History
October 28, 2008, Matthew Good A few people were disconcerted by a recent entry I posted about diplomacy, particularly the historical references that I chose to use. Obviously, we all have varying points of view with regards to history, and such points of view are shaped by how much we have been educated regarding various historical subjects. But more importantly, it is the information with which we expose ourselves to that says a great deal about how our beliefs are shaped.
History has many dimensions, but two of its most important are the truth and the manipulation of the truth for the purposes of perception. It is routinely the latter, not the former, that we are commonly exposed to.
Universal Historic Culpability
War, conquest, exploitation, slavery, torture, theft, deception, religious subjugation – elements of all of these things can be found in the histories of every great society that has existed, some more than others, and certainly in numerous cases more blatantly that others. The progression of morality is the façade that has altered the methodology of such societies throughout history, ultimately limiting their ability to act in a shamelessly transparent fashion. The Romans tortured and enslaved without shame, as did the Greeks and the Egyptians, but all of them, at the height of their influence, were also considered to be the most civilized of societies. That reality has not changed in over two millennia, only the mechanism used to disguise the reliance on those things deemed immoral to achieve various ends.
Every great power has, in its time, been guilty of the worst crimes conceivable on a mass scale. No matter the ideologies on which those societies were based, be they monarchies, dictatorships, or democracies, the reality is that all of them are just as culpable as their forebears. But it is perception and context that skew our understanding of history, often leaning on necessity as justification for those things that we consider despicable though condone because of context. That phenomenon is the usurpation of history itself, no matter what point of view you happen to hold, and thus the manipulation of the truth for the purpose of perception.
Proper Context
The Soviet Union was invaded by Germany on the 22nd of June, 1941. In the four years that followed the Soviets suffered over 10 million military deaths and over 11 million civilian deaths. And yet, in the context of Western history with regards to the Second World War, the role played by the Soviets is significantly downplayed for various reasons – Stalin’s murderous and dictatorial reign, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, and the East-West confrontation that emerged after the war.
Historical truth, on the other hand, tells a very different story, one in which the Eastern front was the deciding factor of the war itself. Be it German miscalculation or Soviet resolve, the reality is that what occurred on the Eastern front played a significant role in the ability of Western powers to successfully invade Western Europe. Without it, the likelihood that Britain would have been invaded is considerable, which would be why the West went to great lengths to aid the Soviets on the Eastern front. As a result, the Soviet Union lost 23 million people. In comparison, the losses suffered by the major Western Allied powers in the European theatre were paltry by comparison.
No nation in the European theatre paid a greater price than the Soviets, and yet theirs was a contribution wholly undermined by anti-Communist sentiment that ultimately led to the mass manipulation of historical truth in classrooms throughout the Western world.
In the decades that followed, the Cold War saw the world’s two primary super powers stoop to the same degenerate levels in various instances, both engaging in situations that would carelessly waste lives. This game, justified by both powers as a battle of ideologies, was anything but. It was, in truth, the desire for global military supremacy and the cementing of those regional influences required to achieve it. Ultimately, the United States won that battle, primarily because its citizens were never exposed to the sort of widespread destitution and corruption that their Soviet counterparts were. Theirs was a just cause, and the dirty work that occurred out of sight and mind was concealed by both the mass belief that freedom was the guiding principle of the struggle coupled with those elements prevalent in Western societies that provide distraction.
If the Cold War proved anything, it’s that democracy is a far easier guise to exploit with regards to the advancement of global military dominance.
Cuba
Cuba is a touchy subject, especially for Americans. While I’ll not argue that Castro’s governance of the country didn’t produce human rights violations, and that such violations are never excusable, proper context must once again be applied.
Prior to the Cuban revolution, Cuba was a nation governed by an American puppet regime that ensured that US economic interests were vehemently protected. In truth, General Fulgencio Batista’s dictatorial rule of the country was much hasher than that of Castro’s, with his guiding principle for the ill treatment of segments of the Cuban population being the protection of the interests of a foreign nation. In any other circumstance, Batista’s removal would have been viewed as just, especially by a populist movement. But given what the United States lost after Batista’s removal, it was seen as criminal.
Like it or not, Fidel Castro did initially attempt to work within the nation’s corrupted democratic framework to invoke change. When that failed, primarily because of Batista’s seizure of power, which was wholly backed by the United States, the method of change, and the ideology behind it, was altered. That alteration, steeped in Marxist-Leninist ideology, ultimately led to the successful populist uprising that drove Batista from power, one which was supported by the majority of Cubans at the time. What’s crucial to remember is that prior to the revolution 75% of Cuba’s best arable land was owned by foreign interests, predominantly American.
There is no questioning the fact that the revolutionary government was flying by the seat if its pants when it took power, nor that it used extreme methods to deal with those that supported Batista. But what should not be overlooked is that it also implemented programs of worth, such as a nationwide literacy program and land reforms that actually raised the standard of living. But Cuba’s post revolutionary future was not one that would be allowed to naturally unfold.
The United States waged nonstop covert warfare against the Castro government for years as a part of the CIA’s Cuba Project, which included everything from psychological to agricultural warfare. Ultimately, using a brigade of US trained Cuban exiles, an invasion of the country was attempted. When it failed, US covert operations continued unabated.
Threats of invasion, coupled with a crippling economic embargo, forced the Cuban revolutionary government into a corner. In that corner was, of course, the Soviets waiting with an available hand. But the question has to be asked – had the revolutionary government been allowed to focus on domestic matters rather than being driven into a state of paranoia and economic disparity, what would Cuba look like today?
We will never know the answer to that question because the United States refused to allow it to happen. In the end, the spirit of the revolution was replaced by paranoia and fear, leading to a dictatorial government rather than one that could have evolved into something else had it the chance to.
The Challenge
If there is one thing that history demands of us it’s vigilance, and to be vigilant we must be prepared to open ourselves up to those things that cause us discomfort and that challenge accepted norms. It is there that the eclipsed side of history is to be found, the completion of its totality, and therefore its whole truth.
