else entirely.
Some candy for Amicus:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vx0J9WN3-4&mode=related&search=

~~~

Heh...smiles...thanks...I watched both, I hope others do also.

I'm an old guy, as you have probably gathered, and like an excerpt from the film, I was fighting Japs and Germans in my backyard when I was a kid...it was the thing to do in the 40's.

In the first link, I garnered a bit of an appreciation for Ken Burns that I did not have before; at least he is passionate about his endeavor and passion can be a good or a bad thing...I leave it to you to interpret my meaning.

In the second link, I learned that I am no longer competent to render judgment in modern terms about such things, as I simply don't possess the sarcasm and cynicism of whoever did that clip.

Few in the real world pay much attention to Ken Burns, or PBS in general, as it is well known as a left wing outlet and is disregarded as such.

My intent and desire is a contiguous one, to continually draw attention to the saturation of media events by left wing intellectuals who almost conspiratorially coalesce into a condescending criticism of America and all things American.

It often backfires for the left and for Burns, as the dedication of the American people during that ultimate crisis exposes a national character quite unexpected from such a mongrel nation of self centered individuals.

As you might realize, I could not possibly condense any of this to four column inches for a newspaper critique and thus I have decided not to even attempt it.



Amicus...

 

[SavannahMann]

Wartime documentaries are always tough.

I recently read a book on the Cold War, written by a professor who teaches both a history 100 type of thing on it, and an advanced class. I was troubled by a couple things.

First, I don't think the professor gave Reagan enough credit in finding the only non nuclear option of ending the Soviet Union. While Reagan was in office, there were dozens of movies about a nuclear war, and post WW3 world. These days, those films are more rare, because people don't imagine that a nuclear war will again threaten us. Russia may not be all that friendly, but they aren't enemies like the old Soviet Union was.

Reagan spent the Soviets into the ground, taking a joke from Dr. Strangelove and making it a reality. The Soviet's couldn't compete with us in all the different races, the space race, the nuclear race, and the peace race. We bankrupted them and then gave them huge loans to give the fall a softer landing. Otherwise the entire nation would have been sleeping over a steam vent.

Another thing that bothered me was his limited use of the Venona project when he discussed the McCarthy era. Venona certainly proved that the Soviets were spying on us, had agents and informants working for the US Government in sensitive and policy shaping roles, including the Rosenburgs, and Rudolph Hess. McCarthy may have been over the top, but he was right, there were soviet spies in the US Government.

Another book I had an issue with was one which dealt with World War One, because that author loved the French General Foch. Foch (I may be spelling that wrong, it's late forgive me I beg you) was a fool in my opinion. He called for attacks when all the evidence in the world was right before him that he was being overrun. Only the early entry of Russia in the war which drew whole Corps out of the German attack into France saved Paris. To demonstrate how little France learned from this debacle, in World War two, the Germans took the same roads to invade again. Once again finding the French army out of position and fighting a losing battle.

I use these examples of how I disagree with the learned men who wrote them. Something along the lines of your objection to the Ken Burns documentaries. I haven't seen them, I've been working too many hours so far this week. However, I find that oftentimes documentaries seem to skip what I consider to be very important events of the time period, or information which doesn't seem to fit their particular agenda.

 

[reignophelia]

~~~

Heh...smiles...thanks...I watched both, I hope others do also.

I'm an old guy, as you have probably gathered, and like an excerpt from the film, I was fighting Japs and Germans in my backyard when I was a kid...it was the thing to do in the 40's.

In the first link, I garnered a bit of an appreciation for Ken Burns that I did not have before; at least he is passionate about his endeavor and passion can be a good or a bad thing...I leave it to you to interpret my meaning.

In the second link, I learned that I am no longer competent to render judgment in modern terms about such things, as I simply don't possess the sarcasm and cynicism of whoever did that clip.

Few in the real world pay much attention to Ken Burns, or PBS in general, as it is well known as a left wing outlet and is disregarded as such.

My intent and desire is a contiguous one, to continually draw attention to the saturation of media events by left wing intellectuals who almost conspiratorially coalesce into a condescending criticism of America and all things American.

It often backfires for the left and for Burns, as the dedication of the American people during that ultimate crisis exposes a national character quite unexpected from such a mongrel nation of self centered individuals.

As you might realize, I could not possibly condense any of this to four column inches for a newspaper critique and thus I have decided not to even attempt it.



Amicus...

I'm glad you enjoyed it the videos. So would it be safe to say that Big Bird is to PBS as Bill O'Reilly is to FoxNews?

I love PBS, but I'm from the land of JFK, and John Kerry (not a fan of the Kerrmeister, but the lesser of the two evils in the last presidential election)...
Yet somehow PBS still manages to muster up enough dollars to keep going. I won't dispute that a lot of the $ comes from folks like me who love shows like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfPmfDpo8uw, and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-yiyjSOjEI and even this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFtv5qe5o3c
I threw a little "Jew" in there for some spice.

