Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'ww2'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • War History Online
    • Tell Us!
    • Question Corner
    • News
  • History Corner
    • Beginning of time - First World War
    • First World War (1914-1918)
    • Second World War (1939 - 1945)
    • After World War II
    • My Family
    • Others
  • Other Stuff
    • Battlefields, Monuments & Museums
    • Military Vehicles & Aviation
    • Mess Hall (Off Topic)
    • Gaming Corner
    • Books / Films / TV / Documentaries

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



About Me

Found 26 results

  1. Until December 7, 1941 in the history of America there was not a single military conflict with the Asian army. There were only a few minor clashes in the Philippines during the war with Spain. This led to the underestimation of the enemy by American soldiers and sailors. In the US Army, they heard stories about the cruelty that the Japanese invaders were dealing with in China in the 40s of the twentieth century. But before the clashes with the Japanese, the Americans had no idea what their opponents were capable of. Routine beatings were so common that it is not even worthy of mention. However, in addition, the captive Americans, British, Greeks, Australians and Chinese had to face slave labor, violent marches, cruel and unusual torture and even dismemberment. Below are some of the most shocking atrocities of the Japanese army during the Second World War: 5. CANNIBALISM: The Japanese camps were in deep isolation, surrounded by impassable jungle, and the soldiers guarding the camp often starved as well as the prisoners, resorting to terrifying means to satisfy their hunger. But for the most part cannibalism occurred because of a mockery of the enemy. A report from the University of Melbourne states: “According to the Australian lieutenant, he saw many bodies that lacked parts, even a scalped head without a torso. He claims that the state of the remains clearly indicated that they were dissected for cooking. ” 4. NON-HUMAN EXPERIMENTS ON PREGNANT WOMEN: The so-called Unit 731 conducted experiments on Chinese women who were raped and fertilized. They were purposefully infected with syphilis, so that you can find out if the disease is inherited. Often the condition of the fetus was studied directly in the womb of the mother without the use of anesthesia, since these women were considered nothing more than animals to study. 3. CLINGING AND SEWING GENITALS IN THE MOUTH: In 1944, on the volcanic island of Peleliu, a marine soldier during lunch with a friend saw the figure of a man heading towards them in an open area of the battlefield. When the man approached, it became clear that this was also a soldier of the marines. The man walked bent over and barely moved his legs. He was covered in blood. The sergeant decided that he was just a wounded man, who was not taken from the battlefield, and he hurried to meet him with several colleagues. What they saw made them shudder. His mouth was sewn up, and the front of the trousers was cut. The face was contorted with pain and horror. After delivering it to the doctors, they later learned from them what actually happened. He was captured by the Japanese, where he was beaten and severely tortured. The soldiers of the Japanese army cut off his genitals, and, stuffing them in his mouth, sewed him up. It is not known whether the soldier was able to survive after such terrible abuse. But the reliable fact is that instead of intimidation, this event had the opposite effect, filling the hearts of the soldiers with hatred and giving them extra strength to fight for the island. 2. BURNING HEAT: Japanese soldiers from small islands in the South Pacific were hardened, violent people who lived in caves, where there was not enough food, there was nothing to do, but there was plenty of time to grow in the hearts of hatred of enemies. Therefore, when American servicemen were captured by them, they were absolutely ruthless towards them. Most often, American sailors were subjected to burning alive or partial burial. Many of them were found under rocks, where they were thrown to decompose. The prisoners were tied hand and foot, then thrown into a dug pit, which was then slowly buried. Perhaps the worst was that the victim’s head was left outside, which was then urinated or eaten by animals. 1. FORCING TO KILL FRIENDS AND ALLIES: Most often at interrogations they used beatings of captives. Documents say that at first they spoke to the prisoner in an amicable way. Then, if the officer leading the interrogation understood the futility of such a conversation, was bored or simply angry, the prisoner of war was beaten with fists, sticks or other objects. The beating continued until the torturers were tired. In order to make the interrogation more interesting, they brought another prisoner and forced him to continue on pain of his own death from decapitation. Often he had to beat the captive to death. Few things in the war were as difficult for a soldier than to cause suffering to a comrade. These stories filled the allied forces with even greater determination in the fight against the Japanese.