This little symbol lets you @ another comment
this post brings to mind…
Don’t start me talking
I could talk all night
My mind goes sleepwalking
While I’m putting the world to right
Called careers information
Have you got yourself an occupation
Oliver’s army is here to stay
Oliver’s army are on their way
And I would rather be anywhere else
But here today
Oliver’s Army- Elvis Costello & The Attractions
vincent, in buffalo
http://basicmagic.com
Indeed it could be argued that the USSR won WII.
In fact over 75% of German forces/war making resources were concentrated on the Eastern front.Its also worth remembering that the supplies etc shipped to the USSR (from the U.S)through the lend-lease program never amounted to more than 5% of all equipment/supplies used by the USSR to defeat the Nazi’s.
Now this in no way downplays or trivializes the sacrifices and struggle of Western forces against the Nazi’s,but it does help to put things into perspective.It definitly should put to bed the notion that the U.S somehow rode to the rescue,saving freedom.
“No nation in the European theatre paid a greater price than the Soviets, and yet theirs was a contribution wholly undermined by anti-Communist sentiment that ultimately led to the mass manipulation of historical truth in classrooms throughout the Western world.”
Great point! Back in the day…aka 1998 we were taught that it was the Western Allies who did the dirty work and won the war, but of course the death tolls of the Soviet during their unrivaled presence at the fall of Berlin were entirely omitted from the lessons. Sometimes I also wonder if Eisenhower’s receiving Germany’s unconditional surrender has something to do with the West’s imbalanced perception of history in that context. Would it have been an European Allies’ Commander would we have learned different?
That closing paragraph is the best summary of why we all need to look far beyond what we learn in history class. I got into a pretty big dispute with my one professor a few weeks ago because I shared my views on history and my opinion on the current economic situation in the world. It ended up getting pretty ugly, and all of it was because I chose to learn more and challenge the nonsense I had learned throughout grade and high-school. Sometimes I think that Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein, and Noam Chomsky are the “real” depressive literature instead of Sartre or Camus. But maybe I’ll have to send that closing paragraph to this professor, it might have the possibility to open one more mind to all the nonsense people accept as fact. As always Matt, your writing is amazing. Please never stop. :)
I’ve always been skeptical - and sometimes dismissive - of anti-Americanism, not that this article is an example of it. This is usually because the people it comes from come across to me as shallow, one-sided and prone more to fashion and selective outrage than to the greater truth. In recent years, I’ve been a lot more open to the idea, and this article is a great example of why I should’ve been in the first place, albeit from the right sources. I just don’t understand the reluctance in so many people to simply see both sides of a story, and why someone could plausibly be in the right to feel a certain way about it. It’s certainly not hard.
honestly guys what a joke, my grandfather was there….this isn’t a distant history distorted by time….the war was fought on Russian soil not American, OF COURSE they suffered more casualties
russia refused to declare war against Japan until 6 days before they surrended, and if it wasn’t for the atomic bomb (invented by the U.S.) we might have lost as many lives as Russia did against Germany, trying to fight Japan
and finally air power won world war 2, American and British air power to be specific…would we have won without Russia? probably not, but I guarantee you would not have won without the U.S.
NC:
While I agree that the outcome of WWII as a whole was indeed a combined effort, I don’t see how the Soviets could commit troops to Japan while they were in the process of losing a quarter of their serving population to Germany.
Also, I don’t personally believe any evil warrants anything as catastrophic as an atomic bomb, but that’s another story for another day.
Whatever… in the end I think what Tony said sums it up pretty well. An ability to see both sides is what’s really important, and I respect you for bringing up your points regardless.
ncguitarplyr’s response is a perfect example of the distortion of historical reality to suit national perceptions. The US, in both theatres, lost just over 400,000 men. That is nowhere near 11 million men. Then, of course, there is the promotion of the long standing US myth that the bomb saved possibly 1 million US lives, something that is a fallacy given the realities of the state of the Japanese population at the time. Air power did indeed play a significant role in the European theatre, but as significant as the turning of the tide at both Stalingrad and Leningrad? It should also not be overlooked that because Germany’s resources were more focused on the Eastern front the allies were able to conduct more successful raids with lower casualty rates over time.
The Russians entered the Pacific theatre after the threat to their own nation was taken care of. That said, while thousands of Britons died in the blitz, the US did nothing beyond lend lease. Not until, that is, Pearl Harbour.
Awesome entry! I love this!! The Soviets participation is largely ignored here in the states. Only when you dig deeper do you realize that while they were known as the Big Three, Stalin held the most power. Roosevelt and Churchill knew it. But we don’t acknowledge it. God forbid we’re taught actual history instead of US post Cold War propaganda. Lies of omission taught to our future. I hope we realize that before our history becomes so distorted we repeat the wrong mistake.
The pool has gotten so muddied that even the government’s responsible for the misinformation eventually believe it to be fact (it came from such a reliable source after all) as evidenced by the Soviet fears in Central America. Operation Mockingbird and the like was so successful that the CIA actually started an accidental feedback loop and began to believe it’s own propaganda, reporting it back to Washington as fact. Much of the carnage that followed was the result. It could be argued that, at some level at least it may have been intentional… heck, it probably was come to think of it. Damn those sneaky f**kers.
“During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union bribed newspaper and wire service reporters overseas to manipulate news coverage. The CIA bribed a newspaper and TV station in Chile to generate stories detrimental to pro-Castro President Salvador Allende, creating such activity that United States agents began picking up false information in Chile that the CIA had planted itself, and reported it back to Washington (a phenomenon called “hugger-mugger” in the covert world).” ~ Alvin A. Snyder, The Washington Post 12/27/95
Many Americans know and appreciate the awesome contributions made by the Soviets. Maybe it’s a generational thing; as History isn’t taught as thoroughly as it once was. Maybe it’s trying to see the same events through modern day eyes.
Ashleigh - Ike received the surrender, as he was the Allied Supreme Commander.
Everyone (especially Japan ) underestimated the USA. When the war ended, we still had aircraft and warships, tanks etc, rolling off the assembly line. There is no one reason why the allies prevailed, but the inherent manufacturing abilities of the americans ranks up there.