So you don't even think that patriotic moderate liberals (not to be confused with liberal moderates) deserve some respect?

Don't you think we're cute? We're awfully cute Amicus. Come on, admit it...

I have a feeling that I'm going to just see the documentary as asserting that - yeah war is terrible, but sometimes neccessary (incredible oversimplification of course, but I think you get what I mean).

Ultimately I'm just going to have to watch it.

Don't stress yourself out about it too much dear.



-Ophelia

 

[amicus]

Welcome to the forum, SavannahMann, I spell 'Foch' the same way but I I recall, 'Marshall' Foch, which is of no concern.

Your point is well taken in that history is often written by those with an agenda and an ideology that has nothing to do with what really happened.

Your movement from the Reagan era, to the 50's, to the first world war, leaves me unable to draw a conclusion or even a hint as to the root of your assertions. I hope you will amplify and explain.

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Ophelia...I spent no small amount of time creating a literary masterpiece in reply to your post, noting all the links you provided, only to find that my silly assed touch pad on this silly assed feminine laptop keyboard, decided to delete everything I wrote.

So, do ya wanna fool around or what?



Ahem...

amicus...

 

[reignophelia]

Ophelia...I spent no small amount of time creating a literary masterpiece in reply to your post, noting all the links you provided, only to find that my silly assed touch pad on this silly assed feminine laptop keyboard, decided to delete everything I wrote.

So, do ya wanna fool around or what?



Ahem...

amicus...

Yeah yeah yeah...
Riiiiight...
Are you sure you want to touch the likes of me? I might rub off on you You'll start thinking Obama is God's gift in no time...

(I just nearly fell out of my chair laughing.)
Oh, does your computer look something like this? http://www.exonome.com/fj/phkl/open.jpg

No wonder you accidentally deleted your post!

 

[Liar]

FUBAR, Fucked UP Beyond All Recognition.

Thought it was "...Beyond All Repair". But that might just be the geek community version.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

In Vietnam many of our aircraft had WETSU AIRLINES steciled on the fuselage. WETSU is We Eat This Shit Up.

 

[Weird Harold]

I have a feeling that I'm going to just see the documentary as asserting that - yeah war is terrible, but sometimes neccessary (incredible oversimplification of course, but I think you get what I mean).

Ultimately I'm just going to have to watch it.

I suspect you'll enjoy the documentary but recognise it for the "keyhole" view of the war that it is.

I gave up on the documentary after only about three hours because I'm not all that interested in the view through the parochial keyhole Ken burns chose to view WWII through; he left out too much context for my taste.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I've been thinking this morning after watching the episode last night. World War II ended 62 years ago. I began for the U.S. in 1941 some 66 years ago. The "players" in this saga would have been, say, 18 or 20 when they joined the army. That would make them in their mid 80's when this was made.

Looking at most of those people on TV, they do not look that old. They look like their mid 60's or early 70's. Is something wrong or are they just well preserved?

 

[Weird Harold]

The "players" in this saga would have been, say, 18 or 20 when they joined the army. That would make them in their mid 80's when this was made.

Looking at most of those people on TV, they do not look that old. They look like their mid 60's or early 70's. Is something wrong or are they just well preserved?

The ages as of 7 Dec 1941 are given for most of the "players" in the first episode when they were first introduced -- Some were as young as fourteen, the oldest I recall was a 21yo college student.

Since "The War" took about four years to make (that I know of) mid to late seventies when the interviews were done sounds about right.

Not to mention that makeup, lighting, and such can take a decade or two off of apparent age (or add it) -- there wouldn't be much point in presenting this as the memoirs of senile old nursing home patients.

 

[trysail]

I, too, was surprised by the unexpurgated use of the F-bomb. We'll see what response there is, if any, from the FCC.

While Burns unquestionably ticked all the politically correct boxes, I do have to say that he didn't pull any punches about the nasty truth of war. The horrifically graphic images weren't glossed over or sugar-coated. This stands in stark contrast to Burns' "Civil War." I once asked him about his failure to portray the horrific carnage in that piece and he, more or less, shrugged off the question, which I found disappointing. I received my high school diploma from the hand of a man whose father had been one of Pickett's brigade commanders at Gettysburg and (at 60 years old!) had somehow managed to survive that ill-fated charge. If you've ever walked across that field (as I have- many, many times), it is impossible to imagine how anything survived the canister, grapeshot, and musket volleys. It makes me shake my head in disbelief every time I think of it.

I'm a long-standing student of military history (but no fan of war); there was footage that even I've never seen before. And........., there were candid admissions of the commission of "atrocities" by Americans right alongside the "atrocities" committed by the Japanese. Sherman had it right. War is hell.

 

[SimpleGifts]

I've been thinking this morning after watching the episode last night. World War II ended 62 years ago. I began for the U.S. in 1941 some 66 years ago. The "players" in this saga would have been, say, 18 or 20 when they joined the army. That would make them in their mid 80's when this was made.