  2. Can we just ban peopole who are offering fake passports and such. Its just clogging a already dead forum board.
  3. Project ’44 is the first part of an online commemoration project set to launch this summer for the 75th anniversary of the D-Day landings. The website will combine digitize maps, war diaries, Aerial Imagery, photos and documents to create an unprecedented online experience. You will have the ability to navigate the 87 days of combat and interact with all of the First Canadian Army units from division to brigade and 70+ regimental units, 37 Squadrons of the RCAF and a mixed force of Allied and Canadian ships of Force J and bombardment Force E. All of which participated in the Normandy Campaign from June 6 to August 30 1944. As you move the time slider each unit’s war diaries will also be available and you will be able to follow along in the day to day actions of each unit and the engagements they fought. We are very proud to have created the largest digital database of unit positions of the battle of Normandy. This data set will be unique in that it will allow further research and give the opportunity to all Canadians and the world to have a better understanding of WHO fought WHERE during the Normandy Campaign. I say again this is the worlds largest database of GEOREFERENCED positions ever created with content that as not been seen in over 60 years. Please follow us on facebook, Instagram, twitter and linkedin under the Canadian Research and Mapping Association. Project44.ca
  4. My Dad was in WW2. I grew up in the 50's and remember him talking to Mom about the millions of Jews they found in underground ammo factories in the forests. He was reading about it again in the papers. When I got my first computer in the early 80's I was able to pull up those historical articles, but they've since been washed from the Internet. Would love to find out more about this subject, and have copies of those articles.
  5. Once again the need to point out that a commentary, if made in a historical context< should do so and add a bibliography. In the article/commentary/opinion piece "The United States Actually Planned on Dropping 12 Atomic Bombs on Japan" a series of historical facts have been interwoven with personal rhetoric thereby voiding an interesting subject of overall fact - fake news, as our American cousins have a want. If something is an article/commentary/opinion piece this should be pointed out - not by passing an opinion off as fact. Some people take what appears on this site as historical fact. Some is, some isn't, and some is pure fiction with no historical viability. Opinions and commentary should be encouraged but with a factual datum point - not grandkids coming up and ask "Pop, we just read this but the books you have say different..."
  6. Must see museumship: Every veteran who served is recognized & named over the PA with a Thank You for Your service. No audio wands on tour. Follow yellow arrows. Much work to be done. No food service. Can take pieces of deck home for 5.00 On tour Did NOT see CIC,Mn Engine spaces or Main battle turret for16 in guns. Much more to be done. Arriving on deck, the deck watch asks if any is military or former,U give him your details & hear name announced over PA. No food service ashore. Signage helps explain tour Love the 5 in turrets, compact size. Much labor in a BB alone for all manned guns. 16 in guns alone had huge workforce. See Iowa, San Pedro CA, near Cruise Terminal Center. Take 110 Frwy to San Pedro.
  7. Just read on WH about an average German who knew of the Nazi atrocities being done. & feel for those Germans when they knew of the Jews being sent East & concentration camps being erected to send them to the Death camps. & if any Germans living in Poland after 1939 noticed the ash from cremation of the Jews in the said Death Camps?? Opens up a whole new yarn to German knowledge of Nazi crimes. To run Poland etc they had to have employees run said cities etc thus average Germans in Poland would know about death camps, or how could use explain ash?? Am I right or was Poland under total Military control& No civilian Germans came to aid running of Govt.??
  8. Anyone work, service, test fly, these planes:? B19, B32, B40, Rainbow 12, XP67, Skystreak, B54
  9. Other than the markings stating it is a no4 mk II bayonet what do the other 2 little imprints mean? The B symbol in between the K and II? the little curve with a kind of hook on the right end above the O? - marking or scratch? And lastly, overall value of the bayonet? I have a cover stamped, 1944 mk1 aswell. thanks
  10. Checked online & seen nothing about U Boats hiding along riverways in Brazil, Venezula, Ecuador from Allied patrols in So Atlantic. Media model: Murphys War, 1971.( On DVD). Peter O Toole, best role since Lawrence Arabia. From novel, written. Anyone who served in Merchent Marine or RN, USN hear of U Boats hiding in riverways after damage etc?? Or Hollywood fiction.
  11. The reasons they lost the war: 1 They did not just take out Britain after the blitz of France, Belgium etc. Yes I am aware it would still be very difficult for the Nazis to do this. 2 Invade Russia without enough materials, Tanks, Guns, men. If they had also gotten Japan to invade Siberia. Waited to gather oil from Romania, Not halt the Strumgewer program and just more men. Have Japan wait to get the united States in the war. If Japan would have waited they could very well had a better chance of winning the war. Less Submarines more cruisers. If the Nazis had built more cruisers, battleships. They could have put more of a strain on the British war effort. Better anti aircraft guns. If this was done the Nazi war effort would have been much less effective.
