# The sound(s) of freedom/What year is this anyway?



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Working out in the yard about 30 minutes ago and heard the currently rarely heard but certainly distinctive sound of multiple heavy piston A/C engines. Looked up just in time to see a magnificent B-17 Bomber, flying directly overhead! Truly a memorable sight, certainly made my day. Got to check with the local airfields and see if there is some sort of airshow going on. :thumbs-up:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> Working out in the yard about 30 minutes ago and heard the currently rarely heard but certainly distinctive sound of multiple heavy piston A/C engines. Looked up just in time to see a magnificent B-17 Bomber, flying directly overhead! Truly a memorable sight, certainly made my day. Got to check with the local airfields and see if there is some sort of airshow going on. :thumbs-up:


The Chicago Air and Water Show will be held on the weekend of the 15th. Perhaps some of the aircraft are being flown in?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^That is in all probability what's going on. Thanks for the heads up...the Chicago Air and Water Show always promises a great weekend, lots of fun!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^That is in all probability what's going on. Thanks for the heads up...the Chicago Air and Water Show always promises a great weekend, lots of fun!


That would probably be quite an event. I hope you can find a way to go!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Hate to be a stick-in-the-mud, but I've always disdained the "sound of freedom" phrase attached to instruments of war. Yes, I realize that freedom is not free. And I appreciate the brave acts of service men and women who have sacrificed much in wars overseas. However, the B-17 was the tool used in firebombings of Germany that killed tens upon tens of thousands of civilians. Pure slaughter, ostensibly aimed at crushing the enemy's will to fight (as if the population had any means to vote Hitler out of office), absent any military or strategic target.

Again, no reflection on service people. But whenever I hear artillery or military planes, it renders me a bit melancholy to think that we need such things to kill people, whether the conflict be justified or not.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)




----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


>


Yeah, just the kind of guy you hope your kids become.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

What a kill joy man!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

You said "kill."



SG_67 said:


> What a kill joy man!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> You said "kill."


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Hate to be a stick-in-the-mud, but I've always disdained the "sound of freedom" phrase attached to instruments of war. Yes, I realize that freedom is not free. And I appreciate the brave acts of service men and women who have sacrificed much in wars overseas. However, the B-17 was the tool used in firebombings of Germany that killed tens upon tens of thousands of civilians. Pure slaughter, ostensibly aimed at crushing the enemy's will to fight (as if the population had any means to vote Hitler out of office), absent any military or strategic target.
> 
> Again, no reflection on service people. But whenever I hear artillery or military planes, it renders me a bit melancholy to think that we need such things to kill people, whether the conflict be justified or not.


Indeed. I live about 20 miles from Duxford and about 10 miles from RAF Mildenhall and I hear the "sound of freedom" on a daily basis. I do enjoy hearing the sound of a Rolls Royce Merlin, which I usually hear many times a year, especially over the summer, and the B17 that is based at Duxford, but I do find the "sound of freedom" expression particularly annoying.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> ...However, the B-17 was the tool used in firebombings of Germany that killed tens upon tens of thousands of civilians. Pure slaughter, ostensibly aimed at crushing the enemy's will to fight (as if the population had any means to vote Hitler out of office), absent any military or strategic target.
> ...


Well they voted him into office in the first place.

It was a brutal war on all fronts, and the Germans were quite happy raining death on civilians in Coventry, London, Liverpool, Portsmouth, Glasgow, Belfast and many other British cities, not to mention Rotterdam, Warsaw and elsewhere.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Hate to be a stick-in-the-mud, but I've always disdained the "sound of freedom" phrase attached to instruments of war. Yes, I realize that freedom is not free. And I appreciate the brave acts of service men and women who have sacrificed much in wars overseas. However, the B-17 was the tool used in firebombings of Germany that killed tens upon tens of thousands of civilians. Pure slaughter, ostensibly aimed at crushing the enemy's will to fight (as if the population had any means to vote Hitler out of office), absent any military or strategic target.
> 
> Again, no reflection on service people. But whenever I hear artillery or military planes, it renders me a bit melancholy to think that we need such things to kill people, whether the conflict be justified or not.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Yes. Of course. Because the Nazis did it, that makes it OK that we did it. Yes. Of course.



Langham said:


> Well they voted him into office in the first place.
> 
> It was a brutal war on all fronts, and the Germans were quite happy raining death on civilians in Coventry, London, Liverpool, Portsmouth, Glasgow, Belfast and many other British cities, not to mention Rotterdam, Warsaw and elsewhere.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I also once lived near an air base that was adjacent to to an army post and it got more than annoying, especially night time artillery (I'm guessing they were practicing war, but can't say for sure). There weren't many fighter jets and I didn't live directly under the flight pattern, so the aircraft noise kind of faded to the point where one got used to it. Heard the "sound of freedom" line something like a jillion times. Didn't make me any happier when the guns woke me up at 3 a.m.

But I do agree, actually, with Eagle in that it is something to see a B-17 in flight. It's happened a couple times here. It's amazing on a certain level to see one lumbering across the sky and realize what the men who flew in them did and how scary it must have been. They don't move very fast, and they are considerably larger than ducks.



Chouan said:


> Indeed. I live about 20 miles from Duxford and about 10 miles from RAF Mildenhall and I hear the "sound of freedom" on a daily basis. I do enjoy hearing the sound of a Rolls Royce Merlin, which I usually hear many times a year, especially over the summer, and the B17 that is based at Duxford, but I do find the "sound of freedom" expression particularly annoying.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> I also once lived near an air base that was adjacent to to an army post and it got more than annoying, especially night time artillery (I'm guessing they were practicing war, but can't say for sure). There weren't many fighter jets and I didn't live directly under the flight pattern, so the aircraft noise kind of faded to the point where one got used to it. Heard the "sound of freedom" line something like a jillion times. Didn't make me any happier when the guns woke me up at 3 a.m.
> 
> But I do agree, actually, with Eagle in that it is something to see a B-17 in flight. It's happened a couple times here. It's amazing on a certain level to see one lumbering across the sky and realize what the men who flew in them did and how scary it must have been. They don't move very fast, and they are considerably larger than ducks.