Looking at most of those people on TV, they do not look that old. They look like their mid 60's or early 70's. Is something wrong or are they just well preserved?

Most look about as old as my father, who just turned 80. He just missed World War II, since he turned 18 in June of 1945 (also, he was the "man of the house" at that age as his father suffered a debilitating stroke, so he would have been exempt from the draft).

A friend of mine is the same age as my father--he served in the War, because he lied about his age and joined up when he was 16.

Maybe it's a question of perspective--none of the people interviewed in the documentary look too young to have fought.

SG

 

[SimpleGifts]

I suspect you'll enjoy the documentary but recognise it for the "keyhole" view of the war that it is.

I gave up on the documentary after only about three hours because I'm not all that interested in the view through the parochial keyhole Ken burns chose to view WWII through; he left out too much context for my taste.

Sheesh. Granted, a guy could cover a lot of ground in 15 hours...but if Burns wanted to do a comprehensive, complete treatment of the entire war and its context, he probably could have done that. I agree with Reign--that was never his objective, so evaluating him against that yardstick seems kind of foolish.

I had a talk about the documentary with my father, who (as I posted above) was 18 in 1945. He learned a few things about the war that surprised him...even as a high-schooler who read the paper every day and had at least some grasp of what was going on with all the battles. Burns has said pretty consistently that he wanted the average soldiers (and civilians) to tell their own stories...most of the generals are dead and can't tell theirs. The average soldier or civilian at the time already had a "keyhole" view of the war, so of course that's what comes across in the documentary. Burns lends his "voice" to the piece in the narration (which wasn't written by him btw), editing, selection of archival footage, etc....but the stories as told by the principals speak for themselves.

That, to me, is the value of the work...whether or not Burns is a Marxist doesn't really have any relevance. He chose to present the war from the perspective of a certain group, and he has never claimed that he set out to do anything other than that.

I hope I go back and catch the segment he did on Operation Market Garden, because in my opinion "A Bridge Too Far" is one of the best books about any battle in any war, and that operation was a real mess.

SG

 

[amicus]

Sheesh. Granted, a guy could cover a lot of ground in 15 hours...but if Burns wanted to do a comprehensive, complete treatment of the entire war and its context, he probably could have done that. I agree with Reign--that was never his objective, so evaluating him against that yardstick seems kind of foolish.

I had a talk about the documentary with my father, who (as I posted above) was 18 in 1945. He learned a few things about the war that surprised him...even as a high-schooler who read the paper every day and had at least some grasp of what was going on with all the battles. Burns has said pretty consistently that he wanted the average soldiers (and civilians) to tell their own stories...most of the generals are dead and can't tell theirs. The average soldier or civilian at the time already had a "keyhole" view of the war, so of course that's what comes across in the documentary. Burns lends his "voice" to the piece in the narration (which wasn't written by him btw), editing, selection of archival footage, etc....but the stories as told by the principals speak for themselves.

That, to me, is the value of the work...whether or not Burns is a Marxist doesn't really have any relevance. He chose to present the war from the perspective of a certain group, and he has never claimed that he set out to do anything other than that.

I hope I go back and catch the segment he did on Operation Market Garden, because in my opinion "A Bridge Too Far" is one of the best books about any battle in any war, and that operation was a real mess.

SG

~~~

"A Bridge Too Far", in the terms of Clint Eastwood in, "Heart Break Ridge", might be aptly described as a, 'Cluster Fuck', if one were not politically correct.

The Allies suffered more casualties in the Market Garden operation than they did at the Normandy landings and that is truly saying something.

This operation has a history of the conflict between the Brit's and the American's, namely, Field Marshall Montgomery, who pushed for the operation against much opposition. It is a complex issue concerning American and British efforts in the war plans and has been the subject of many books and documentaries, most of which I have read or watched.

I have watched each episode of the Ken Burns, "The War", and will watch the final one tomorrow evening, unless the world ends; but I am not greatly impressed with the effort.

One thing; television air time is expensive, PBS repeated the program three times tonight, six hours plus of international, global broadcasting, that, if I tried to purchase the time would have cost millions.

PBS, a left wing intelligentsia outlet, does the same with Global Warming propaganda, anti Iraq War rants, and all the issues of the left, and being tax supported, I object to that.

The series denigrates the administration and the management of the conflict as if the 'powers that be', could have, should have, done things better. Surely in hindsight, things could have been done better.

What I think most of the current generation does not realize is the WW2, was indeed a watershed of conflicting ideologies, that of democratic freedom or totalitarian rule and the balance was in jeopardy.

Ken Burns, does not seem to acknowledge this, but I will wait until after the final episode to make a complete judgment.

A comment about the Philippines civilian prisoners of war....well, it was heart rending and very sad, but very well done...in one aspect....not so in others...


Amicus...