  12. Wkipediaied the Ploesti Raid & one thing stands out: No Intel from any if partisan units to the Allies on German AA defenses etc. or did I miss something. Or was area under total Nazi control & no gueriila efforts in area during raid.
  13. What if the US did fund Long range bombers & we had these in WW2: B29 B30 Connie bomber B19 B32. & YB49. What would outcome belike for Pacific area alone asideETO. B17s would be be delegated to Lifeboat service to save crews & Maritime patrol over convoys inbound to UK. What If if funding & tech issues No problem. Imagine 10 squadrons of B19s bombing Japan with its bomb load alone. Or B19s raiding Japan from Alaska vs Doolittle Raid by B25. Ideas, comments.
  14. My local cinema "Supper Club" showed this last night... the supper was better than the film! Brian Cox is a superb actor, (and was the ORIGINAL Hannibal Lector - Anthony Hopkins merely copied him!) But, unfortunately looks nothing like Churchill. Every baby looks like Chunchill, no baby looks like Brian Cox. He managed to get the voice down well, and I was hoping to enjoy the movie, but found that I disagreed with the central premise of the plot: The writers, it seemed to me, had got the story totally arse-about-face. The story, (as told in the film) shows a Churchill wracked with doubts about D-Day in the few days leading up to it, and trying to get it either stopped completely or at least postponed, because he fears that it will be a repetition of the massacres of WW1 (specifically Gallipoli, an idea that Churchill himself had come up with, but which got "nickled and dimed" down into something unrecognisable. HIS plan had been to blast his way through the Dardanelles, accepting the loss of as many battleships as were required to do the job, because when the job WAS done, it would knock Turkey out of the Axis Alliance, and allow badly-needed supplies to be shipped to the Russians) When the USA entered WW2 - reluctantly - they did so with an extraordinary amount of arrogance, for a nation whose military had for the most part hardly heard a shot in anger. They arrived ready to tell everybody else what to do, and quite often with ideas that had been outdated in 1918. The USA was gung ho to invade France in 1943 - and was told in no uncertain terms to put a sock in it. AN invasion as envisaged by the USA to take place in 1943 would have been a disasterous bloodbath. Churchill demanded THEN (i.e. in 1942) a year's delay, and he GOT it (a delay until 1944). And he used that extra year to maximum advantage - the creation of the 79th Armoured Brigade under Brigadier Hobart, for example. (Don't forget that in the previous war, Churchill had been instrumental in the development of the tank, to counter the barbed wire and trenches of WW1. With absolutely NO authority to do so, he had provided government finance to develop them! Now he was sponsoring some truly strange vehicles to cross the beaches of Normandy.) PLUTO - the "PipeLineUnderTheOcean" which delivered fuel to the invasion forces via a... pipleline under the ocean! (or at least, under the English Channel) And the Mulberry Harbours, the remains of which can still be seen at Arromanches. (Churchill had quibbled about them being described as "pre-fabricated", and said that he preferred the expression "ready made") Bottom line, there is absolutely ZERO doubt in MY mind that Churchill had been an enthusiastic participant in the planning of D-Day, in almost every detail, not merely a passive observer whose glory days lay behind him. Aside from Brian Cox, Miranda Richardson deserves praise as WInston's long-suffering wife Clementine. James Purefoy (who I remember particularly from the BBC series "Rome", in which he played Marc Anthony), was a very convincing King, complete with slight stammer. I think I'd have suggested that the casting director had paid a little more attention to heights. The Chap who played Monty (Julian Wadham) towered over General Brooke (Danny Webb) despite the real Monty being notoriously short. When I was a young man, a comedian name Lance Percival made a good career, partly from making appearances AS Monty on TV - he had the nasal voice down absolutely correctly. Sadly Mr. Wadham didn't have it. If Monty and Brooke had swapped actors....? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2674454/?ref_=nv_sr_1
  15. Anyone know about Gen MacArthurs personal B17 " Bataan"?? Checked online & No photos,, specs, tech on plane when in use. & same for Ikes personal plane for use in ETO, same modified B17 or other cargo plane type. Or served in Air Units that flew planes.