Indeed. And, as I've mentioned before, my late father was in RAF Bomber Command, so was responsible, in a small way, for the devastation that you mentioned.....


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Good Lord!

A man notices a vintage aircraft and becomes nostalgic and filled with a certain level of patriotism. That a country with a 3rd rate Military in 1938 was by the end of 1945 the most powerful military and economy in the world would inspire a certain level of pride in one's country.

Yet all of a sudden we get the phony lamentations about the destruction of war, as though war is something new and an aberration of the normal course of events.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^+1. Completely agree with your conclusions. I certainly never intended to incite the angst reported by two of our members, but rather to report a rather unusual sighting in the skies over Hoosierville. These glorious Birds of War, still flying today, are true engineering marvels, restored to almost pristine condition and reflecting the ongoing love and skill of the dedicated old soldiers who have taken it upon themselves to restore them and keep them flying...pretty impressive accomplishment for a 70+ year old bird!

In the past I have been privileged on two occasions to be invited to fly on a B-17 that was part of air shows hosted by the local Porter County Airport...memories I will carry with me for the rest of my days, for sure!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

There are few more impressive sights and sounds than one of these babies:






The last of the Dambusters pilots died yesterday (Les Munro aged 96). God rest his soul.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I recall watching an episode of Nova on PBS about the dambusters and how they would train for their missions.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^+1. Completely agree with your conclusions. I certainly never intended to incite the angst reported by two of our members, but rather to report a rather unusual sighting in the skies over Hoosierville. These glorious Birds of War, still flying today, are true engineering marvels, restored to almost pristine condition and reflecting the ongoing love and skill of the dedicated old soldiers who have taken it upon themselves to restore them and keep them flying...pretty impressive accomplishment for a 70+ year old bird!
> 
> In the past I have been privileged on two occasions to be invited to fly on a B-17 that was part of air shows hosted by the local Porter County Airport...memories I will carry with me for the rest of my days, for sure!


I always feel the conflict between, as described, a certain nostalgia, through my father, and the depression caused by what has been done.
This is what he flew in....


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

More here


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

"Phony lamentations?"

That's over the top, in my opinion. I've maintained civility here. If you don't agree with what someone says, there is a way to do that without questioning integrity.



SG_67 said:


> Good Lord!
> 
> A man notices a vintage aircraft and becomes nostalgic and filled with a certain level of patriotism. That a country with a 3rd rate Military in 1938 was by the end of 1945 the most powerful military and economy in the world would inspire a certain level of pride in one's country.
> 
> Yet all of a sudden we get the phony lamentations about the destruction of war, as though war is something new and an aberration of the normal course of events.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> "Phony lamentations?"
> 
> That's over the top, in my opinion. I've maintained civility here. If you don't agree with what someone says, there is a way to do that without questioning integrity.


Do you really feel weighed down by a melancholy that we're still killing each other?

You took a nice observation made by someone and a momentary joy that the sighting of that airplane brought and turned it into a personal soliloquy and made it about yourself.

My link to Olivier's interpretation of Hamlet just meant tongue in cheek, but there's also some truth in there. Your remarks were a bit on the dramatic side.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

It's the "Sound of Freedom" trope that I find so annoying, to a French, Dutch, Belgian, Norwegian, Danish, or German, civilian, it was the sound of death and destruction.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I'll let the French, Dutch, Belgians, Norwegians, Danes and Germans interpret it anyway they want. 

As for myself, I love it and it reminds me of the greatness of my country. It's the death and destruction trope that I find annoying. 

By the way, I'm sure many French and Belgians were glad to see American troops and planes coming over the horizon to help liberate them.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Yes, I do feel weighed down by what I see as too much senseless slaughter. That's not a "phony lamentation." It's the way that I feel. Only I know how I feel. You cannot know how I feel. If you wish to label me a liar or a phony with no evidence, go ahead.

I think that it is fine to see these planes flying. I said so--you can look it up in my remarks. Chouan captured, exactly, what I was thinking. It's the label, not the aircraft, that sticks in my craw. During the Vietnam War, we lived near the end of a military airstrip, and C-141 Starlifters (a much less sexy craft than the B-17, in my view) were a constant. Seemed like at least 100 take-offs every day, each one headed for Southeast Asia. That's when I first became aware of the phrase "Sound of Freedom." That war wasn't about freedom at all. It was a massive mistake that resulted in the deaths of nearly 60,000 Americans and countless Vietnamese.

A Starlifter or a B-17 or a 1942 Willy or a Spitfire or a Zero or an 88 millimeter or a Luger or what-have-you is a tool of war. It is not, to me, the sound of freedom. Tools of war can be used for good or for ill. They are not necessarily used to promote freedom. I am of the opinion that World War II was a righteous war, but that is not a universal sentiment. The Best Years of Our Lives has been on TV lately, and it is very much worth watching. Made in 1946, it captured very well, for the time, how tough it was, still is, for veterans to return home. There is a scene in it where a man in a drugstore proclaims that the war was a waste and those who fought in it were suckers. Doesn't mean that he was right--he wasn't--but it demonstrates that even when the cause is good, the spectre of killing on a mass scale is so serious that there has always been a sentiment in America that questions war.

Muskets and cannon might have been called the "sound of freedom" in the Mexican War of 1846, but it doesn't change the fact that it was a war of expansionism. There is also the Spanish-American War, an inexcusable bloodfest if there ever was one. More recently, we have the Iraq War, also a total waste. None could have been accomplished absent tools of war. But that doesn't mean these tools blasted sounds of freedom. There were, are, only tools.

Again, I understand the significance of a B-17 flight as much as anyone. I look upward in awe as much as anyone. I just don't dig the phrase "sound of freedom." To me, it is a catch-all I've heard too often when the cause was not just.

And if you think I'm being overly dramatic or self-centered, go ask the parents or the widow of someone who died in a stupid war what they think when someone says "sound of freedom." I suspect they'll be more convincing than I have been.



