Bill Belichick To Narrate World War II Documentary

[RecoveringCowboy]

I can also see him saying we won in all three aspects of the war on the ground in the air and on the water. It was a good all around team effort.

He might say that of the major players, the US made no major strategic mistakes. All three Axis powers took on more than they could handle (Italy invaded North Africa, Japan-US, Germany-USSR.) Some might ask about Pearl Harbor? It's what it took to get the public fighting mad. We preserved our carriers in the Pacific, did not invade France until we (and the UK) were ready.

 

[FCB02062]

After Market Garden...."we need to parachute better, spy better, have to attack Siegfried better, defend Nijmegen better....we're onto Arnhem....

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

This is the WWII "play" that might have impressed BB the most.

The Luftwaffe started out doing the right things during the Battle of Britain - bombing air bases, fighter plants, radar stations. Had they continued, the RAF probably would have been destroyed. But Churchill had a plan that was dismissed as "crazy."

What few RAF bombers were available, he launched on a night raid on Berlin. No military damage whatsoever. All that happened is it broke Goering's promise that Berlin would never be bombed or his Fuhrer could make some Jewish slur at him. After getting chewed out a solid hour by Hitler, he was ordered to bomb



LONDON!
LONDON!
LONDON!

This gave the RAF the break they needed to win. The news coverage of the Londoners also started to sway Americans out of neutrality.

Over simplified, WWII was won on British intelligence, American factories, and lots of Russian blood.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

"We're on to Normandy"

War historian and BB fan. For me this is like Rum&Coke or Surf&Turf, the merging of two great things in one spot.

IMHO World at War is the gold standard WWII documentary. It's only real deficiency (other than lacking Russian interviewees due to the politics of the time as well as video quality) is information uncovered since this early 70's creation of the documentary isn't included. For me it would be a home run to have BB narrate an updated type version of it with the new information -- but still interject some of those once in a historical moment original video interviews of major players of WWII (the planner of the Pearl harbor Attack, the man who signed Germany's surrender, Bradley's right hand man, aces from both sides, on and on with people long since gone).

 

[DarrylS]

There are so many WWII Documentaries and so many different aspects of that war, this might prove interesting.

The movie versions are relied on as a reasonable fascimile thereof are sanitized, when we visited the french coast from Arromarches to Sainte Mare D'Eglis it seemed quite different.. in movies Utah and Omaha beaches seem narrow, but they are much wider than portrayed. Pont du Hoc seems reasonable in movies, but up close it is much more daunting..

Looking forward to it..

 

[irishfanatic]

I can also see him saying we won in all three aspects of the war on the ground in the air and on the water. It was a good all around team effort.

I have a slight suspicion that the Water crew might be a little close to his heart.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I thought Rommel told Hitler that and Hitler told Rommel to piss off.

I'm not a historian but I do believe Rommel asked for more fortifications around Normandy in the early spring of 1944 and Hitler said no b/c he felt the AW would be a satisfactory defense for a water invasion. Plus he needed the troops and tanks on the Eastern front.

Ultimately I don't think it would have mattered but I do believe had Rommel gotten what he wanted the war would have extended a few more months.

 

[captain stone]

We're on to the Ardennes

The Ardennes? We're on to Berlin, baby!

 

[captain stone]

This is the WWII "play" that might have impressed BB the most.

The Luftwaffe started out doing the right things during the Battle of Britain - bombing air bases, fighter plants, radar stations. Had they continued, the RAF probably would have been destroyed. But Churchill had a plan that was dismissed as "crazy."

What few RAF bombers were available, he launched on a night raid on Berlin. No military damage whatsoever. All that happened is it broke Goering's promise that Berlin would never be bombed or his Fuhrer could make some Jewish slur at him. After getting chewed out a solid hour by Hitler, he was ordered to bomb



LONDON!
LONDON!
LONDON!

This gave the RAF the break they needed to win. The news coverage of the Londoners also started to sway Americans out of neutrality.

Over simplified, WWII was won on British intelligence, American factories, and lots of Russian blood.

I was under the impression that bombing Berlin was in retaliation for the first bombing of London, which apparently happened because a German aircraft became lost during an attack on a British airfield and mistook London for that airfield.

 

[InRodWeRust]

"Well you know the Axis does everything well. Their offensive firepower, their defensive AA guns, their special forces. The Allies really have their work cut out for them. They have to have a good practice this week in order to effectively compete."

 

[Froob]

Dan Shaughnessy: Why the Alliances' victory over Tomato Can Germany doesn't mean much

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I'm not a historian but I do believe Rommel asked for more fortifications around Normandy in the early spring of 1944 and Hitler said no b/c he felt the AW would be a satisfactory defense for a water invasion. Plus he needed the troops and tanks on the Eastern front.

Plus the Germans fell for some false intelligence that hinted at a Channel crossing at Calais rather than further down the French coast at Normandy. The allies staged a mock invasion force on the British coast opposite Calais, generated tons of fake radio chatter, and even launched some ships toward Calais burning huge vats of oil out in the open to look from the air like an enormous fleet was on the way toward Calais. Lots of subterfuge going on.

