• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Milestones

Go to CruxDreams.com
Eighty years ago, on May 5th 1942. While in the Pacific, the Battle of the Coral Sea was developing, a less known operation was carried out, Operation Ironclad. And although an ocean away from the Coral Sea, the purpose was the same : stopping Japanese expansion.

Operation Ironclad comprised a 11000 men strong amphibious landing (the first British operation of this kind since the Dardanelles, 1915), on the island of Madagascar. At the time, the island was a French colony, and its governor was loyal to Pétain’s Vichy regime, an Axis ally.

The fear was, that Japanese submarines would use Madagascar as a forward base, to raid Allied shipping in the Indian Ocean, along the east coast of Africa, and near the entrance of the Red Sea, the way to the Suez Canal. Even more, Madagascar could have been a base for Japanese operations in the Atlantic, and there was the prospect of joining forces with German submarines. Japanese submarines were already active in the area, and on May 30th, they attacked the port of Diego Suarez, sinking one ship, and damaging the battleship HMS Ramillies that protected the invasion forces.

The conquest of Madagascar would take some hundreds of lives on both sides, but lasted nevertheless six months.

Just to illustrate what ‘world war’ means.

The Allied conquest of Madagascar, also put a final end to the ‘Madagaskar-plan’ (as far as it was still considered), an option raised among Nazis, to deport all Jews to the island, and establish an SS-controlled ‘Jewish state’ there.
 
The final photograph of the Lusitania, departing New York for the last time on 1 May 1915. :(

lusitania_departing_new_york_1_may_1915_by_bobnearied_df4yg3q-fullview.jpg

(Image hosted on external site)
 
May 7, 1915
RMS Lusitania is sunk 11 miles (18 km) off Old Head of Kinsale, Ireland. She had been struck by a single torpedo fired from German submarine U-20. She sank in only 18 minutes. Out of 1,266 passengers and 696 crew, only 761 people survived. 123 of the dead were US citizens. The sinking began a shift in US attitudes toward Germany and the War.
Because witnesses on board and ashore reported two explosions, the British insisted there must have been two torpedoes. The Germans claimed the ship was carrying munitions which caused a secondary explosion and also resulted in the unusually rapid sinking. Transporting munitions made Lusitania a legitimate target. The British insisted there were no munitions on board.
After the War, it was reveled that the Germans had been telling the truth. Lord Admiral Winston Churchill had approved transporting munitions onboard civilian liners. Lusitania was carrying 4 million .303 caliber machine gun rounds, 5000 shrapnel shells and 3,240 artillery fuses. U-20's logs confirmed that only one torpedo had been fired.
From the log of Kapitäinleutnant Walther Schwieger, commander of U-20:
"Torpedo hits starboard side right behind the bridge. An unusually heavy detonation takes place with a very strong explosive cloud. The explosion of the torpedo must have been followed by a second one [boiler or coal or powder?]... The ship stops immediately and heels over to starboard very quickly, immersing simultaneously at the bow... the name Lusitania becomes visible in golden letters."
Schwieger died with his crew aboard U-88 on 5 September 1917.

Ironically, exactly 30 years later, May 7, 1945, the last successful U-boat attack occurred 1.5 miles southeast of May Isle in the Firth of Forth, Scotland.
At 22:45, U-2336 torpedoed and sank Canadian cargo ship SS Avondale Park with the loss of two crew members and, a few minutes later, torpedoed and sank the Norwegian cargo ship SS Sneland I with the loss of eight crewmen. U-2336 was on her first and only patrol and these were the only two ships she sunk. The Kriegsmarine had ordered all U-boats to end hostile actions on 4 May, but, U-2336 hadn't received the signal.
 