  16. Hitler at first underestimated Stalin describing his government as "nothing more than an international criminal ring". But when the war in the East turned, Hitler realised he had an equally formidable and ruthless opponent, "he (Stalin) is a hell of a fellow, in his own way" said Hitler (quote from Albert Speer's memoirs). Hitler and Stalin were responsible for millions of deaths, wars, invasions, war crimes and atrocities. Who do you think was worse amongst these twentieth century despots?
  17. Other recent - and popular! - threads have discussed German mistakes during WW2, and fairly high on the list have been the failure to annihilate the BEF at Dunkirk, and the unwise decision to switch from hammering airfields and RADAR stations to bombig towns (specifically London) There has ben - or so it seemed to me! - an easy, and almost unanimous assumption that if the Germans had continued to target the RAF then (1) they'd have won and (2) the invasion that was supposed to follow would have been a success., I strongly disagree. In 1940, the UK, tired from a string of defeats, and having lost pretty much ALL our allies, was desperate for a success, and the Battle of Britain provided one. So, the government of the day "Bigged it up" to the maximum.Germany had lost almost the entirety of its (anyway rather small) inshore fleet in action against the RN off of Narvik, meaning that the "invasion fleet" - composed not of purpose built landing craft, but merely conscripted barges from European inland waterways would have to cross 20+ miles of open sea, totally unescorted. -and having deposited their invading troops in England, would need to return to collect a second wave and supplies. This is the kind of exercise that has been repeatedly wargamed since the end of WW2, including by teams of senior officers who'd served both Germany and the UK during the war. Same result time after time. Total disaster for the invaders. Which is WHY, in 1944, after over a YEAR of preparations, the establishment of vast stockpiles of gear, with th enemy utterly confused as to where and when the invasion would come, the Allies were still VERY nervous as to the outcome.Quite a number of people down the last 1,000 years have considered the idea of invading England. Since William of Normany's attempt in 1066... nobody has succeeded. Not Phillip of Spain with his Armada, Not Napoleon. Getting from one side of the Channel to the other still in a condition to fight is NOT easy. William might be considered to have cheated: He convinced his Viking Allies to make a simutaneous invasion on the EAST coast at Stamford Bridge. Harold's army took on one invasion, defeated it, then marched South to meet William. Any other opinions? Would Hitler have succeeded? Ought I to have made this post into a Poll?!
  18. Well, I see that some of the folks apparently get their history from fairy tale books, and are "commenting" like crazy on the P-51 posts in this forum. Back when I was a young man, there was a real chick-flick, called "Love Story." The theme song to it was sung by Andy Williams, and aside from being on the Top 100 Songs list for a number of weeks, it may have won some awards, too. The title and first line of the song was "Where Do I Begin?". That's fitting for what follows. Before I get cookin', please know that about 90% of the stuff that I grew up learning about the P-51 Mustang and its siblings, the A-36A and the F-6, was W-R-O-N-G! I've had to be educated - many times from folks who knew a lot more about the subject than I even thought I knew, and other times by reading many books and articles. This has all helped me immensely. I have also read a number of official USAAF books, as well as USAAF and North American Aviation documents. Furthermore, I have done some checking with archivists, etc. I'm working on my Doctorate in Mustangology, you might say! ...so here's where I begin: The Mustang (which it wasn't called until the RAF accepted it - and it was a British name at that - and, neither North American Aviation nor the USAAF/USAAC gave it an official name at that point in history, because it was not developed for any branch of the US military) was designed 100% by Americans, and engineering drawings, etc were all done by Americans as well. I'm talking about the gang at NAA. It *WAS* designed based on British specifications but the Brits did not develop, design nor draft any of the drawings that resulted in getting the protype aircraft built. True, they made “suggestions” and “contributions” throughout its development and operational history, many of which were incorporated into the production Mustangs as the War went on and on. NAA called the prototype "NA-73x" and the first samples provided to the RAF (the USAAF latched onto a couple of the samples, too) were called "NA-73." The first 380 production aircraft that the Brits called "Mustang Mk I" were also NA-73s. The next batch, 300 aircraft, was designated NA-83 by North American. Because