In my small town, there is a Monument that lists the names of townspeople who died in service with Canada. They joined before Pearl Harbor. We perhaps do a disservice to all vets from all nations who joined together and gave all they had. The mission was accomplished at great cost. A strict accounting can never be tallied. Don’t forget; there are leaders today who deny the Holocaust ever happened. History is tricky; as new evidence is unveiled, revisionists are eagerly standing by, waiting to cast their interests in a better light. That’s just the way it is. Let’s remember all the vets, they did what they did and the politician’s did what they do.
As a future historian, I find it appalling how many people view WW2 through American-tinted lenses. Historical whitewashing has affected some people just astoundingly. The same is true of the Cold War and the effects it has produced. Cuba, with a suitable diplomatic approach, would be no more dangerous to the US than any other Central American country, potentially less so. And bang-on-the-mark with the Soviet situation - I recall it being substantially more during this period if you include the purges, the Holomodor famine etc, etc.
“Don’t forget; there are leaders today who deny the Holocaust ever happened.”
As for the Holocaust, of course denial is flatly unacceptable, but I find it frustrating that it is can not be discussed with the same transparency as most other topics. We are largely forced to agree with the 6+ million mark on victim count and anyone who attempts to dispute it in the most rational of ways is immediately branded the next Hitler. It is entirely possible, as with any conflict that the toll may have been substantially less. and certain elements of it were fabricated. I recall at least one camp was actually built well after the fall of Hitler. That may be equally be entirely bullshit, I’m not certain on the details but that we are simply unable to discuss in so many cases it is stifling. By the same token it should be reasonable to suggest there were more, for arguments sake, as long as they’re doing their research.
Remember that, as Napoleon put it “history is a set of lies, agreed upon”.
In due time the issue will become more approachable. In the meantime we will have to simply subscribe to the relatively universal view of the Holocaust and the justification it provides for the existence and objectives of Israel - massively dangerous to the security of the region.
“Everyone (especially Japan ) underestimated the USA. When the war ended, we still had aircraft and warships, tanks etc, rolling off the assembly line. There is no one reason why the allies prevailed, but the inherent manufacturing abilities of the americans ranks up there.”
IIRC, the Soviets were actually outproducing the US by August 1945. Remember when Operation Barbarossa broke out it was a devastating blow to the Soviets, who lost the majority of what relatively little military industries they had. Many people continue to underrate the Soviet efforts in manufacturing as well, usually through bias from later inefficiencies of the Soviet economy. It remains that everybody dramatically underestimated the Soviets far more than any other.
Matt:
I have to admit that there is nothing left for me than to agree on every single point - and that says something! ;D
I really appreciate that tendency of yours to go into more lengthy articles as things then get the attention and accurateness they deserve.
Robert:
Which leaders do you mean exactly (denying that the Holocaust ever happened)?
Matthew Good:
“Then, of course, there is the promotion of the long standing US myth that the bomb saved possibly 1 million US lives”
——————————————————————————————-
If you take into consideration, that it was originally planned to throw that bomb on Berlin or Dresden, the above cited remark gets indeed a now correctness, since it was just too dangerous to throw such a horrendeous weapon of mass destruction on a place which was - at the time - full of allied troops. Meanwhile, japanese ground around Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been widely evacuated of allied military.
So ironically, I am personally owing the people of these 2 japanese cities my life as they suffered this hell in my family’s place.
ah.. read “new correctness”
History, sometimes, is determined by a point of view.. for me.. even at the best of times I am embarrassed to be white… because in my white history we are the oppressors, the usurpers and the destroyers… slavery is slavery any way you look at it… the white race has just become less conspicuous through corporations and corporation backed governments, but it is the same fat male white land owner.. he just wears Gucci now… and still does not get his hands dirty… he sends henchmen dressed in green… or with shaven heads… or with a briefcase filled with money… but he does not get his hands dirty…. The war to end all wars, made us better at war and the fatted men have not forgotten that… not forgotten that sip power… it is like it is in our very cells.. worked into our DNA…. the only thing I am glad of is that I am a Canadian white person.. and I am a woman… I can save some face in that.
Seriousbusiness:
“As for the Holocaust, of course denial is flatly unacceptable, but I find it frustrating that it is can not be discussed with the same transparency as most other topics.”
——————————————————————————————
This is going to remain a sore spot in the public Holocaust debate as long as victims or those indirectly affected as well as perpetrators are still alive.
Direct experience always brings a lot of emotion and/or bias into discussions of that issue. There are even publicists or scientists such as Chaim Schneider (as a german example), Daniel Goldhagen or Eli Wiesel (as US-american examples) who downright seek to bring emotion into the discussion of the Holocaust since they consider it the only way of approaching that disaster in the most complete manner. I tend to disagree with that, since - especially on the side of the perpetrators - this is in most cases causing total refusal and thus reaching the exact opposite of what had originally been intended.
Dealing with emotions of such value first of all requires willingness and ability to do so. And in most cases - and that is deriving from my very own experiences with people - 3rd reich generation germans today aren’t ready for that, since many of them had been severely traumatized themselves. Actually there has never been a process of common coping with the trauma of the 2nd world war on the german side. There was a people who had stumbled into 2 bloody wars within only 25 years and during that losing up to 15 Million souls. And all of it had to be buried rapidly under the pile of denazification, democratization and demilitarization.
Good points Matt…
I enjoy these kinds of posts. They seem to spawn great discussions.
“History Shmistory” (one of my favourite Far Side cartoons)
I think the US has hurt Central/South America as much as the USSR hurt its buffer states.
An outlook for the future… I want to think that we will get more
open and empathetic and slowly drop the desire to hold power for reasons of “security” (and other reasons as well).
But who knows what the really long future may hold… evolution and life surprises, but the Fermi Paradox always makes me wonder. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox, especially the section “Civilizations only broadcast detectable radio signals for a
brief period of time”.)
——-
“And then something happened that unleashed the power of our imagination… We learned to talk” - Pink Floyd / Keep Talking / The Division Bell.
As far as the US not joining the war until Pearl Harbor, I look at it this way. In 1939 they we’re isolationists’, and no one had violated their sovereignty (aka attacked or invaded them), can you blame them?
They we’re keeping out of it because no one hurt them. I find it hypocritical for people to give the US a hard time for not joining the second world war until they were attacked when those same people say the US shouldn’t be in Iraq or Afghanistan because those countries never attacked the US.