May 7, 1915
RMS Lusitania is sunk 11 miles (18 km) off Old Head of Kinsale, Ireland. She had been struck by a single torpedo fired from German submarine U-20. She sank in only 18 minutes. Out of 1,266 passengers and 696 crew, only 761 people survived. 123 of the dead were US citizens. The sinking began a shift in US attitudes toward Germany and the War.
Because witnesses on board and ashore reported two explosions, the British insisted there must have been two torpedoes. The Germans claimed the ship was carrying munitions which caused a secondary explosion and also resulted in the unusually rapid sinking. Transporting munitions made Lusitania a legitimate target. The British insisted there were no munitions on board.
After the War, it was reveled that the Germans had been telling the truth. Lord Admiral Winston Churchill had approved transporting munitions onboard civilian liners. Lusitania was carrying 4 million .303 caliber machine gun rounds, 5000 shrapnel shells and 3,240 artillery fuses. U-20's logs confirmed that only one torpedo had been fired.
From the log of Kapitäinleutnant Walther Schwieger, commander of U-20:
"Torpedo hits starboard side right behind the bridge. An unusually heavy detonation takes place with a very strong explosive cloud. The explosion of the torpedo must have been followed by a second one [boiler or coal or powder?]... The ship stops immediately and heels over to starboard very quickly, immersing simultaneously at the bow... the name Lusitania becomes visible in golden letters."
Schwieger died with his crew aboard U-88 on 5 September 1917.

Ironically, exactly 30 years later, May 7, 1945, the last successful U-boat attack occurred 1.5 miles southeast of May Isle in the Firth of Forth, Scotland.
At 22:45, U-2336 torpedoed and sank Canadian cargo ship SS Avondale Park with the loss of two crew members and, a few minutes later, torpedoed and sank the Norwegian cargo ship SS Sneland I with the loss of eight crewmen. U-2336 was on her first and only patrol and these were the only two ships she sunk. The Kriegsmarine had ordered all U-boats to end hostile actions on 4 May, but, U-2336 hadn't received the signal.
The cause of the second explosion is still a matter of debate anyway.

A notable victim of the Lusitania disaster was the American businessman Alfred Vanderbilt (1877-1915). In 1912, Vanderbilt had booked a passage on a new luxury liner for the maiden trip to New York. But his train arrived too late in Southhampton, so he missed the departure of... RMS Titanic. His servants had boarded, however, and they sadly all perished in the sinking.
 
The cause of the second explosion is still a matter of debate anyway.

A notable victim of the Lusitania disaster was the American businessman Alfred Vanderbilt (1877-1915). In 1912, Vanderbilt had booked a passage on a new luxury liner for the maiden trip to New York. But his train arrived too late in Southhampton, so he missed the departure of... RMS Titanic. His servants had boarded, however, and they sadly all perished in the sinking.
In 1915 Mr. Vanderbilt failed to recognize the warning sign he was given in 1912.
 
Yesterday ,8th May,2022....the BBC quietly announced who would take over from Jodie Whittaker, as the next Doctor Who....

Welcome aboard the Tardis Ncuti* Gatwa !!
Mr Gatwa,is a Rwandan/Scots actor,who won praise for his part in the Netflix Series, " Sex Education " he will probably make his debut as the 14th Doctor at the end of the BBC Centenary Special in October. Hmm,interesting casting.
download.jpeg.jpg
*( pronounced "Shooty")
 
I think, like most people, Mr. Vanderbilt was convinced that ocean liners like RMS Lusitania were too fast for submarines, and that they were too big to get fatally damaged by a torpedo.
And that is precisely the same thinking that doomed the Titanic, which was also supposed to be unsinkable. To quote a famous attorney, they were assuming facts not in evidence. Submarine warfare was new, and decision makers would have had no references to make such an assumption. Unfortunately it always seems to cost lives for humans to learn a lesson, and the sad part is, in this case, the first lesson wasn't enough.
 
Yesterday ,8th May,2022....the BBC quietly announced who would take over from Jodie Whittaker, as the next Doctor Who....