SG_67 said:


> Do you really feel weighed down by a melancholy that we're still killing each other?
> 
> You took a nice observation made by someone and a momentary joy that the sighting of that airplane brought and turned it into a personal soliloquy and made it about yourself.
> 
> My link to Olivier's interpretation of Hamlet just meant tongue in cheek, but there's also some truth in there. Your remarks were a bit on the dramatic side.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> Yes. Of course. Because the Nazis did it, that makes it OK that we did it. Yes. Of course.


No, it doesn't make it 'OK', but at the time, bombing Germany was the only alternative to surrendering to nazi domination. Perhaps not for the USA, but for the UK the war came close to being a struggle for existence. If you were accosted late at night in a dark street by a menacing and well-armed madman who was intent on murder, would you insist on observing the Queensberry Rules?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I'll let the French, Dutch, Belgians, Norwegians, Danes and Germans interpret it anyway they want.


 Quite. It was, after all, those civilians that we were bombing. They were only collateral damage, I suppose, so don't really matter. What they thought when they saw the vapour trails coming their way I can only imagine.



SG_67 said:


> As for myself, I love it and it reminds me of the greatness of my country. It's the death and destruction trope that I find annoying.


Indeed. I suppose that with the US never having been subject to a bombing campaign it is quite easy to bask in the glory of dealing out destruction without having to have been on the receiving end of it. The civilians who were being killed were only foreigners anyway.



SG_67 said:


> By the way, I'm sure many French and Belgians were glad to see American troops and planes coming over the horizon to help liberate them.


Like the inhabitants of Caen? Or elsewhere in Normandy? I'm sure that they loved seeing the approaching bombers! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_France_during_World_War_II Or Belgium? https://ww2today.com/5th-april-1943-belgium-tragedy-in-usaaf-daylight-bombing-raid Or the Netherlands? https://www.stevenroyedwards.com/bombingofnijmegen.html Do you get the picture? What is it about the "death and destruction trope" that you don't get? Glorying in the destruction of others, indeed, loving it, isn't very becoming.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> No, it doesn't make it 'OK', but at the time, bombing Germany was the only alternative to surrendering to nazi domination. Perhaps not for the USA, but for the UK the war came close to being a struggle for existence. If you were accosted late at night in a dark street by a menacing and well-armed madman who was intent on murder, would you insist on observing the Queensberry Rules?


It was indeed, but does it justify glorying in the death and destruction that we caused? (Not that I'm suggesting that *you* are).


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I suppose an invitation to certain members to the air and water show is unwarranted. 

Man! I didn't realize an allusion to a moment of joy felt by seeing an old plane could bring out such passions. I guess some people just love to feel outraged and melodramatic. 

The next time I wear a blazer I'll make sure to keep in mind it's military origins and I'll be sure to post here on the revulsion I feel as to it's symbolizing death and destruction.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I suppose an invitation to certain members to the air and water show is unwarranted.
> 
> Man! I didn't realize an allusion to a moment of joy felt by seeing an old plane could bring out such passions. I guess some people just love to feel outraged and melodramatic.
> 
> The next time I wear a blazer I'll make sure to keep in mind it's military origins and I'll be sure to post here on the revulsion I feel as to it's symbolizing death and destruction.


There is, as I've been trying to explain, a big difference between the nostalgic appreciation of an old aeroplane, and the gloriification of the death and destruction that such an aeroplane caused. The "Sound of Freedom" is an expression that reflects that glorification of destruction. As you put it *"**As for myself, I love it and it reminds me of the greatness of my country.*" That isn't a nostalgic glow from seeing an old aeroplane, that is glorying in power and military might.
If I see a Lancaster, as I occasionally do, it makes me think of what people like my father had to do to win a war that had to be won. It doesn't make me think of the greatness of my country, either then or now, but of a terrible war that cost the lives of millions, and in which we had to do terrible things. Nothing to glory in.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I remember watching this 



 with my father. He was fighting back tears at the sequence at about 25 minutes in and had to leave the room.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

And this 



 On the arrival of the Americans he said, "*That's a Fortress shot down, none got out*." Again, fighting back the tears. No glory.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> There is, as I've been trying to explain, a big difference between the nostalgic appreciation of an old aeroplane, and the gloriification of the death and destruction that such an aeroplane caused. The "Sound of Freedom" is an expression that reflects that glorification of destruction. As you put it *"**As for myself, I love it and it reminds me of the greatness of my country.*" That isn't a nostalgic glow from seeing an old aeroplane, that is glorying in power and military might.
> If I see a Lancaster, as I occasionally do, it makes me think of what people like my father had to do to win a war that had to be won. It doesn't make me think of the greatness of my country, either then or now, but of a terrible war that cost the lives of millions, and in which we had to do terrible things. Nothing to glory in.


I'll tell you what, you interpret such things in your own way and in light of your own experiences and in turn let us do so in our own way and in accordance to our experiences.

But please don't force your world view down our throats and expect me to buy into your interpretation of history.

I can't speak for Eagle, but I know when I see an old bomber or fighter plane, the last thought to enter into my mind is the thrill of knowing that millions were killed during war time. I'm reminded of the sacrifices my countrymen from generations past made so that I could enjoy the standard of living I enjoy now.

So feel free to lament and wring your hands and otherwise be as brooding as you like, but keep it to yourself.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Incidentally, it's a from a film that is well worth watching.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I'll tell you what, you interpret such things in your own way and in light of your own experiences and in turn let us do so in our own way and in accordance to our experiences.
> 
> But please don't force your world view down our throats and expect me to buy into your interpretation of history.


What "world view" is that? What interpretation of history is that? Are you suggesting that tens of thousands of allied civilians _*weren't*_ killed by allied bombing raids? Or are you suggesting that they should have been grateful that we destroyed their towns and killed them in such numbers? That their sacrifice was worth it? Or that we should forget about them?