I’m not saying anyone here is doing that, it’s just something I noticed.
Tuuli22:
“There was a people who had stumbled into 2 bloody wars within only 25 years and during that losing up to 15 Million souls. And all of it had to be buried rapidly under the pile of denazification, democratization and demilitarization.”
Of course! Germany had one heck of a rough century - militaristic imperialism, world war one (in which they fought arguably more totally than any other country, holding up the central powers - their allies were more liabilities than useful), the troubled inter-war period, the Rise of Hitler, WW2, then as a major front in the Cold War they had their country and people split into two unequal halves, quite helpless. These are scars that will not heal for some time.
I’m sensitive to how incredibly horrible and almost unspeakable the holocaust is for some people, I’m only saying we’ve missed opportunities to find out what actually happened and how, instead any effort to downplay the holocaust is immediately put down, which I feel has caused it to it being exaggerated. Anyway enough on the holocaust, it is a terrible, terrible topic.
Look air power wasn’t about killing the most people, study up on “strategic bombing”, America not only produced weapons it stopped German’s ability to produce weapons by destroying they supply pipeline using air power
then we almost singlehandedly beat Japan using the atomic bomb which we invented and used
is the Soviet Union’s contribution in WW2 often overlooked because of the cold war? yeah probably, but don’t make the opposite mistake and begin overlooking America’s contribution because you disagree with our current wars
Admittedly, WWII isn’t my strong point, so please correct me if I’m wrong. It seems pretty easy for people to ignore that the attack on Pearl Harbor (a terrible and disdainful act, I won’t argue) was an attack on a primarily Military target. I believe that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while including Military targets, ended (due to the massive damage from nuclear strikes) as primarily civilian targets. If someone attacks our civilians it’s terrorism, but if we attack theirs it’s collateral damage during war. With that said many countries at the time had no hesitation in using civilian targets.
ncguitarplyr: I think having a firm grasp on the numbers allows us to appreciate the U.S. contribution to WWII; current military activity has nothing to do with it. By the same token, understanding those numbers, and looking at history from various sources allows us to understand the significant contributions of other countries. A bit of advice: if you are ever in a pub in Australia I would not bring up your opinion about the US “singlehandedly” beating Japan.
quoting Robert: “Everyone (especially Japan ) underestimated the USA. When the war ended, we still had aircraft and warships, tanks etc, rolling off the assembly line. There is no one reason why the allies prevailed, but the inherent manufacturing abilities of the americans ranks up there.”
That said, one of the deciding factors in the battle for Stalingrad was the Soviet’s ability to crank out T-34’s at such a rate that they outnumbered the, in many ways, superior Panzers.
An excellent point above, that our perpspectives on WWII, and for that matter, most other historical events depends to a large extent on our home base and therefore the information that we are fed. Most Americans, and probably a decent number of Canadians would not know that in WWII the U.S. suffered 418,500 casualties or .32% of their population, whereas Canada suffered 45,300 casualties, or .40%. Soviets by comparison lost around 14%. Only the Poles lost a higher % of their population to the war - 16% and a significant number of these were of course civilian deaths at the hands of the Nazis.
Please keep these kinds of posts and discussion going as we get nearer to Remembrance Day.
I could not agree with you more. What a precise entry. It is somehow scary how governments neglect proper education. A prime example is Spain. Thirty three years after the death of Franco and history books still omit the forty years of dictatorship, the only reference to it is no more than a brief entry. However on November 20th 2002 Parliament approved a historic resolution, condemning for the fist time Franco’s regime. It is estimated that over 800 unmarked common graves, with approximately 30000 bodies, are scattered around the country. Graves of brutal killings implemented by the regime. First silenced by the Dictatorship and the during the Transition to Democracy by a “pact of silence” then agreed. These facts have until now prevented, to exhume the remains of those killed. The families of those missing demand the right to give a dignified burial to their dead, and wants the public to once and for all talk about it openly. After years of controversy, particularly by right wing supporters that do not want to “talk about it”, but oppose to it, the graves are finally being located and the dead are being exhumed. The motion is called the”Historic Memory”. This is by far the best thing that has happen to Spain since Democracy itself. But still, the history books remain untouched.
PS. My great-grandfather (sadly) was NAZI military. During WWII, certain events came up and our family fled to Canada via UK. While it would be tough to solidify a number on the Holocaust we can certainly agree that it occurred and was horrific. Even so, there are multiple sides to the story. Most people forget that there was a UK and allied (minus the US) supported ban on emigration to Palestine including Israel this ban was supported also by a ban on immigration in Palestine. Ignoring it led to even more civilian displacement/ it caused people to become refugees.
Recent history also shows that Saddam Hussein committed to at least 2 genocides (holocaust attempts) during the time that the US was participating as good friends with him, of course during part of that, the US was in Panama…
There are indeed many parts to every story. I don’t say these things to completely downplay the American view, surely there are many great things, ideas, and people that have come from the US. I just think it’s as big a mistake to assume that North Americans and Israelis can do no wrong, as it is to assume that Jihadists and NAZIs can do no wrong. The jingoist view that we are so very special mixing with our greed, hate, and fear based systems of governance (including corporate governance) just mass produces more greed, hate, and fear. They fuel our propaganda with the idea of freedom but “the price of freedom, is getting steep”. Maybe we should be insisting on complete transparency and more public participation in all governing bodies; then, we should also be truly spending time (despite our increasingly hectic lives) identifying our own real values, including freedom, to make sure that we’re headed in the right direction.
ncguitarplyr:
-Look air power wasn’t about killing the most people, study up on “strategic bombing”, America not only produced weapons it stopped German’s ability to produce weapons by destroying they supply pipeline using air power-
The USAAF wasn’t the only air force around. RAF anyone? The US bombed during the day and the RAF at night. As for “strategic bombing”, it wasn’t nearly as ’strategic’ as perceived. Only 20% of the bombs dropped fell within their intended mark.