Welcome aboard the Tardis Ncuti* Gatwa !!
Mr Gatwa,is a Rwandan/Scots actor,who won praise for his part in the Netflix Series, " Sex Education " he will probably make his debut as the 14th Doctor at the end of the BBC Centenary Special in October. Hmm,interesting casting.
View attachment 1169703
*( pronounced "Shooty")
He looks too young. This is a major issue with too many shows these days - all the characters have to look like teenagers. The Doctor always worked better as an older, more distinguished character. Of all the Doctors, David Tennant was the youngest one that still carried enough maturity to pull it off, and he did extremely well. Tom Baker of course was the best of them all, but most people would put Tennant in second place. I also thought that Peter Capaldi was superb - I loved the way he portrayed the character as a kind of mature rock star with a degree of flair and flamboyance that many of the other actors have failed to bring to the role.

Jodie Whittaker in particular was a huge let-down. For one thing, she has no love for the show or the character (she admitted this in an interview back in 2018) and also went on to say that she wanted to use the role as "a platform for her political activism" - well there goes half your audience at a single stroke. And then of course the BBC decided to use the idea of a woman playing the Doctor as a strawman to berate their remaining viewers with - (ie. "if you don't like Jodie's Doctor then you're a sexist, istaphobic nazi bigot etc etc etc - all the usual NPC responses that you would expect to see from a bunch of depressive zoomers on twit twat, and not from a publicly-funded national broadcaster)

And this is of course why they have now cast a black actor in the role - just so they can pass off any criticism of the show as simply racism :( That's not to suggest that the new guy is not going to be good in the role - I have no knowledge of his talent, good or bad. I think that the fact that probably 90% of the British public have never heard of him is likely to work against him, at least in the short term, until he can put his own stamp on the character (which I hope he will be able to do, rather than doing a low-grade impersonation of David Tennant as Jodie Whittaker did with her awful portrayal of the Doctor - Jodie is a reasonably good actress, but totally miscast in any sort of SF/Fantasy show, and her lack of interest in the show always came ocross in her performance :(

For the record I have no issues with the Doctor being black (or any other race for that matter) but UI would prefer to see an older actor in the role - someone with charisma and gravitas. My own choice for a black Doctor would be the amazing Don Warrington - he has everything that the character needs - certainly has charisma, his voice carries the necessary authority and gravitas that the character must have, and is able to play the role with the perfect balance of seriousness and humour. I think he would be perfect, but he's 70 years old and the BBC only seems interested in appealing to the tiktok generation these days (despite the fact that 99% of them never watch tv anyway) :(

Of course the combination of far-left politics from the BBC, woke and preachy storylines, heavily infused with the whole "white man bad" rhetoric has all but decimated the show's audience. The ratings are in the toilet, the merchandise is not selling and is on clearance pretty much everywhere (incidentally, the merch for the previous Doctors is still moving, but anything associated with the Whittaker / Chibnall era is stagnant in the extreme, and it's easy to see why - if you alienate a large proportion of your viewers with pathetic woke ideology, then those viewers are not going to go out and buy the merch - common sense really, but something that seems to elude big corporations who seem to think that a few loud-mouthed weirdos on social media are representative of the public as a whole, which is provably not the case)

I don't have any real hope that this classic show can be saved now, despite Russell T Davies coming back as the showrunner, and the BBC effectively selling the Dr Who franchise to Sony Pictures. While Davies is certainly a very talented writer and showrunner, with a string of highly successful shows under his belt, he's still part of the BBC woke mindset and is unlikely to change direction.

Of course the really big thing among fans of the show is that Davies MUST completely erase and retcon the whole Timeless Children storyline, and set things back as they should be - like they were before Chinballs got his filthy hands on the show. ANY failure in this department and the fans are never going to come back. Davies has one chance, and one chance only, to fix the absolute unmitigated disaster that this show has become over the past 4 or 5 years. As a lifelong fan I hope he does, but I'm not holding my breath :(

Once you lose your audience - particularly if you push them away by insulting them, calling them names and telling them that you don't want them anymore (yes, the BBC famously said that they didn't want the old audience anymore as they "are mostly bigots with outmoded sensibilities"), then it's going to be VERY hard to tempt them back - in most cases it will be impossible - The Dr Who audience is a shadow of what it once was, and I'm not sure it will ever recover to the sort of viewer ratings that it enjoyed a decade or so ago.