there were no real differences between the NA-73 and NA-83, the 300 later aircraft too, were called “Mustang Mk I.” The only difference I’ve ever seen is that the -73s had rounded cross-section exhaust stacks, and the -83s had fish-tail ejector exhaust tips. After those 680 were built and supplied, the Brits wanted the aircraft to be armed with four 20 mm cannons, replacing the four .50 Cal Browning Machine Guns and the four.30 Cal BMGs. NAA came up with NA-91 which the RAF called "Mustang Mk IA." The USAAF naturally got a couple of those, liked them and this resulted in the P-51 (no suffix), which by the way, is mislabeled "P-51A" in the article that I just read on this website. There were about 150 P-51s, and about 50 were fitted with 2 cameras and were called the "P-51-1-NA." They kept their 20 mm cannons, by the way. They were renamed "F-6A" to reflect their photo-recon roles. Some sources even go so far as clarifying that the F-6As were later called “P-51-2-NA.” Note that the two NA-91 aircraft that had their Allisons replaced with Merlins, along with less major changes, became the XP-51B, and at first they still had the monster 20 mm cannons in the wings. Photos of them in their early stages of testing had the cannons still installed (they were WAAAY too long-barreled to miss!), and later ones had the cannons removed and the leading edge of the wings were smoothly faired over where the guns long fairings had been before. Not discussed in previous comments, though, was the fact that THIS aircraft came along at a point in history where the official NAA and USAAF name of “Apache” was given to this “family” of aircraft. The Brits naturally continued to call it “Mustang.” In mid-1942, though, both the USAAF and NAA, in a nearly unique situation, officially renamed it “Mustang,” following the RAF name. As a aside, the A-36A (NAA gave it the production name of “NA-97”). FYI , NAA gave these “NA-number” designations to all aircraft in chronological order by this simple numbering system, according to the debut of the projects, regardless of whether the aircraft was a B-25 Mitchell or an AT-6/SNJ. The first B-25 was NA-50, and the first AT-6 was NA-26, for what it’s worth. Each version of an existing NAA aircraft was given whatever was the “next number in the sequence.” So, from the NA-73x prototype, the sequence of production aircraft in the Mustang family were: NA-73, -83, -91, -97, -99, -102, -103, -104, -106, -109, -110, -111, -122, -124, -126 and -129 (for the P-51L-NT, equivalent to the P-51H [which was the NA-126, BTW] which was canceled). I posted this arcane info only to underscore the fact that the Mustang family was not composed of a series of consecutive “NA-numbers.” Interspersed in the above number sequence were I mention this because the A-36A (no prototype and the only version built – 500 total) has been misnamed “Apache” in probably 90% of all sources, be they books or websites by “experts.” The official NAA and USAAF name was always – ALWAYS – “Mustang.” Pilots in the USAAF’s 12th Air Force called it by a name that they themselves came up with: “Invader.” The pilots went so far as to petition (not sure if it was to both the USAAF and NAA or only one of them) to rename the A-36A to “Invader.” This was in vain, because Douglas Aircraft had already been given this official name and EVERY aircraft in what I call the “Mustang family” (including the F-6 line – the P-51A photo recon version was the F-6B; the P-51B/C, F-6C; the P-51D, F-6D; the P-51K, F-6K) was “Mustang” … period (or exclamation mark!), end of sentence. I’ve got a 1944 USAAF book with this info and a scan of an official 1944 US government document on naming of aircraft. Not enough “proof,” some folks say – well, the two major Mustang books clearly state this fact. Those books, “Mustang: The Story of the P-51 Fighter” by Robert Gruenhagen and “Mustang Designer: Edgar Schmued and the P-51,” by Ray Wagner. Gruenhagen was an NAA historian and Wagner was an author of a number of books on aircraft. Gruenhagen is still alive, although advanced in age and physically ill – a friend, an author in his own right, had been in contact with Bob, as he calls him, and said that his mind was still sharp as the proverbial tack. Ray Wagner has been dead for a while, AFAIK. Oh, and an online expert, Joe Baugher clearly states the fact that the A-36A, was called “Mustang.” Furthermore, having used the Boeing Archives for reference before (Boeing acquired NAA’s surviving documents that came into possession of them when North American Rockwell acquired NAA. Boeing, in turn, acquired NAR and Boeing now has the documents, photos, etc in their historical archives), I contacted Boeing’s historical archivist via email, asking if he could find references to “Apache” being given to the A-36 in anything from NAA. (BTW, I also have scans of two different pages from “Skywriter,” NAA’s employee newsletter and they both state “A-36 Mustang). The archivist