SG_67 said:


> I can't speak for Eagle, but I know when I see an old bomber or fighter plane, the last thought to enter into my mind is the thrill of knowing that millions were killed during war time. I'm reminded of the sacrifices my countrymen from generations past made so that I could enjoy the standard of living I enjoy now.
> 
> So feel free to lament and wring your hands and otherwise be as brooding as you like, *but keep it to yourself.*


Why? You're imposing your vision of the "Sound of Freedom" on us. You've explained how you love the feeling of the power of your country that such a sight gives you. In your own words "*As for myself, I love it and it reminds me of the greatness of my country.*". It's hardly reasonable for you to be allowed to glory in your country's airpower, and tell us about it, whilst complaining that I'm seeking to express an opinion that differs from yours.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

This is exactly why I dislike the interchange. I go back and re-read some of the discussions and think to myself why did I continue trying to persuade someone to use common sense or logical thinking, when they obviously want to continue acting like a child. There is absolutely no reason for this thread to have gone where it has gone.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dmontez said:


> This is exactly why I dislike the interchange. I go back and re-read some of the discussions and think to myself why did I continue trying to persuade someone to use common sense or logical thinking, when they obviously want to continue acting like a child. There is absolutely no reason for this thread to have gone where it has gone.


I think that's a bit harsh on SG-67. Don't you?


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Chouan said:


> I think that's a bit harsh on SG-67. Don't you?


Only proving my point further, thank you.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> I think that's a bit harsh on SG-67. Don't you?


That's SG"_"67!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

And "sound of freedom" isn't reflective of a world view that some attempt to jam down throats?

I hope that no one endorses carpet bombing and firebombing of civilians absent any military or strategic target. The U.S. and our allies did that in World War II. We did it in Vietnam. We don't do it anymore because it is, frankly, abhorrent. A drone that goes astray these days and kills a few civilians is enough to cause moral outrage and deep reflection.

SG, I really think that you would do well to go back and read what's been written here. No one--no one--is bashing B-17's per se. The posts speak for themselves. Again, as Chouan has most eloquently put it, it is the label, not the machinery, that's the issue. If anyone has blown this out of proportion, I honestly think that it is not Chouan or myself or others who cringe at the buzz phrase "sound of freedom," it is the defenders of such phrases. I totally get where Eagle is coming from. Really, I do. It would be nice if you would appreciate that there are other perspectives that are valid perspectives.



SG_67 said:


> I'll tell you what, you interpret such things in your own way and in light of your own experiences and in turn let us do so in our own way and in accordance to our experiences.
> 
> *But please don't force your world view down our throats and expect me to buy into your interpretation of history*.
> 
> ...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The guy was moved by something he saw and wanted to share it. He didn't go on and on about how "'Merica kicks Ass!" Or anything else. He simply shared his reaction and his experience. 

None of that was indicated and he didn't try to cram anything down anyone's throat. 

You've posted on here numerous times about outrages you've experienced and other observations in media and politics and gone on and editorialized. 

Chouan has posted numerous times on specific occasions on the anniversary of some battle or event that his ancestors participated in as a way to honor and remember them. I don't recall anyone accusing him of glorifying death and mayhem.

So please, knock it off and stop acting like over indulged grad students chomping at the bit to be outraged about something.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> That's SG"_"67!


I didnt realize you got your member name from a pair of sunglasses. (Viglink links to the following for your name)


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Dmontez said:


> I didnt realize you got your member name from a pair of sunglasses. (Viglink links to the following for your name)


Holy Cow! I should have trademarked it.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

It was and is my understanding that this thread was supposed to be dedicated to civil discussion of current events and myriad other topics not related to clothing. Every regular poster on this thread, including yourself, has stated opinions and editorialized. The phrase in question is jolting to me and often causes me to wince. That's all I said. Nothing less, nothing more. Doesn't mean I hate America or anything of the sort. I don't think I'm the one who's getting all worked up here.



SG_67 said:


> The guy was moved by something he saw and wanted to share it. He didn't go on and on about how "'Merica kicks Ass!" Or anything else. He simply shared his reaction and his experience.
> 
> None of that was indicated and he didn't try to cram anything down anyone's throat.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

3/2, but it is you that's getting all worked up over this as evidenced by your post#4 

Up until that point this had the potential of being a nice thread about planes, but you started it off with your whining about how a term that the OP used offends you.

The OP may not have even meant the sound of freedom the way you are interpreting it. For all we know he thinks the sound of freedom is sitting in his garden listening to planes go by.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> That's SG"_"67!


Sorry.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dmontez said:


> 3/2, but it is you that's getting all worked up over this as evidenced by your post#4
> 
> Up until that point this had the potential of being a nice thread about planes, but you started it off with your whining about how a term that the OP used offends you.
> 
> The OP may not have even meant the sound of freedom the way you are interpreting it. For all we know he thinks the sound of freedom is sitting in his garden listening to planes go by.


But he did. If you read the posts again you'll see that SG_67 elaborated on what was meant by the "Sound of Freedom". Whining? Is that how you describe an opinion being expressed that you disagree with?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Incidentally, it's a from a film that is well worth watching.


A superb film.

Yes, I'm bailing out, but there's a catch. I've got no parachute.

H- Hello? Hello, Peter, do not understand.

Hello? Hello, Peter, can you hear me?

Hello, June, don't be afraid. It's quite simple. We've had it and I'd rather jump than fry.

.
.

.
.
.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> A superb film.
> 
> Yes, I'm bailing out, but there's a catch. I've got no parachute.
> 
> ...


Wonderful film. 
"Politics; conservative by nature, but Labour through experience."


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> But he did. If you read the posts again you'll see that SG_67 elaborated on what was meant by the "Sound of Freedom". Whining? Is that how you describe an opinion being expressed that you disagree with?


So your complaint then is with how _I_ view and how _I_ interpret what was meant?

Mind you, my initial response was to the Air & Water Show being held the weekend after next. It's only when certain Gore Vidal wannabes chimed in that I offered any opinion.

I would never deign to assume what something means to someone. Who knows, maybe Eagle's father or grandfather flew during the war.

For myself, my father-in-law flew during WWII and was a communications officer on a B-17. He didn't talk about it much but neither did he try to hide it or eschew any discussion of it. If asked he talked about it, but his thoughts and memories were geared more toward the people he served with and the bonds he developed with his comrades than with particular missions.