Having said that, I really hope that Davies can fix this mess, but my expectations are so low as to be not even worth discussing anymore :(

As with all the other entertainment franchises that have been destroyed by far-left political ideology in the last few years (Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, DC - the list goes on and on), Doctor Who is currently unwatchable and frankly is already dead. Kudos to Russell T Davies if he is able to resurrect it, but frankly I think at this point, he's just flogging a dead horse :(

And as someone who grew up watching this show, that makes me sad :(
 
Which they had already been doing in China for years, so the raid just gave them another excuse. Yamamoto drew a bullseye around Midway, meanwhile back at pearl Harbor US Naval Intelligence was busy reading all of the Japanese coded messages.
Commander Rochefort, who was the head cryptographer at Pearl Harbor, was instrumental in the Midway victory. They all knew a big Japanese operation was coming, but the target was uncertain. Naval intelligence in Washington (in the same bureaucracy that delivered faulty torpedoes which had to be debugged at Pearl Harbor) did NOT favor Midway as the code-named target . Rochefort has a message sent in the clear indicating that Midway was short of water. The Japanese messages picked it up and noted that the code-named target was short of water, confirming the target. Washington was not happy. Rochefort was replaced over Nimitz' strenuous objections. He commanded a dry dock during the rest of the war. They wouldn't even give him a Navy Cross. "The best colonels in the Army never make general".
 
He looks too young. This is a major issue with too many shows these days - all the characters have to look like teenagers. The Doctor always worked better as an older, more distinguished character. Of all the Doctors, David Tennant was the youngest one that still carried enough maturity to pull it off, and he did extremely well. Tom Baker of course was the best of them all, but most people would put Tennant in second place. I also thought that Peter Capaldi was superb - I loved the way he portrayed the character as a kind of mature rock star with a degree of flair and flamboyance that many of the other actors have failed to bring to the role.

Jodie Whittaker in particular was a huge let-down. For one thing, she has no love for the show or the character (she admitted this in an interview back in 2018) and also went on to say that she wanted to use the role as "a platform for her political activism" - well there goes half your audience at a single stroke. And then of course the BBC decided to use the idea of a woman playing the Doctor as a strawman to berate their remaining viewers with - (ie. "if you don't like Jodie's Doctor then you're a sexist, istaphobic nazi bigot etc etc etc - all the usual NPC responses that you would expect to see from a bunch of depressive zoomers on twit twat, and not from a publicly-funded national broadcaster)

And this is of course why they have now cast a black actor in the role - just so they can pass off any criticism of the show as simply racism :( That's not to suggest that the new guy is not going to be good in the role - I have no knowledge of his talent, good or bad. I think that the fact that probably 90% of the British public have never heard of him is likely to work against him, at least in the short term, until he can put his own stamp on the character (which I hope he will be able to do, rather than doing a low-grade impersonation of David Tennant as Jodie Whittaker did with her awful portrayal of the Doctor - Jodie is a reasonably good actress, but totally miscast in any sort of SF/Fantasy show, and her lack of interest in the show always came ocross in her performance :(

For the record I have no issues with the Doctor being black (or any other race for that matter) but UI would prefer to see an older actor in the role - someone with charisma and gravitas. My own choice for a black Doctor would be the amazing Don Warrington - he has everything that the character needs - certainly has charisma, his voice carries the necessary authority and gravitas that the character must have, and is able to play the role with the perfect balance of seriousness and humour. I think he would be perfect, but he's 70 years old and the BBC only seems interested in appealing to the tiktok generation these days (despite the fact that 99% of them never watch tv anyway) :(

Of course the combination of far-left politics from the BBC, woke and preachy storylines, heavily infused with the whole "white man bad" rhetoric has all but decimated the show's audience. The ratings are in the toilet, the merchandise is not selling and is on clearance pretty much everywhere (incidentally, the merch for the previous Doctors is still moving, but anything associated with the Whittaker / Chibnall era is stagnant in the extreme, and it's easy to see why - if you alienate a large proportion of your viewers with pathetic woke ideology, then those viewers are not going to go out and buy the merch - common sense really, but something that seems to elude big corporations who seem to think that a few loud-mouthed weirdos on social media are representative of the public as a whole, which is provably not the case)