-then we almost singlehandedly beat Japan using the atomic bomb which we invented and used-
Used by, yes. Invented solely by Americans.. well, not so much. While the atomic bomb’s research was carried out in many sites across the U.S., research was also carried out within Canada and the UK. Many of the scientists who were recruited to work on research were not American. For example, the first artificially created atomic chain reaction was created in Chicago by a team of scientists with Italy’s own Enrico Fermi heading the group. I’m not trying to state here that the US had nothing to do with the invention but rather that it was a collaboration of people from around the world which helped in its creation.
-is the Soviet Union’s contribution in WW2 often overlooked because of the cold war? yeah probably, but don’t make the opposite mistake and begin overlooking America’s contribution because you disagree with our current wars-
It is unfortunate that you equate Matt’s view of current wars as leading to overlooking America’s contribution in the past. That Ad Hominem fallacy is one, however, that is being used more and more these days.
I’ve heard many a citizen of the US state that they believe that their country was the main (and sometimes only) reason why WWII was won. Yes, the US played a part. Yes, they played a big part. Did they do it all on their own? No.
If I can just throw out one more caution. Studying the different perspectives of this event is indeed important for a more rounded understanding of what happened. I admit that until a few years ago I did not understand (and maybe I still don’t) the significance or extent of the impact of the war on the Philipine people. Similarly, I was somewhat clueless that U.S. forces fought the Japanese on U.S. soil during WWII - in Alaska.
I think it would be a mistake for us to get too caught up in the numbers; who lost more soldiers, who lost more civilians, who spent more money or dropped more bombs. I supposed those hard numbers are important, but I think we do a disservice to the contributions that people in various armed forces made, and to the horrors suffered by civilians, if we start arguing among ourselves about who fought harder, who contributed more, etc. I think we’d be missing the point if we continued down this path.
ncguitarplyr:
“America not only produced weapons it stopped German’s ability to produce weapons by destroying they supply pipeline using air power”
—————————————————————————————-
I’d vehemently doubt that. The exact opposite is the case: german military supplies went east until the empire officially surrendered. The bombardment was mainly directed towards industrial and military infrastructure of urban agglomerations, accompanied by barbarous “shock and awe”-strategies against civilian infrastructure. They didn’t even bomb Auschwitz or Treblinka which could have saved some hundred thousend lives.
The war itsself wasn’t won in the air, it was won on the ground thousends of kilometers away from Germany in the east, the battle of Berlin marking the official end point of the 3rd Reich.
I honestly believe that the American version of WWII history is more widely seen and accepted because in post WWII the US was a global leader in mainstream media. TV and movies. Hollywood made countless WWII movies about the exploits and glorification of the US during WWII. No one ever talks about how much countries like Canada or Australia contributed. No one ever mentions how Canada’s raid on Dieppe was the blueprint to the D-day invasions or how much Canada influenced successful tactics during both world wars. (aka counter battery fire during WWI, urban warfare during WWII) Or how the Germans didn’t like fighting the Canadians because they never followed an SOP, always thought outside the box.
From wiki:
“Soldiers of the Canadian Army fought in the Battle of Hong Kong in 1941 against the Japanese and in the Dieppe Raid of 1942. Canadian troops participated in the North African campaign. Early in the war, Japanese troops invaded Alaska. Canadian air force planes flew anti-submarine patrols against the Japanese while on land, Canadian troops fought side by side with American troops against the Japanese. Eventually, the Japanese were repulsed. After the African campaign, Canadian soldiers went ashore in 1943 in the Allied invasions of Sicily and mainland Italy, then fought through the long Italian Campaign. Many of the very first Allied soldiers to enter Rome were Canadian commandos in the Devil’s Brigade. The Canadians helped greatly throughout the campaign, capturing the town of Ortona and playing a vital role in breaking the Gothic Line.
One of the most important Canadian contributions was the Battle of the Scheldt. The Battle of the Scheldt involved the II Canadian Corps.
The British had liberated Antwerp, but that city’s port could not be used until the Germans were driven from the heavily fortified Scheldt estuary. In several weeks of heavy fighting in the fall of 1944, the Canadians succeeded in defeating the Germans in this region. The Canadians then turned east and played a central role in the liberation of the Netherlands.”
Just to name a few contributions, Important? yes.
An observation from one who (for lack of knowledge) cannot contribute to this lively and interesting discussion: Thank you to MG and the other articulate subject-matter experts who are giving us a crash university-level lesson on world and military history. And kudos for the open dialogue on opposing views. These longer entries are amazingly enriching!
Brian, I’d say you hit the nail on the head with your last comment. No one individual nation-state can claim that they won World War II. The war effort was a collaborative one, pure and simple. No matter the size of the contribution made by any one party it was the whole effort of the Allies that brought an end to that war. Those who get caught up in trying to assert that their nation-state was *the* factor that brought an end to the war have fallen victim to an inflated sense of self-importance (something of a great social-ill these days). Ultimately such behaviour is little more then a petty pissing contest, which in truth is a disgrace to the memories of those who lived, fought and died in the conflict.
It is easy to dismiss the contributions of some which are less glamorous then others. However, at the end of the day the men and women who pack the parachutes are as important as the ones wearing them when jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.
Wow! Super great conversation on this thread. It’s been awhile since I sat down and read something that provided a multitude of perspectives.
Ivan - Awesome reference to “Keep Talking,” by Pink Floyd. Exactly how I perceive that song as well.
I think as long as there is always one super power influencing the globe, its presence alone will always undermined the contribution of other nations.
“then we almost singlehandedly beat Japan using the atomic bomb which we invented and used”
Wow…”we”….? Really, “we”?
You were there? What was it like?
This conversation about the importance of Air superiority, strategic or tactical, is inflated too.
Where’s the citation for this? Not that it matters, because it’s wrong.
Lastly I do believe it’s the hammer and sickle being waved over the Reichstag and not the 48 star spangled banner in that very famous photo following the Strategic Offensive in Berlin.
And why do the experts continue to refer to the ARMY AIR CORPS as the USAF? khaixiii?
All air assets were branched off the Army. And yes it makes a difference. Especially to those who served.
ncguitarplyr:
“then we almost singlehandedly beat Japan using the atomic bomb which we invented and used
is the Soviet Union’s contribution in WW2 often overlooked because of the cold war? yeah probably, but don’t make the opposite mistake and begin overlooking America’s contribution because you disagree with our current wars”
Spoken like a true American. To be fair, a good part of my family live in New York and New Jersey, but these statements follow that stereotype we non-Americans know and love.