He was proud of his service and yes, he did see himself and serving to protect freedom and our way of life. Every year until his death he would meet annually with his squadron mates and celebrate their lives and remember their comrades.

So as I said before, if you choose to lament and wing your hands you go right ahead. But please don't diminish or lecture others according to your observations.

For anyone who is "jarred", "shocked" or otherwise jolted out of their recliner, spitting out their coffee in the process at such statements as the sound of freedom, get over yourself.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32 and Chouhan are absolutely spot on. All you have to do to know that is watch the numerous news reels of the angry mobs of folks in France, Belgium, & Holland that met the American, British, & Canadian invaders with derision.....


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> 32 and Chouhan are absolutely spot on. All you have to do to know that is watch the numerous news reels of the angry mobs of folks in France, Belgium, & Holland that met the American, British, & Canadian invaders with derision.....


How about the popular newsreels of the devastated survivors outside their ruined homes, mourning over their dead family members? Oh, of course, newsreels of that kind of thing wasn't made, or shown if it was. You believe government newsreels, in wartime, to be the absolute objective truth?

This makes interesting reading, and watching.

Europeans may haven pleased to have been liberated, but one can't pretend that terrible things didn't happen to them.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I honestly don't think anyone would argue with you about the horrors of war.

Yet at the same time, there's nothing wrong with someone feeling at least the slightest hint of patriotism at seeing an old bomber fly overhead. 

I find it hard to believe that to feel the latter in anyway denies the former.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> 32 and Chouhan are absolutely spot on. All you have to do to know that is watch the numerous news reels of the angry mobs of folks in France, Belgium, & Holland that met the American, British, & Canadian invaders with derision.....


It is a matter of record - now - that considerable distress and anger was caused, at least in Normandy, by the civilian deaths (c.50,000) by Allied bombing of Caen, Le Havre and other towns during the Normandy invasion. Apparently this resentment still persists.

The bombing of Caen was unfortunate, in fact quite a disaster - had D-Day gone to plan it would not have been necessary, but in that particular sector German resistance was unexpectedly fierce.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> So your complaint then is with how _I_ view and how _I_ interpret what was meant?
> 
> Mind you, my initial response was to the Air & Water Show being held the weekend after next. It's only when certain Gore Vidal wannabes chimed in that I offered any opinion.
> 
> ...


To paraphrase. How dare I, or anybody else find the expression the "Sound of Freedom" odious! How dare I, or anybody else find your expression "*As for myself, I love it and it reminds me of the greatness of my country*. " odious!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> To paraphrase. How dare I, or anybody else find the expression the "Sound of Freedom" odious! How dare I, or anybody else find your expression "*As for myself, I love it and it reminds me of the greatness of my country*. " odious!


I believe your outrage is misplaced and frankly unwarranted. My intent was and is not to have you believe as I do. Simply to allow me to have my opinion and to celebrate the achievements and sacrifices of my fellow countrymen without listening to your dribble.

Of course, you're free to dribble at will but please don't take offense at my disagreeing with you.

You'll note in all of my responses never have I argued with you about the validity of your views; simply asked that you let me have mine without your commentary.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> How about the popular newsreels of the devastated survivors outside their ruined homes, mourning over their dead family members? Oh, of course, newsreels of that kind of thing wasn't made, or shown if it was. You believe government newsreels, in wartime, to be the absolute objective truth?
> 
> This makes interesting reading, and watching.
> 
> Europeans may haven pleased to have been liberated, but one can't pretend that terrible things didn't happen to them.


So newsreels and pictures are accurate only if they agree with your point of view?

This is all bascially akin to screaming about doctors who "mutilate" people by removing tumors or diseased limbs to save a life.

Sometimes desperate situations call for the least bad option.

Of course, none of this would have been required if the Brits and French had stood up to Hitler in the first place......


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Langham said:


> It is a matter of record - now - that considerable distress and anger was caused, at least in Normandy, by the civilian deaths (c.50,000) by Allied bombing of Caen, Le Havre and other towns during the Normandy invasion. Apparently this resentment still persists.
> 
> The bombing of Caen was unfortunate, in fact quite a disaster - had D-Day gone to plan it would not have been necessary, but in that particular sector German resistance was unexpectedly fierce.


My experiences in Normandy, Belgium, and Holland were that people were very thankful for the Allied lives given to have them be given back their freedom.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I believe your outrage is misplaced and frankly unwarranted. My intent was and is not to have you believe as I do. Simply to allow me to have my opinion and to celebrate the achievements and sacrifices of my fellow countrymen without listening to your dribble.
> 
> Of course, you're free to dribble at will but please don't take offense at my disagreeing with you.
> 
> You'll note in all of my responses never have I argued with you about the validity of your views; _*simply asked that you let me have mine without your commentary.*_


Likewise. I am as entitled to express my views as you are to express yours. Please note that I haven't sneered at you or your comments. I seem to have been able to express my views without without the derogatory remarks about whining or hand-wringing or dribbling, which you seem to be unable to stop yourself from using.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> So newsreels and pictures are accurate only if they agree with your point of view?


Straw man. Again. I do urge you to read posts and try to understand them. It does help.



vpkozel said:


> Of course, none of this would have been required if the Brits and French had stood up to Hitler in the first place......


3rd of September 1939.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Today marks the 70th anniversary of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. Was that the sound of freedom?

I've never heard it described as such, yet, by strict definition, I suppose that's what we should call it. But no one does.

Y'all can say anything you want, call me a party pooper, but no one here has invalidated the essential point: A bomber, by virtue of delivering explosives, is an instrument of death. Dam busting is one thing, fire bombing cities is quite another. Again, you can call that grad-student hand-wringing or lamenting or whatever you wish, but it is true. And I prefer truth, however inconvenient, to patriotic sloganeering that papers over stuff we've done that we probably should not have done.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Of course, none of this would have been required if the Brits and French had stood up to Hitler in the first place......