I don't have any real hope that this classic show can be saved now, despite Russell T Davies coming back as the showrunner, and the BBC effectively selling the Dr Who franchise to Sony Pictures. While Davies is certainly a very talented writer and showrunner, with a string of highly successful shows under his belt, he's still part of the BBC woke mindset and is unlikely to change direction.

Of course the really big thing among fans of the show is that Davies MUST completely erase and retcon the whole Timeless Children storyline, and set things back as they should be - like they were before Chinballs got his filthy hands on the show. ANY failure in this department and the fans are never going to come back. Davies has one chance, and one chance only, to fix the absolute unmitigated disaster that this show has become over the past 4 or 5 years. As a lifelong fan I hope he does, but I'm not holding my breath :(

Once you lose your audience - particularly if you push them away by insulting them, calling them names and telling them that you don't want them anymore (yes, the BBC famously said that they didn't want the old audience anymore as they "are mostly bigots with outmoded sensibilities"), then it's going to be VERY hard to tempt them back - in most cases it will be impossible - The Dr Who audience is a shadow of what it once was, and I'm not sure it will ever recover to the sort of viewer ratings that it enjoyed a decade or so ago.

Having said that, I really hope that Davies can fix this mess, but my expectations are so low as to be not even worth discussing anymore :(

As with all the other entertainment franchises that have been destroyed by far-left political ideology in the last few years (Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, DC - the list goes on and on), Doctor Who is currently unwatchable and frankly is already dead. Kudos to Russell T Davies if he is able to resurrect it, but frankly I think at this point, he's just flogging a dead horse :(

And as someone who grew up watching this show, that makes me sad :(
Roddenberry's original Star Trek was very "liberal" for its time, striving stereotypically to be anti-stereotyped, with black and Asian actors and the "Russian" Chekhov. The later series went out of their way to put women and blacks in leading roles. The guy who played Commander Worf was black. In Deep Space Nine, for example, Nana Visitor played the former Bejoran terrorist (and consummate "hard-ass") Kira Nerys and Avery Brooks as Sisko the Commander was black--I didn't appreciate him as much, over Patrick Stewart say, but he certainly towers over the deplorable over-acting William Shatner, whom most cast members apparently disliked because of his massive ego. The later series made women in these roles seem much more natural. I don't think the series suffered for it. I actually think that it is true that "diverse perspectives" enhance characters over white-male stereotypes. One can go overboard, but I think for example that a black can probably play Othello better than a white guy in blackface--bring real experience to the character that a white actor would not have.
 
Last edited:
Roddenberry's original Star Trek was very "liberal" for its time, striving stereotypically to be anti-stereotyped, with black and Asian actors and the "Russian" Chekhov. The later series went out of their way to put women and blacks in leading roles. The guy who played Commander Worf was black. In Deep Space Nine, for example, Nana Visitor played the former Bejoran terrorist (and consummate "hard-ass") Kira Nerys and Avery Brooks as Sisko the Commander was black--I didn't appreciate him as much, over Patrick Stewart say, but he certainly towers over the deplorable over-acting William Shatner, whom most cast members apparently disliked because of his massive ego. The later series made women in these roles seem much more natural. I don't think the series suffered for it. I actually think that it is true that "diverse perspectives" enhance characters over white-male stereotypes. One can go overboard, but I think for example that a black can probably play Othello better than a white guy in blackface--bring real experience to the character that a white actor would not have.
As I said earlier, the race of a character doesn't really matter - as long as the actor and the scripting is good. It's these latter two that are lacking these days. And yes, Star Trek was the most culturally diverse show on TV, but if you listen to those running the media these days, diversity didn't exist until 2015 - but then that tells you everything you really need to know about the media today :(
 
Rochefort has a message sent in the clear indicating that Midway was short of water. The Japanese messages picked it up and noted that the code-named target was short of water, confirming the target.
An iconic trap that may have changed the course of history.
Midway : "Our water desalination system is broke!"
Japanese response : "Let's ship more desalination equipment for our occupation force on the island!"
 