 

[FCB02062]

"Maybe Goering can hold a bake sale... Get some more ME 109s"

 

[BobDigital]

So why did they decide to attack the way they did? "It was a commander decision"
Tell us about your thoughts on the German defeat "we're on to Japan."
What are your thoughts on the heroic D-Day victory "We did some good things and some things we got to clean up"

Should be thrilling.

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

I was under the impression that bombing Berlin was in retaliation for the first bombing of London, which apparently happened because a German aircraft became lost during an attack on a British airfield and mistook London for that airfield.

Yes, a bomber accidentally bombed London early in the BoB.

 

[Koma]

"We're on to Normandy"

War historian and BB fan. For me this is like Rum&Coke or Surf&Turf, the merging of two great things in one spot.

IMHO World at War is the gold standard WWII documentary. It's only real deficiency (other than lacking Russian interviewees due to the politics of the time as well as video quality) is information uncovered since this early 70's creation of the documentary isn't included. For me it would be a home run to have BB narrate an updated type version of it with the new information -- but still interject some of those once in a historical moment original video interviews of major players of WWII (the planner of the Pearl harbor Attack, the man who signed Germany's surrender, Bradley's right hand man, aces from both sides, on and on with people long since gone).

Slightly off-topic, but I have been meaning to pick up The World at War. Is there a version or format that you can recommend? I've seen some comments online where the picture conversion on one of the blu-ray versions is terrible and the original DVD version is better. Have you heard anything like that or is there a particular edition that it better than the others?

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Haven't looked forward to watching a military historical documentary or docu-drama since HBO aired The Pacific. I've got high expectations for this because it is BB. I'm actually hoping it's good enough and BB enjoys it enough that they do more than just the Normandy invasion. While it isn't an American/Allied affair, any discussion that speaks to the whole subject of WWII has to include the battle of Stalingrad.

Off season OT in keeping with BB's upcoming documentary: Some good books out there that hit on the incredible success of D-Day but the much less mentioned failures/struggles of the 30 day period after D-Day. One interesting question that springs from these POVs about the post D-Day difficulties: would it have been better to invade Pas De Calais? Likely a much tougher beachhead to establish with almost certain higher level of casualties in the first few days. But Calais is nearly as likely an initial success as Normandy thanks to the Germans being forced to split their dwindling defensive forces (Germans had to keep the lion's share in the fight against the Russians) and Allied air supremacy making german troop movements from one place to the other difficult (they had to rely more on moving troops at night -- a slower more difficult process).
If all this is so then it is almost certain that once the beachhead was established at Calais, the war would have ended sooner -- good chance it is over before the end of 1944. The easier/favorable terrain would have made the allies' march to Germany move along faster. So ultimately Pas De Calais would have cost more lives up front but probably less lives in the end (and getting into Germany much quicker than Russia may have changed decades of politics).

But the decision was to invade Normandy despite its difficult terrain inland of the beaches. And about 60 days after D-Day the war was in effect won. The outnumbered, out supplied, now almost completely disorganized german forces in the Normandy area were beaten and temporarily not capable of stopping the power of the Allies. Continuing the major push by the Allies almost certainly would have led to a general German collapse within a month or two. Yet supply lines, lack of will or daring, maybe SHAEF unaware of how desperate the status of the German defenses, possibly a combo of all three, the Allies stopped to reorganize and resupply. Unfortunately the Germans also regrouped and resupplied sufficiently to form a defensive line that was now capable of repelling the Allied force.

For anyone that is interested in this historical era, the subject of the Allied advance in Europe mid 1944 has a lot of excellent subjects that aren't often touched on.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Slightly off-topic, but I have been meaning to pick up The World at War. Is there a version or format that you can recommend? I've seen some comments online where the picture conversion on one of the blu-ray versions is terrible and the original DVD version is better. Have you heard anything like that or is there a particular edition that it better than the others?

Sorry Koma, I haven't seen the Blu Ray version (didn't even know there was a blu ray version). The DVD version is as good as I've seen but it isn't what I would call great. The original recording quality was too poor for a re-mastering to make a very stark difference. But it did make a difference -- the audio for sure is clearer compared to when I was watching it as a kid on PBS with a 100 pound 13" tube TV, the channel knob with 0-13 on it, and rabbit ears

 

[NormZauchin]

I wonder if Belichick will cover the part where the Americans were fined and ordered to forfeit one armored division for illegal placement of spy cameras on some of our airplanes.

 

[captain stone]

...Yet supply lines, lack of will or daring, maybe SHAEF unaware of how desperate the status of the German defenses, possibly a combo of all three, the Allies stopped to reorganize and resupply. Unfortunately the Germans also regrouped and resupplied sufficiently to form a defensive line that was now capable of repelling the Allied force...

The Germans made the same mistake at Dunkirk.