Perhaps if the Czechs had stood up to him in 1938?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

^^

Or if the Brits and French hadn't insisted on crushing peace terms at the end of WWI that proved a perfect petri dish for the rise of the Nazis.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Today marks the 70th anniversary of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. Was that the sound of freedom?
> 
> I've never heard it described as such, yet, by strict definition, I suppose that's what we should call it. But no one does.
> 
> Y'all can say anything you want, call me a party pooper, but no one here has invalidated the essential point: A bomber, by virtue of delivering explosives, is an instrument of death. Dam busting is one thing, fire bombing cities is quite another. Again, you can call that grad-student hand-wringing or lamenting or whatever you wish, but it is true. And I prefer truth, however inconvenient, to patriotic sloganeering that papers over stuff we've done that we probably should not have done.


Ask a Marine stationed on Okinawa with the next mission being the invasion of the Japanese mainland how he felt about the bomb.

Imagine the destruction, on both sides, had the War not ended the way it did.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ The Atom bombing of Japan was the sound of America testing it's new toy on a convenient populace. 

BTW approximately 1,600 civilians were killed by the Dambusters. Apres moi le deluge.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Likewise. I am as entitled to express my views as you are to express yours. Please note that I haven't sneered at you or your comments. I seem to have been able to express my views without without the derogatory remarks about whining or hand-wringing or dribbling, which you seem to be unable to stop yourself from using.


You indicated previously that to remark about "The sound of freedom" when seeing a B-17 was the equivalent of glorifying death and destruction. That's a huge leap and in my opinion dribble.

It's also quite insulting as it assumes that the person making such a statement has absolutely no regard for his fellow human being and no appreciation of the violence of war. It's basically a veiled slight and dismissal of a person's views.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Perhaps if the Czechs had stood up to him in 1938?


They would have been happy to. But you lot sold them down the river.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> ^ The Atom bombing of Japan was the sound of America testing it's new toy on a convenient populace.
> 
> BTW approximately 1,600 civilians were killed by the Dambusters. Apres moi le deluge.


We did what we had to do to end the war as quickly and with as little bloodshed possible. It is also worth noting that we had tried and tried to get the Japanese to surrender, to no avail.

And the dam busters were a triumph on ingenuity. So simply just to put backspin on the barrel, yet so effective.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

It is also worth noting that the Germans had tried and tried to get the English to surrender, to no avail.

If atom bombing Japan was the right decision then why not Vietnam?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> They would have been happy to. But you lot sold them down the river.


Slight hyperbole. Our methods of diplomacy proved sadly ineffective, that's all. Unfortunately the scale of Hitler's megalomania was not fully appreciated in 1938, nor was his capacity for deceit.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> ^^
> 
> Or if the Brits and French hadn't insisted on crushing peace terms at the end of WWI that proved a perfect petri dish for the rise of the Nazis.


The French, actually. If you look at the Treaty negotiations you'll see that it was the French who wanted the crushing reparations etc. Who could blame them? Look at what the Germans had done to their country. Look, also, at the terms imposed by the Germans at Brest-Litovsk. If you think the Allies were harsh at Versailles, it makes an interesting comparison.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> *The French, actually. If you look at the Treaty negotiations you'll see that it was the French who wanted the crushing reparations etc.* Who could blame them? Look at what the Germans had done to their country. Look, also, at the terms imposed by the Germans at Brest-Litovsk. If you think the Allies were harsh at Versailles, it makes an interesting comparison.


You are correct. The Brits and Americans wanted to move on and do business.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> They would have been happy to. But you lot sold them down the river.


But Britain and France didn't run the kind of "Monroe Doctrine" in Europe that you seem to envisage. Why, in 1938, would Britain, or France, imagine that Germany was going to embark on a career of conquest? In any case, surely Czechoslovakia was responsible for its own defence policy? Once Britain and France saw what Germany was up to they took action. Meanwhile, the US had its own version of the Nazi party and Lindberg was leading a massive isolationist policy in the US. Surely, as the home of the free, the US could have helped the Czechs? No? Then why should Britain have?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> It is also worth noting that the Germans had tried and tried to get the English to surrender, to no avail.
> 
> If atom bombing Japan was the right decision then why not Vietnam?


But think of all the death and heartache that could have been avoided if you had just done the honorable thing and surrender...

Scale and effectiveness were the primarily differences between why the a bomb was effective WW 2 and would not have been in Vietnam.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

To a point, perhaps. But the Brits and Americans apparently went along with it. In the end, you can make a good argument that the French reaped what they sowed.

More than a time of peace, 1919-1939 was merely a time-out that allowed more cannon fodder to be born and grow old enough for military service.



Chouan said:


> The French, actually. If you look at the Treaty negotiations you'll see that it was the French who wanted the crushing reparations etc. Who could blame them? Look at what the Germans had done to their country. Look, also, at the terms imposed by the Germans at Brest-Litovsk. If you think the Allies were harsh at Versailles, it makes an interesting comparison.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

vpkozel said:


> But think of all the death and heartache that could have been avoided if you had just done the honorable thing and surrender...
> 
> *Scale and effectiveness were the primarily differences between why the a bomb was effective WW 2 and would not have been in Vietnam*.


Not to mention that strategic thinking had changed and the world was just a different place. When we bombed Japan, we were the only nuclear power. During Viet Nam, the calculus was different.

