One for ham
#2
Paul Fussell in his famous book about WWI talks about 'high diction' and camouflage names...for example it was forbidden to explicitly mention the gas engine officially...the UK preferred names such as 'the engine'...

Quote:In the "Hundred Days" that sealed the victory 4 Canadian divisions destroyed 47 German divisions and advanced 87 miles with use of massive amounts of gas. Holy crap.

There is probably a typo in there.
47 divisions?
Impossible.
The Hindenburg myth about the 'back stabbing' essentially stemmed from the true fact that the German army was more or less intact...and the German soil still out of the enemy's reach...
No doubt gas was utilized profusely, but over time it tended to loose its edge...everybody was using it profusely, but none was winning...actually in 1918 Germany (according to some) was doing well enough thank to supplies coming from the territories Russia had officially surrendered after Brest-Litovsk...
A.A Mole University
B.A London Institute of Applied Research
B.Sc Millard Fillmore
M.A International Institute for Advanced Studies
Ph.D London Institute of Applied Research
Ph.D Millard Fillmore
Reply


Messages In This Thread
One for ham - by Dennis Ruhl - 07-02-2009, 12:56 AM
RE: One for ham - by ham - 07-02-2009, 01:41 AM
RE: One for ham - by Dennis Ruhl - 07-02-2009, 02:26 AM
RE: One for ham - by ham - 07-02-2009, 04:38 AM
RE: One for ham - by Dennis Ruhl - 07-02-2009, 05:27 AM
RE: One for ham - by Albert Hidel - 07-02-2009, 10:23 AM
RE: One for ham - by ham - 07-02-2009, 02:41 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)