welcome to the Peoples war site of fictitious, spurious and genuine stories

IF YOU LOOK TO THE FUTURE AND KEEP ONE EYE ON THE PAST YOU ARE BLIND IN ONE EYE. IF YOU KEEP BOTH EYES ON THE FUTURE AND NO EYES ON THE PAST YOU ARE BLIND IN BOTH EYES AND GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOU. BENITON

"My father was in WW2 and in his lifetime he never ever agreed with what I ever had to say but he would defend to the death my right ever to think it believe it or say it".


The snowberry story issue on authenticity has reared its ugly head again. Despite many members whom i have regarded as a reliable source of information and have pointed out many basic floors about the story has reached the front page again: Can a man can throw a 600lb depth charge over the guardrail of a ship. Is it possible that a Tommy gun could possibly be used or issued for anti-aircraft defence in a Corvette? Do you believe that a Corvette can roll more than 45 degrees safely? These are just a few floors from the story, surely an insult to any reasonable intelligence. But it was done as an assignment, in the name of a debate.


According to one of the WW2 team: "The stories I've read so far have been fascinating",not the basic truth i might add, that needed ingrediant an archive needs to exsist. I am sure these stories are facinating to most visiors. But visitors must beware and look underneath the false layer of stories that this site has allowed to exsist and claim to be true.

This site and some of its members under the guise of made up names with their contributions, contents stories etc are trying to change the history of WW2 therefore beware what you read, as you may find it is not true and is part of someones firtile imagination?

Go to the older heads, the veterans with first hand knowledge where they may not have your answers but will steer you in the right direction.

REAL EXPLANATION
Remember you are dealing with a site where its members hide behind made up Pseudo names, genuine and false members alike, and a WW2 team who feel that it is okay to just use their first names and expect every members stories submitted to be authentic honest and true, expecting the member to actually exsist and the stories to be actually real stories and real life characters from WW2. (get real)

They also expect each member to abide by strict in house rules relating to each other, where no one really knows who the hell they are dealing with. Let us be realistic it is not feasable, because the site is regularly used as a melting pot for wannabes ficticious writers and the such like who have a fertile imagination and are never questioned whether things are true authentic or otherwise, whether what they submit exsists as an authentic piece of work or not it doesnt matter they conclude. These stories have only ever been challenged by its veteran members the older heads, who regularly point them out and not by the WW2 team who are of a different era and seemingly are not interested in the issue of authenticity. But i feel this is because it is not feasable to challenge these stories enclosed and rely on a debate starting within its members.


Veterans who have been on this site from the very beginning have tried to help them sort this out, but the WW2 team are not interested in authenticity, or whether its members really exsist or not and wish to carry on and cover over the cracks, quite visible. These veterans have regularly pointed out these spurious stories and the WW2 team have asked them to hoodwink them for the sake of other members even though they have given some good ideas how to solve those issues.
HOWEVER SEARCH AND YOU SHALL FIND WHAT I AM NOT SURE!!
Beniton

Members who i feel are helpful for research purposes. If they dont know, they know a man who does

Frank Mee
Harry Hargreaves
Peter the researcher
Ron Goldstein - WW2 Researcher
John De Mansfield Absolom
Troopertomcanning WW2 Researcher

Nappentice EX Officer in the Merchant Navy:
This evenings programme "Destination D-Day" was frankly farcical ! ! !

First, it had practically no connection with the training - if any - was given to the participants. Further, I would suggest it furnished an insult to any of the veterans who may be watching.

Last week, and again this, someones fetish on swimming got in the way of any story. Countless of the troops of every description - simply could not swim, and, I include the Navy here.

Indeed, I was an officer in the MN and to this day I cannot swim. The fool who expected the boys to climb into a survival suit (without basic tuition) should 'not' be entrusted with any form of teaching ( of course it was a woman). As for the arrogant Navy Officer who said how many craft were involved in the D-Day Landings saying the were Royal Navy . . . should be shot. On another TV Programme, they listed all the Royal Navy vessels lost during the war by type . . it totalled 98 vessels lost. As anyone can tell you 2535 Merchant Vessels were lost. The men manning these were not furnished with a fraction of the training you show.

Clearly, if you are not going to take your responsibilities seriosly in doccumenting D-Day, kindly abandon the project. To write a totally false history is obscene !

Similarly, the programme on BBC2 "War At Sea" is presenting a completely false picture. How it, or your programme got on the air is a mystery. I would suggest that the producers of both issue an apology to the veterans and in particular the non-conscipted and volunteer force of the Merchant Navy. Even Churchill acknowledged "It was not the Battle of Britain that saved Britain, it was the Merchant Navy.

I agree with MNapprentice Ex Merchant Navy Officer. the BBC should be made to set the record straight. It makes it look as if the Merchant Navy actually did nothing during WW2. But i guese they will hope that these people who had first hand experience will go away yours beniton

AND FINALLY FOLKS!!
A reply from Laurence Rees BBC Creative History:

In the meantime i hope you'll understand i have to include this formal paragraph which explains the conditions under which we consider proposals:

"The BBC recieves a very large number of proposals, many of which are similar to or the same as each other. For this reason, i am sure you will appreciate that even if, in the future, we produce or commission a programme which you believe is the same as, or similar to your suggestion, but which has come, coincidentally, from another source, we cannot compensate you."

Dear researcher/member i have wrote this in for you to consider who you are really dealing with. Remember the BBC is likened to god. They can copy your ideas etc in fact anything. But the above is the reply you will recieve with your excellent idea programme documentry story whatever after being gently turned down. Above is what i and many others recieved from the BBC regarding some excellent ideas we all thought of. In fact this site was stolen from someone elses idea.

They will be thoughtfully copied and a feasability study will be done by the BBC team concerned, eventually it will be put away for its delayed timely resurrection and a time when they feel we all have forgotten about them. With the feelings that perhaps they were not that good an idea after all. Suddenly as if by COINCIDENCE A MIRACLE OF MAGICAL PROPORTIONS our forgotten ideas suddenly appear on television 'LOCK STOCK AND BARREL' one night while we are watching television but you will notice it is now redesigned in a new package or format as if the BBC or apparently someone according to their own words in their letter 'coincidentally' thought of it and now it has become theirs. It has not cost them a bean. (NOW TELL ME HOW YOU WOULD FEEL IF THIS HAPPENED TO YOU AND IT WAS YOUR IDEA)?

I am just giving you and many others some insight into how the wheels of the BBC work. They feel it is acceptable a sort of acknowledged plaigrism known by all in the industry like the newspapers and tabloids, and accepted by all, 'it happens all the time' you will hear. You wil be of course furious and try and complain which is understandable, not flattered like they would like you to be and will quickly refer you to your letter now gathering dust in a draw. The BBC has in the past paid out billions of dollars in payments to settle out of court (quietly) because they have been found out and people have had enough of their underhandedness. I give a talk on this subject regularly at meetings because i feel it needs telling dont you, just beware seek advice keep copyright on everything. If you have been stroked and need any further advice please leave me a message yours Beniton



HOW TO AVOID GETTING RIPPED OFF BY THE BBC?
ANSWER: SIMPLY KEEP YOUR IDEAS TO YOURSELF AND SEEK PROFESSIONAL ADVICE ON COPYRIGHT.?

Latest Messages

Conversations

Subscriptions

Friends

• ex4thhussar
• Frank Mee Researcher 241911

See all Friends

Followers

Beniton has no Followers

See all Followers

Bookmarks

This user has no Bookmarks

See all Bookmarks