I don’t know what would have happened with Japan had the two A-bombs not been used, but I don’t care. This act of using such weaponry has plagued our civilization ever since, and will for years to come. I can only pray they will disappear in time. Einstein (who himself played a large role in the development of the technology) extensively warned of the repercussions of creating such a device. He himself did not find use in his own discovery. The use of such a terrible and evil device was America’s biggest mistake.
In reference to America’s contribution to WWII, no one doubts their contribution. The problem is the level of importance given to their contribution in comparison to other countries. Russia loses 23 million, the United States loses 400,000. hmmm. Just a subtle difference, really…
Nobody makes movies about any other countries exept the United States (well, Hollywood movies, anyway), so naturally, the vast majority of people believe that the United States played the biggest role, when even Canada had an equal if not larger role than the U.S. As Matt said, it is all having to do with history being skewed for most people, and it is exploited and bent to serve political purposes.
And I’m sure the war would have ended regardless of what happened to Japan. Hitler was nuts at that point and running everything into the ground, there was no communication from the Reich headquarters, and the Soviets had seized Berlin, among other things. The Germans had lost by that point anyway. So the level of importance given to the A-bombs being dropped on Japan is much much too high. The A-bomb in Hiroshima and then Nagasaki did not end World War II.
Size:
—
They were keeping out of it because no one hurt them. I find it hypocritical for people to give the US a hard time for not joining the second world war until they were attacked when those same people say the US shouldn’t be in Iraq or Afghanistan because those countries never attacked the US.
—
Slight difference being that with Afghanistan and Iraq, neither of those countries were attacking American allies either. With WWII, US allies were being attacked as well, and German had a history (WWI) of attacking US ships (Lusitania).
the history of WW2 according to this thread:
1. The U.S. came into the war too late
2. Sped up the war but overall didn’t do anything or affect the outcome
3. Invented the atomic bomb to kill civilians
4. Didn’t invent the atomic bomb
5. The war was over before we dropped the atomic bomb
6. Japan was a minor player and was irrelevant anyway
7. Pearl Harbor was a minor attack
8. Air power was irrelevant and thefew bombs that hit their targets were all British bombs mostly anyway
8. The U.S. then used movies and tv to rewrite history to paint itself the hero
you guys should write a book about this, I’m sure historians would be shocked to learn the truth
yeah, because i said it was irrelevant, those were my words.
you’re a twit.
placing words in other people’s comments for them.
i said the importance placed on air superiority, of any kind, was inflated not irrelevant.
what are you, 14? is this seriously how you carry on a conversation about military history? with sweeping generalizations and no citation to points that you emphatically state with certainty?
anyone with a schmick of military studies under their belt knows that air parity or superiority, especially from fixed wing aircraft - american, british, canadian or othewise - plays little to no role in actually holding ground and consolidation on it. which was critical to the success of the allied campaign in europe.
any military studies or history class at westpoint will teach this somewhere on day one.
more to the point a fucking cub scout can figure that out.
as for the employment of the Abomb and it’s ability to sue for peace with japan, there were a number of naval battles, fought by american fleets, that had occurred prior to that, that had more than set the conditions for a similar endstate.
the very fact that you state “WE” when referring to american soldiers conducting these operations, and then a comment like that shows how you base decisions on emotion and dismiss fact and reason.
it’s not an anti-american thread, so quit flinging shit. it’s a thread and post about placing history into context and the author clearly went to lengths to the same when drawing upon the soviet side of matters.
Oh and Dusko Popov more than proves that Pearl Harbor was preventable, until Hoover shut him down. Worse than that the States had to learn that tragic lesson of ignoring intelligence again and again on Sept 11 2001 and the bumblings of the CIA leading to the lack of findings of WMDs in Iraq.
ncguitarplyr: I’m glad you agree, according to your list, not your other bullshit comments. By the sounds of it, you don’t know much about history at all. For one, the American’s only invented a way to put Einstein’s technology together, they didn’t invent the technology itself. Second, go read something on WWII, especially near the end, because I don’t think the Americans did quite as much to end the war as you think they did. Considering how many troops the Nazis had lost and the vast amount of space these few troops that were left occupied, there was no chance of the Nazis to maintain their hold. So, the war in Europe was effectively over (a great deal of this due to the Soviet’s campaigns) and all was left were the Japanese in the Pacific, which Patrick mentioned, was mostly fought by the navy. If for one second believe the A-bomb was a good thing, God help us all.
Wow! Great post! I’m with “Mad”.
Thanks for the lesson!
” was mostly fought by the navy. ”
AAaaaaarrrrRRRRRgggGGGGGGG!
That was a fantastic read. The empahsis of the last paragr
What a ride. WWII, a terrible and fascinating, extremely complex situation. Again I can’t at all claim it to be my strong point in history. I’d challenge anyone who thinks that they understand everything about it to re-examine. Perhaps all we can do is learn from it, and when our governments behave in a way that demonstrates their goal of World domination and aggression towards the week we need to be vigilant in awareness and oppose it at the root. Again I’ll preach letting go of our egos a little,one person can get sucked in by NAZI propaganda and later by less fascist/ democratic capitalist extremes, I assure you anyone can get sucked in by their own propaganda. If you have the courage for it you’ll realize how many times this has happened to you, and that we are all manipulated (at least to some extent) by wealthy extremists, whether they be economic, political, religious, ethnic, or social class elitists. It’s just a matter of using what we already believe, want, hate or fear - whatever points the finger for our problems away from ourselves… (we tend to believe those that tell us what we want to believe).