replied with a clear statement when I told him that I couldn’t find ANYTHING official, that called the A-36A “Apache” and here’s his reply, copied and pasted from the email to me: "I agree, Apache was a tentative name given to the XP-51 and P-51 prior to the USAAF giving official names around the end of 1942. The name never applied to the A-36." I can see it coming – someone will say, “I’ve got proof that will trump all of your authors and sources.” The “proof”? The National Museum of the US Air Force in Dayton, OH has a beautiful A-36A named “Margie H,” on display. This museum is on my “must visit” list, BTW. The placard clearly has “North American A-36A APACHE” on it…so, there you go – it’s “Apache.” I’m going to attempt to attach it to this comment. I’ve never been a quitter, so I contacted the Curator at the NMUSAF in September, 2017. Here’s the main paragraph from the first reply from him: "Thank you for contacting the National Museum of the United States Air Force. We are circulating an update to the sign text with the correct associated nickname, "Mustang". At present, we have been unable to locate any contemporary source which designates the aircraft A-36A "Apache". Should we locate any such resource we will let certainly let you know. The nickname "Apache" will now be mentioned in the body of the text, described instead as a popular nickname. The main signage will read North American A-36A Mustang." I guess that the only thing that I need to spread more love on is that nonsense statement (I’ll be paraphrasing here) that said, “the Mustang wasn’t any kind of fighter until they put a British engine into it.” TRUE, Allison V12 as it existed in the Allison-engined Mustangs was at best, a “medium altitude” engine, and its power, and therefore airspeed and rate of climb fell off around 12-13,000 ft. What made the production Merlin Mustangs “greater,” was that the Merlin, as used in the XP-51Bs and the P-51B up through the P-51B-5-NA had two-stage, two-speed superchargers (with a liquid-cooled aftercooler) – that was a Packard Merlin Dash 3 engine. What made the Merlin Mustangs eventually even GREATER, though, was upgrading the engine to a Dash 7 which happened in the P-51B-10-NA and later Mustangs. Had the production P-51Bs and later had Dash 1 engines, they’d have had similar restrictions to the power output at higher altitudes. I say all this because there was proof that “Merlinizing” an aircraft did nothing magical to it (and NO, the Merlin got its name from a small bird of prey, not Merlin the great magician!) – the case in point was the P-40F. It had a V-1650-1 in it, and while it had a higher rate of climb for a while, it, too was NOT a high-altitude engine. Furthermore, had any of the newer Allisons be fitted into any pre-B-model P-51s – like the basic Allison in the P-63 (but obviously with a different prop reduction gearbox setup!) – they would’ve theoretically been good performers at high altitudes, too. I'm looking forward to Comments from the folks who read this. I'm "full of it" when it comes to info about Mustangs.
  19. Maybe dumb question, Why didnt any Flying Tiger units aid Tokyo Raid IE aid guiding planes for landing into China?? Or give air support once raiders hit China. Didnt Tigers have a unit it could send into NE China where Raiders would be incoming from raid? Didnt Raiders inform Chinese Intelligence of arrival area by plane?? some code signal for Chinese freedom fighter units.
  20. Why didnt Tommy Guns have retractable stocks like M1 carbines. Or Sten guns?
  21. Read alot about the 5th AF B25G/H models in action in the SW Pacific. Did any serve in the ETO?? Never hear of any in any AF in the ETO or much less used by the RAF & RAAF. B25G Upgunned B25s with nosegun power.
  22. Hallo I would like more information about the p61 black widow and his place in history. Was it a good plane , did the pilots like it?
  23. Ron Walker

    Bill Slim

    I was somewhat surprised to learn from WarHistoryOnline that the late Bill Slim hailed originally "from the Black Country" (He DIDN'T move to Birmingham until he was a teenager) He was born in central Bristol, in the parish of St Andrews, and upon being ennobled as a Viscount chose the name "Slim of Burma AND BISHOPSTON" (St Andrews and Bishopston are adjacent areas of Bristol; he was christened in a church in Bishopston.) Clearly, Bill Slim thought of himself as a Bristolian, not as someone from the Birmingham area.
  24. Were both One & same on techniques for interogatting prisoners & or different say from POWs vs captured guerillas?? Same for executions or No, worse? Did Allied officers fare better than Allied enlisted when caught?? See movie Harts War, Great Escape??? or is that media. Who fared worse under Interrogation?? IE Allies & local guerillas, etc?? Do movies portray the Reality or No since the 1960s??
  25. I took these in 2015 in St Petersburg. I've a load more including video if you guys are interested.
  • Create New...