It's interesting to note that although on a scale different both technically and of consequence, both the Germans and the Russians possessed chemical weapons yet the professional soldiers on both sides did not use those weapons for fear of letting the Genie out of the bottle and reprisals.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I'm not arguing that the bomb wasn't necessary. There are merits to both sides of that argument, and I tend to subscribe to the notion that it was necessary. Still, we don't call it the sound of freedom, even though that's what brought the war to a swift conclusion. The war would have ended a lot sooner in both theaters, with a lot fewer lives lost, if we'd had the bomb in 1942 instead of three years later. No Normandy invasion, no Iwo Jima, no long slog to Berlin. When you think about it, the atom bomb was, arguably, the biggest freedom producer the world has ever known. Indeed, it was a veritable life saver, considering that a lot more civilians died in fire bombings accomplished with B-17s and similar aircraft than died than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



SG_67 said:


> Ask a Marine stationed on Okinawa with the next mission being the invasion of the Japanese mainland how he felt about the bomb.
> 
> Imagine the destruction, on both sides, had the War not ended the way it did.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> I'm not arguing that the bomb wasn't necessary. There are merits to both sides of that argument, and I tend to subscribe to the notion that it was necessary. Still, we don't call it the sound of freedom, even though that's what brought the war to a swift conclusion. The war would have ended a lot sooner in both theaters, with a lot fewer lives lost, if we'd had the bomb in 1942 instead of three years later. No Normandy invasion, no Iwo Jima, no long slog to Berlin. When you think about it, the atom bomb was, arguably, the biggest freedom producer the world has ever known. Indeed, it was a veritable life saver, considering that a lot more civilians died in fire bombings accomplished with B-17s and similar aircraft than died than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


And so what does this, as well as other ~75 posts after the first few, have to do with someone gazing up at the sky and seeing a B-17 and feeling a measure of patriotism?

Hey everyone, the Chicago Air & Water show will be held next weekend. I invite everyone to come and check it out.

As for myself, I look forward to next Wednesday and Thursday when the Blue Angels start their practice runs and the sounds of the jet engines go echoing through the buildings.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

You've been an active participant in this thread. You cannot address the issue of the bomb and why we don't refer to it as "the sound of freedom" because doing so would require a bit of thought and, ultimately, an admission that the "sound of freedom" is a flawed slogan.

Enjoy the air show.



SG_67 said:


> And so what does this, as well as other ~75 posts after the first few, have to do with someone gazing up at the sky and seeing a B-17 and feeling a measure of patriotism?
> 
> Hey everyone, the Chicago Air & Water show will be held next weekend. I invite everyone to come and check it out.
> 
> As for myself, I look forward to next Wednesday and Thursday when the Blue Angels start their practice runs and the sounds of the jet engines go echoing through the buildings.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^+1. Completely agree with your conclusions. I certainly never intended to incite the angst reported by two of our members, but rather to report a rather unusual sighting in the skies over Hoosierville. These glorious Birds of War, still flying today, are true engineering marvels, restored to almost pristine condition and reflecting the ongoing love and skill of the dedicated old soldiers who have taken it upon themselves to restore them and keep them flying...pretty impressive accomplishment for a 70+ year old bird!
> 
> In the past I have been privileged on two occasions to be invited to fly on a B-17 that was part of air shows hosted by the local Porter County Airport...memories I will carry with me for the rest of my days, for sure!


quoted to show that 3/2 and Chouan's interpretation of what they are taking offense to was not how the OP intended it.



32rollandrock said:


> It was and is my understanding that this thread was supposed to be dedicated to civil discussion of current events and myriad other topics not related to clothing.


You described the purpose of the Interchange, but not the purpose of this particular thread.



Chouan said:


> But he did. If you read the posts again you'll see that SG_67 elaborated on what was meant by the "Sound of Freedom". Whining? Is that how you describe an opinion being expressed that you disagree with?


As usual you are trying to spin something to make it seem as if I am the, or a bad guy in this. I never once voiced my opinion on the derailed topic, but to answer your question my definition of whining is when someone complains in a childish or annoying manor, which is what 3/2 did. I called it whining. You are trying to make it seem as if I called it whining because I don't agree with him, which is not the case.



SG_67 said:


> And so what does this, as well as other ~75 posts after the first few, have to do with someone gazing up at the sky and seeing a B-17 and feeling a measure of patriotism? .


 quoted for truth!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> You've been an active participant in this thread. You cannot address the issue of the bomb and why we don't refer to it as "the sound of freedom" because doing so would require a bit of thought and, ultimately, an admission that the "sound of freedom" is a flawed slogan.
> 
> Enjoy the air show.


I'm not in the business of elaborating on, or having to explain to your satisfaction, my take on your outrage. Forgive me for not indulging you.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

You've elaborated on and given your take on and criticized my "outrage" quite a bit here. What you haven't done is address my point. Apparently, you cannot. Otherwise, you would.

Enjoy the show.



SG_67 said:


> I'm not in the business of elaborating on, or having to explain to your satisfaction, my take on your outrage. Forgive me for not indulging you.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Enjoy the show.


Thank you. I will.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> But think of all the death and heartache that could have been avoided if you had just done the honorable thing and surrender...
> 
> Scale and effectiveness were the primarily differences between why the a bomb was effective WW 2 and would not have been in Vietnam.


Scale and effectiveness?

And the prize for the most content free response is awarded to ........

.
.

.
.
.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Not to mention that strategic thinking had changed and the world was just a different place. *When we bombed Japan, we were the only nuclear power.* During Viet Nam, the calculus was different.
> 
> It's interesting to note that although on a scale different both technically and of consequence, both the Germans and the Russians possessed chemical weapons yet the professional soldiers on both sides did not use those weapons for fear of letting the Genie out of the bottle and reprisals.


Is the correct answer.

A more daunting prospect to throw nuclear bombs around when you are no longer the only bully in the playground so armed, eh?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ quite correct. 

In the realm of international affairs, life is nasty, brutish and short.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I recall when I was liberating France.....


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> I recall when I was liberating France.....


Well done you! Were they grateful?
Incidentally, I've just listened on BBC Radio 4 to a brilliant "Steptoe & Son" episode (of which I can remember the original) It's here https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007jlb0 Well worth listening to....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ Indeed they were grateful, the boisterous chants of 'Rasoir! Rasoir!' still ring in my ears.

.
.

.
.
.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> ^ Indeed they were grateful, the boisterous chants of 'Rasoir! Rasoir!' still ring in my ears.
> 
> .
> .
> ...


Along with "Va foutre Rosbif!" and "Sale bougre!"?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Probably.

Never trust a Frenchie.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Reading the postings to this thread and seeing how badly off track the discussion has gone, completely divorced from the actual intent of my opening post, shocked the hell out of me and further convinces me that I may have "stayed too long at the fair!" Some have noticed and commented to me that my participation levels herein have declined precipitously and indeed, those observation have been spot-on and it is threads such as this that are why...I'm simply losing interest and my time is too valuable for such nonsense.