Regarding the west, China was supported against Japan in turns by various colonists including Germany, then Soviets, then the US (via trade embargoes 1st, devastating Japanese oil supplies, and then by Military action post-pearl harbor), and again by Soviets once Europe was secure (along with the US). Britain, Australia (embargoes against sales of Iron to Japan etc.) and other countries were represented, albeit on smaller scales at times, throughout the conflicts. The divided and weakened Chinese were the ones that really fought Japan the longest (primarily in defense). While Japan was much more stable and strong, Chinese resistance did reduce their resources somewhat. Of course, had the US had kept more neutrality on the issue by refusing to sell to either of these “combative belligerents” (as they called them in their neutrality statements), Japan wouldn’t have been as powerful to begin with. I’m not accusing the US here, hind-sight is 20:20 after all. Be mindful that in addition to resources Japan’s interest in China had more to do with protection from Soviets than protection from the US and that their actions against the US was to further that goal. As for soviet support, it was obviously significant enough that China is now communist rather than Democratic, that probably speaks for itself.
NC
1. The U.S. came into the war too late
- They were making huge, needed post WWI, profits from Japan in Oil, steel etc. and were set on international military neutrality. Of course they came in late, but not without reason.
2. Sped up the war but overall didn’t do anything or affect the outcome
- Everyone affected the outcome, incl. the US. Everyone sped up the outcome, that was the goal, world domination is unrealistic/ biting off more than anyone can chew, it’s doomed from the start, speeding up the outcome may have saved lives, not sure whether using the bomb saved more than it took but that’s purely speculative.
3. Invented the atomic bomb to kill civilians
- I didn’t say that the intent was to kill civilians, it’s simply the effect of these weapons. Japan was quite guilty of hitting many civilian targets, again mostly in China. I just don’t support any use of nuclear weapons. This type of maneuver can scare people into submission. It doesn’t do much to make them want to help you take down their tyrannical government when they feel like they have to protect themselves from you…
4. Didn’t invent the atomic bomb
- Not single-handedly no. As pointed out earlier, they put the parts together. If I hated the US I’d say yes, they are the only monsters capable of creating this sort of weapon. (To date, which countries are guilty of having used them again?) They say NAZIs also were working to develop nukes though, and they would have used them (mind you, they say that about Iran now, while ignoring Israel’s possession thereof). Either way, US beat them to it.
5. The war was over before we dropped the atomic bomb
- It was getting there. Finishing on the European front, countries were beginning to be able to put more resources into handling Japan, but not over. Again I don’t recall anyone saying that, they may have though.
6. Japan was a minor player and was irrelevant anyway
- Certainly not, they absolutely were bent on nationalist world domination. People in the US, while they did participate in Europe, tend to focus mostly on Japan as the primary aggressor in the war, people in other countries tend to focus on Germany and Italy, so there is some confusion about the war and the US on a more global viewpoint.
Side-tracking a moment, who talks about the devastating effects on the Middle East and Africa caused by both sides, at a time when they were already having trouble because of the actions of rich white guys mixed with their own ethnicity, religious, and politically charged troubles? I mean, while issues in those areas have a longer history, we’re dealing with some of those effects in the now and they should really be noticed in order to be learned from. In addition, I believe only one person mentioned the remaining Asian Pacific (referring to Philippines), participation on both sides by South Asian and South-east Asians was key, regarding Japan and China at very least, and left definite effects on them. It seems that as they don’t have quite the capital (or the lasting devastation of nuclear weapons) that other countries did, they tend to get left as footnotes in our history books.
7. Pearl Harbor was a minor attack
- Compared to Japan’s attacks on China maybe. Compared with German attacks in Europe and their middle-eastern incursions along with Italian attacks in the Mediterranean and Africa combined, maybe. All-in-all though it was a solid act of aggression though. Japan had also hit some American boats while playing nice on a superficial level meanwhile the US was also trying to maintain some diplomacy (at least superficially again while still threatening embargoes etc. mind you.)
8. Air power was irrelevant and thefew bombs that hit their targets were all British bombs mostly anyway
- I don’t think anyone said they were irrelevant, or that the RAF was much more successful, but it maybe was implied. At the time technology wasn’t exactly at it’s peak and air-strikes from all sides were not the best at times. Navy, Air, and Army really work together as a whole. Just as the Allied forces needed to and did.
8. The U.S. then used movies and tv to rewrite history to paint itself the hero
- Maybe not to re-write but certainly to direct attention in a way to hype up jingoistic levels of patriotism. One thing that the powers that be learned best from WWII was the amazing effectiveness of Propaganda, particularly when coupled with radio and eventually TV and Film. The US and rich corporate giants have been very keen on leading the way in that arena. So much so that, the dumbing down of our TV watching masses has lead us to a point where some of us are unable to count past 8 or spell the word “try”. I’m half kidding/ just giving NC a lighthearted hard-time about the typos, but on some level it’s true.
Anti-American sentiments do come up often, this probably has much to do with post-WWII/ current events from a global perspective. We should all try to see ourselves from the perspective of others and as I said to begin with, oppose our negative actions at the root. Meanwhile, support and encourage good actions (if you’re sure of what those are). Sadly, I guess there was too much going on at the time to avoid violence and the world paid the price, we were all needed. Nobody really says that the US did nothing, it’s just ridiculous to take credit for the whole thing though. People outside of the US all too often feel like American’s are saying that our efforts were useless when they hype the US up so much. If the US was alone against the Axis at the time, there are 2 possibilities, either A) the US would no longer exist independently but rather be under slavery (along with most other nations), to either NAZIs or Japanese nationalist extremes, or B) They would have nuked the hell out of everybody, killed off half (or more including environmental factors etc.) of the planet, and become the world dominating dictators instead.
Obviously, and understandably emotions about WWII are still strong (this is good, it shows we’re still concerned). As Remembrance day approaches it’s good to remember but don’t do it in vain. Let’s not ignore things until they’re past the boiling point (brings us back to talking and diplomacy), let’s learn from history and try to get a better handle on what to support and what not to and make our views known.
btw, Didn’t Matt say something about Cuba, the cold war, and older history relating “civility” to conquest and violence? Those are important things to think on as well.
Man I’m tired, and apparently a long-winded airbag for someone who really knows so little… sorry to drag that out so much.
ncguitarplyr:
you seem to constantly refuse to deal with the matter in an unagitated, prosaic way. One gets the impression that you aren’t even interested in the actual chronology of events in WWII but only in the picture that is drawn of the US regarding its role in that war. Isn’t that a bit little regarding the actual dimension of that war?
