Posted on 06/13/2012 4:05:48 PM PDT by Third Person
Politicians are calling for a boycott of HBO's fantasy series Game of Thrones because of the creator's 'despicable' decision to include former President George W. Bush's severed head in several scenes. In the tenth episode of the first season, Mr Bush's decapitated head is barely recognizable impaled on a wooden spike, covered in filthy long hair and slathered in dirt. But show creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, who noted the appearance in the series' DVD commentary, insist it wasn't a political statement - just a prop. The finale of the first season of Game of Thrones, Fire and Blood, one of the series' beloved characters Ned Stark is beheaded by new king Jeoffrey for treason. In one brutal scene, King Jeoffrey brings his bride-to-be to gaze upon the severed head of her father.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I see no reason to believe their “it was a prop lying around” story. In what previous HBO production was such a prop created and used for?
More likely, they either created it especially for this “easter egg”, or if it was lying around, it was probably as a macabre decoration in the collection of some lefty associated with the show.
U r correct...the Germans let them escape with minor strafing hoping for sued peace
Plenty of Wermacht documentation on this....Germans being so anal on detail and records
Where is the old poster Goetz von Berlichingen when u need him?
Firstly, YOU are wrong to completely disregard the British (and French) counterattacks and rearguard actions as not influencing the German halt at Dunkirk.
For a start, the order to halt was given by Von Rundstedt, not Hitler. HE ordered the halt on the 24th at the Aa River. Which allowed the British and French/Belgians to greatly strengthen the defences around Dunkirk.
When the British counterattacked at Arras on the 21st, the attack was so strong and vicious that Rommel radioed Army Command that he was being ‘attacked by FIVE British divisions’. In fact he was being attacked by elements of TWO divisions, ONE tank brigade and 60 supporting French tanks. The Germans lost over 700 men dead and wounded.
THE BATTLE AT ARRAS ALONE DIRECTLY AFFECTED THE GERMAN DECISION TO HALT THE PANZERS.
BUT as I mentioned, there were also brave and brutal rearguard actions by British troops at Boulogne and Calais, in both cases the British held on for so long under superior numbers and firepower that at both locations, German units had to use direct artillery firing over sights, flamethrowers and grenades at point blank range in order to drive the British from their bunkers.
AND the successful evacuation of the BEF would probably not have been possible without the stiff FRENCH resistance around Lille, which blocked SEVEN German divisions. From 28th May to 1st June, about 40,000 French troops led by general Molinié held off about 800 German tanks and 110,000 soldiers from THREE panzer and FOUR infantry divisions.
AND the French also counterattacked the Aa Canal itself. Not once, but TWICE. 25th and 26th May, forcing a German retreat. The Germans didnt take the Aa Canal until the 28th. By which time the Dunkirk evacuation had already started.
EVEN AFTER Dunkirk, the legendary 51st Highland Division fought one of the most famous and brave British battles of ww2 at St Valery, against Rommel and his 7th Pz Div. Who were recovering from the mauling at Arras.
The battle became so fierce that the 51st famously, having run out of ammunition, attacked the 7th Pz with hand to hand fighting and even their razors (at the time in Scotland, cities like Glasgow were famous for their deadly ‘razor gangs’, who would use them in the way Chicago gangs used Thompson sub-machine guns). Rommel was so impressed by the bravery of the Scots that he personally congratulated the 51st’s commander.
To suggest that the Arras attack (21st) and the halt order (24th) are purely coincidental is nonsense.
And to suggest, given the evidence above, AND that the Allied troops at Dunkirk had STRENGTHENED their defences, and had pulled in more men within the perimeter from 21st-24th and then the ‘halt days’, that the Germans could have easily crushed the BEF at Dunkirk is nonsense.
The Germans got a severe bloody nose at Arras. And had to fight brutal point blank battles at Lille, Calais, the Aa Canal, and Boulogne, all in order to overrun British and French forces MUCH SMALLER than the men and material available at Dunkirk. Even Lille had just 40000 to the over quarter of a million men within the Dunkirk perimeter. The British troops at Boulogne and Calais were even smaller again (a few thousand men in total).
And what was in Dunkirk?. Over 400000 men in total had been in the perimeter, 338000 of whom got away. And the British left behind 2472 guns, 63,879 vehicles, 20548 motorcycles and 500,000 tons of stores and ammunition....and the Germans would have taken the town easily, you say?.
Yes, everyone knows that Hitler admired Britain and wanted us to leave Europe to him. But to diregard the British and French counterattacks from 21-30th May 1940 as not influencing the decision to halt the Panzers is a nonsense.
It is clear by German records and by studying the German decisions made at the time, that the British-French counterattack at Arras and the fierce, brutal rearguard actions at Lille, Bolougne and Calais, all of which inflicted heavy or heavier German casualties than expected, directly influenced Von Rundstedt’s 24 May order AND the unwillingness to attack Dunkirk head on. Even after the order was given to start moving again.
After all, the Germans only took Dunkirk after almost all the men were evacuated and only a handful of men were left. And even they fought a rear action to delay. Right until the 2nd June.
Secondly, the first British bombings of German happened whilst the German attack on France, Belgium and Holland had barely started. 15th May 1940. A month before the French surrender and long before the start of the BoB.
If you consider having Bush’s head on stake to be trivial, then your position is clear. By all means, please renew your subscription so more shows like this and Maher can continue to espouse such trivial items.
“to diregard the British and French counterattacks from 21-30th May 1940 as not influencing the decision to halt the Panzers is a nonsense”
Okay, now we’re nitpicking degrees of influence. Obviously I can’t say what happened tactically had zero impact on what followed. But I can say with absolute assurance that it was deliberate grand strategy on the part of the higher-ups to let the British escape in the interests of a seperate peace. Certainly had they so decided they could have done a lot, lot more than they did to prevent the escape.
I can also say that had the German intent been to invade Britain rather than sitting pretty as king of continental Europe they would have suffered necessary casualties. Just as they did invading Russia and defending North Africa, Italy, France, and so on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.