Perhaps an observation of mine during yesterday's travels will prove less upsetting to our malcontents. As my wife and I were driving westbound on State Route 30, out of Valparaiso, I spotted a brand new shop opened to serve the residents of Valparaiso..."The Hookah and Vap'n store." Surely, not in the same league with a lovingly restored B-17 flying overhead 70+ years after it was built, but certainly more reflective of the state of today's society and the standards of discourse I see reflected it far too many postings to various threads in the Interchange!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Reading the postings to this thread and seeing how badly off track the discussion has gone, completely divorced from the actual intent of my opening post, shocked the hell out of me and further convinces me that I may have "stayed too long at the fair!" Some have noticed and commented to me that my participation levels herein have declined precipitously and indeed, those observation have been spot-on and it is threads such as this that are why...I'm simply losing interest and my time is too valuable for such nonsense.
> 
> Perhaps an observation of mine during yesterday's travels will prove less upsetting to our malcontents. As my wife and I were driving westbound on State Route 30, out of Valparaiso, I spotted a brand new shop opened to serve the residents of Valparaiso..."The Hookah and Vap'n store." Surely, not in the same league with a lovingly restored B-17 flying overhead 70+ years after it was built, but certainly more reflective of the state of today's society and the standards of discourse I see reflected it far too many postings to various threads in the Interchange!


At the risk of irritating people further I fully understood what you felt and what you meant. As I said in my first post on this thread*"**Indeed. I live about 20 miles from Duxford and about 10 miles from RAF Mildenhall and I hear the "sound of freedom" on a daily basis. I do enjoy hearing the sound of a Rolls Royce Merlin, which I usually hear many times a year, especially over the summer, and the B17 that is based at Duxford, but I do find the "sound of freedom" expression particularly annoying."* I meant no criticism of you or your sentiments, many of which I share, I just dislike that expression!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^^ I have to say, I've quite enjoyed this thread, differences of opinion and all. But going back to the OP, and without necessarily wishing to open up a further vein of dissent, I have always preferred the sound of a Rolls-Royce engine to radials...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Which is quite worthy of debate. When it comes to motorcycles, I prefer the sound of a V4 to a potato bike. That's just me.

I think that this thread has become unnecessarily controversial. Some would accuse me of being the instigator, and so be it. Threads take tangents sometimes. So be it. I think that Eagle is a great contributor and a great moderator, and I hope that he sticks with it. He's gotten a bit flustered by this, from all appearances. What, to him, seemed an innocuous label meant much different things to other people, including myself. Kurt Vonnegut would also have had issues, as would have my grandmother, a big Vonnegut fan. Neither my grandmother, rest in peace, nor Vonnegut should be the subject of derision or ridicule.

I don't think that we should be so quick to attack each other. As the person who first raised the question, I feel a bit taken aback by this brouhaha. We live in a deeply divided nation, in any number of ways. That's just reality. I think, though, that we should all be able, at least here, to appreciate that there are viewpoints other than our own. We should be able to talk instead of hurl stones. SG isn't an idiot. Eagle isn't an idiot. I am not, I think, an idiot. And so it would be nice if we didn't treat each other as if we were addressing idiots.

I never meant for this to become what it has become. The phrase, to me at least, grates. That's all I ever meant to say. If the phrase hadn't been brought up, I would not have said squat. I don't blame Eagle for bringing up the phrase. I'm as proud as he is of what our servicemen accomplished during World War II. I'm in utter awe, frankly. But I think that I can feel this way and still get weirded-out by the phrase.

End of day, this is mountains over mole hills. Really, it is.



Langham said:


> ^^ I have to say, I've quite enjoyed this thread, differences of opinion and all. But going back to the OP, and without necessarily wishing to open up a further vein of dissent, I have always preferred the sound of a Rolls-Royce engine to radials...


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> ^^ I have to say, I've quite enjoyed this thread, differences of opinion and all. But going back to the OP, and without necessarily wishing to open up a further vein of dissent, I have always preferred the sound of a Rolls-Royce engine to radials...


Indeed, a Merlin (Packard or Rolls Royce) is almost musical. Thanks for that wonderful clip.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Which is quite worthy of debate. When it comes to motorcycles, I prefer the sound of a V4 to a potato bike. That's just me.
> 
> I think that this thread has become unnecessarily controversial. Some would accuse me of being the instigator, and so be it. Threads take tangents sometimes. So be it. I think that Eagle is a great contributor and a great moderator, and I hope that he sticks with it. He's gotten a bit flustered by this, from all appearances. What, to him, seemed an innocuous label meant much different things to other people, including myself. Kurt Vonnegut would also have had issues, as would have my grandmother, a big Vonnegut fan. Neither my grandmother, rest in peace, nor Vonnegut should be the subject of derision or ridicule.
> 
> ...


You ain't Kurt Vonmegut. And my apologies I advance for prolonging this. I'll shut up now.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

You wouldn't know an olive branch if it, well...

I'll shut up now.



SG_67 said:


> You ain't Kurt Vonmegut. And my apologies I advance for prolonging this. I'll shut up now.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> You wouldn't know an olive branch if it, well...
> 
> I'll shut up now.


No, I get the olive branch part. I suppose I couldn't help taking a cheap shot.


----------



## sonnhorn (Sep 9, 2015)




----------



## sonnhorn (Sep 9, 2015)

This thread is quite entertaining with all its kindergarten theories about defending democracy, standing up against Hitler etc etc. 

WWII, just as WWI, was a european civil war. Hitler wasn't interested in "taking over the world" nor the entire europe. All he wanted was to take back the parts of historic ethnical germany. When England declared war after the invasion of Poland, when the poles rejected German claim on Pomerania, naturally the germans had to take extraordinary measures to prevent an attack. Thus the invasion of France, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and so on. 

The whole debacle of WWII and the all the blood that was spilled is entirely on Englands hands, and of the big drunkard Churchill.


----------