The cause of the second explosion is still a matter of debate anyway.

A notable victim of the Lusitania disaster was the American businessman Alfred Vanderbilt (1877-1915). In 1912, Vanderbilt had booked a passage on a new luxury liner for the maiden trip to New York. But his train arrived too late in Southhampton, so he missed the departure of... RMS Titanic. His servants had boarded, however, and they sadly all perished in the sinking.
Supposedly the Germans, convinced by the "performance" of the US Army against Pancho Villa in Mexico, decided to resume unrestricted submarine warfare and risk war with the United States. The British made sure that Wilson's administration was informed of the German decisions by decoding and delivering a dispatch from the German ambassador to Washington discussing ceding Arizona and New Mexico to Mexico if the Mexicans entered the war. This "Zimmerman telegram" was the real cause of the US declaration of war on Germany in 1917--unrestricted submarine warfare was more of a cover.

I read the following in an article in Der Spiegel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-864
Apparently right up to the end the Nazis were bent on helping Japan.
Not only could the US read the Japanese naval codes, they could also read the diplomatic code and knew all about the Japanese cabinet deadlock about ending the war from cables from the Japanese ambassador in Moscow, and this convinced them of the need for Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which was hit when the primary target, Kokura, was clouded over). They also knew a lot about Hitler's plans (or aspirations, shall we say--Hitler by the last year of the war couldn't execute as he wished) from dispatches from the Japanese ambassador in Berlin who apparently was a confidant of Hitler--more like a sounding board for an egotist. "Mass" won the war for the United States, even though it made a lot of mistakes, but so did skill at technology. Turing's work on the Enigma saved Britain as well from the "only thing that ever frightened me during the war" as Churchill said about U-boats. American submarines arguably won the war in the Pacific (and Japanese submarines were a major threat there--sinking for example the Indianapolis returning from delivering the A-bomb to Tinian). People seem to underestimate submarines in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
As I said earlier, the race of a character doesn't really matter - as long as the actor and the scripting is good. It's these latter two that are lacking these days. And yes, Star Trek was the most culturally diverse show on TV, but if you listen to those running the media these days, diversity didn't exist until 2015 - but then that tells you everything you really need to know about the media today :(
Apparently Paul Robeson was seriously radicalized by all the racism in Hollywood in his time.
"Wobblies" are pretty radical.
 
Supposedly the Germans, convinced by the "performance" of the US Army against Pancho Villa in Mexico, decided to resume unrestricted submarine warfare and risk war with the United States. The British made sure that Wilson's administration was informed of the German decisions by decoding and delivering a dispatch from the German ambassador to Washington discussing ceding Arizona and New Mexico to Mexico if the Mexicans entered the war. This "Zimmerman telegram" was the real cause of the US declaration of war on Germany in 1917--unrestricted submarine warfare was more of a cover.
I know! I posted on this thread (p.234) the 100th anniversary of the 'Zimmerman telegram'! :)

The US Army at the time was rather a kind of militia, to contain the indian population and guard the border with Mexico, right? And for problems abroad, there was the Marine Corps. The US Navy was more up to date. The 'Great White Fleet' was already before the war a factor of power. The US Navy had also joined the Dreadnought Battleship race, although building went slow, and at a given moment, there were four or five subsequent battleship classes all still under construction.

The arrival of the AEF in Europe in 1918, made the war topple against the Central Powers. Therfore, a whoe army had to be built up. The US could count on managers who just had finished the succesful construction of the Panama Canal, and were capable of organising massive workforce.
 
An international team of astronomers from the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) collaboration has presented the first image of the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A*, which orbits our Milky Way.
View attachment 1171075
If I understand correctly, our Milky Way orbits the black hole
 
Back
Top Bottom