Maybe the dog had peed on them & they were getting their own back?
Pretty poor show though.

Oh Dear.

Looks like you've pee'd on Bullseye's campfire yourself!

Still, it was an interesting tale, and we have a relaxed attitude here when it comes historical accuracy....

I look forward to seeing that in the film too

Interesting how you show great disgust at the dogs name being changed then spout this crap. You're out of order.

Putting all this in film perspective:

On the one hand, we have a dog being (slightly) renamed in a film. I don't agree it was necessary or even appropriate, but its hardly the end of the world and I will lose precisely one nanosecond of sleep over it.

On the other hand, we have any number of US-made films where what the Brits & Commonwealth did is pretty well airbrushed out and it was an all-American show. That worries me a whole lot more, since when I TALK to Americans, all too often now they deride anything British and seem to lack any understanding of our role in the war. On several occasions, when I asked US guys how they know that we had little to do with D Day other than being a US staging-point or how they know it was the US who were the means of cracking the enigma code (for example), they cite what they saw in the films... That has implications for our influence (or lack of) in the current world, and is something I AM concerned about.

The first -at worst - appeases the PC brigade.

The second helps to rewrite history, not at all in our favour, in the minds of too many Americans, especially those not old enough to have even second-hand experience or knowledge.

So which issue gets the most forum inches?

Does anybody seriously believe that Barnes Wallace, a quiet studious man. Badly affected by guilt and grief after the death of so many of 617 sqd,that he felt responible for, would be the type of man to pee on the grave of his friends much loved dog ?

Are you dyslexic as well as dysfunctional?

Where did he say Barnes Wallace did?

Perhaps , perhaps his friends father was a air fitter, or a gunner, or any of the other mutlitude of roles that could be bitten/harassed by Gibson's dog. perhaps it was forever getting them in trouble so they hated it.

How the hell would we know?

I don't know what your moral crusade is all about but you've made some pretty blindingly daft statements on here.

Are you Bang in disguise?

Here



It does fairly improbable though that Gibson would urinate on his own dogs grave.

I interpreted that as meaning his mates dad worked with Gibson and Wallace and it was his mates dad and his work mates that hated the dog, not Gibson and Wallace who hated the dog.