You know what? It’s not even exactly your fault. I attended school in the USA for some time, I sat in a US-american history class. And what I heard there about WWII and the US american role in it actually made my hair stand on end.
But what you and only you are in fact responsible for is - as an adult - to always question what you are told about things, to always be doubtful and educate yourself on as much levels possible.
ncguitarplyr:
“2. Sped up the war but overall didn’t do anything or affect the outcome”
————————————————————————————-
Nobody said that. It was argued that the US didn’t play most essential role to end the war. That does not mean that they hadn’t done anything to it.
“3. Invented the atomic bomb to kill civilians”
————————————————————————————-
Sorry? This weapon primarily does kill civilians. So what?
“4. Didn’t invent the atomic bomb”
————————————————————————————-
Which is at least in part true, since Edward Teller was Hungarian and Julius Robert Oppenheimer was raised in a german family that had emigrated to the US. Nonetheless it is of course true that the first atomic bomb was developped on american terrain - but in my mind that isn’t exactly something I would be very proud of and that’s just how Oppenheimer himself felt after he had seen what (t)his weapon had done to so many people.
“5. The war was over before we dropped the atomic bomb”
According to so many american voices the american mission in WWII was about “to free the european continent from the nazi-terror”. If you take that as a basis, then it is of course FACT, that the war officially ended on May 8th 1945.
It is also consensus that Japan at the time of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been negotiating over total surrender.
“6. Japan was a minor player and was irrelevant anyway”
————————————————————————————-
Nobody said that, sorry.
“7. Pearl Harbor was a minor attack”
————————————————————————————-
Regarding the degree of distruction and the loss of lives compared to other events such as Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Stalingrad, Warsaw, the japanese massacres in China, Hamburg or Dresden - it was, indeed.
“8. Air power was irrelevant and thefew bombs that hit their targets were all British bombs mostly anyway”
————————————————————————————-
That’s just ridiculous and childish, sorry. Could you please touch the ground of fact in that discussion? Thanks.
Herm - I didn’t say that the the navy fought most of the japanese in the pacific - I echo’s Rob’s cringe at that misinterpretation.
It is well documented of british and aussie and aanuck army elements did a fair bit of infighting on the islands and mainland. Oh and a few detachements of yanks fought there too…i think.
I said that the battles the navy had one had more than set the conditions for a similar endstate as the atomic bomb.
The naval blockade set up would have easily starved the Japanese into submission.
And before the erections for “Little Boy” start tearing me apart I will save you the trouble that my stance on Japan’s supposed bloody reception being prepared for the allies on Honshu will never be confirmed and there is no way of saying that Truman wouldn’t have found a different way of fighting such forces other than the bomb.
Also, the Alliance between the Western powers and the Soviets was growing tenuous after the fall of Germany; Truman, an unknown quantity to the Soviets, had to show he was unafraid to use a weapon of mass destruction, especially one that only the United States possessed at that time.
What is not certain is the extent that the Japanese could have responded to the Allied unconditional surrender calls of August 6 and 7, 1945. The damage by conventional bombing to the transportation and communication network prevented the Japanese government from fully understanding what had happened in Hiroshima.
Again this is only through study. I wasn’t there. Unlike NCguitarplay, whose username like his argument, is a complete fail. As she refers to the US military as “we”, therein taking credit for THEIR accomplishments and sacrifices.
It’s not OT and perhaps carpetbombing all (true born and [inter]bred) southerners but NCgtrplayer reminds me of the types I’d meet while living five years in Atlanta which, granted, is pretty much an oasis of people from all over with 33% of the “the south will rise again” racist and biblically fanatical nutjobs, some who honestly believe Jesus came from and/or favors the US and all it’s actions and will flip out if you suggest otherwise. Talk about brainwashing, a lot of taught hate and smallminded think there in the US southeast.
Anyways when I got a job at a not-so small soda company based in Atlanta who gave large quantities of money worldwide to regimes who had histories of torture and abuse with their money to keep their rival Pepsi out and have exclusionary sales in third world places (and would advertise in the poorest of poor areas that a family should buy their product over, say, an actual meal, as “Coke gives life” or some bullshit), in my first two weeks I was visited in my office by your typical southerner with skeptical and/or even downright menacing glances as my “accent” [sic] (I properly pronounced vowels and didn’t draw them out, which makes you sound like a hick) and would find random “Take JehHEEEzzzussss as your personal savior” literature on my desk, it was lovely. An aside being I had this theory southerners were all bible thumping redneck lazy lout losers but I decided to go in with a clear concept and hoped to be proven wrong, I wasn’t, and that’s why most companies in Atlanta hire people from the Northeast and west and other countries, they actually wanted to get work done.
But I digress, the meat of it is before even getting my first paycheck this good ol’ boy comes in and says “you know when yer kin invaded during the war of no’orthern A’ggression it weren’t about no slaves.” By this time I had already heard this without asking for the discussion and realized it’s a disingenuous strawman, it certainly was partly about slaves, but that’d be another aside. I flipped out and said “look, I’m second generation Russian and my family wasn’t even IN this country back 150 years ago, Germany can get over tearing a down a wall but you redneck hicks can’t get over a war 150 years ago where you got your asses kicked… GET OVER IT!” So I didn’t make friends but I did get him fired (huzzah) but it was for that, the religious shit, and other things like he didn’t work. Point being this is how southerners think, or don’t rather, like NCgtrplayer, they think everyone from the Northeast was responsible for the US’s civil war, even those of us like me who, my grandparents didn’t even live in this country in 1853(ish) and weren’t here until the 1900s, and he couldn’t wrap his head around this. They have an even more narrow view of the US’s part in wars because they are taught with such a narrow view of the world, taught hate, taught USA is #1, and that whatever god, and theirs is a white-loving vengeful one, favors only them. And sadly the southern ideals (or lackthereof) have sleazed their way into the US politic system so that misguided asshats like NCgtrplayer are spreading their ignorant delusion in positions of power. We should all be very scared.
The majority of southerners aren’t about learning or openness or foregiveness (the whole “south will rise again), these people are about sublimated truths, using only one tawdry hate-filled book as their only reference (the bible), they truly believe the second coming will happen in their lifetimes so act recklessly, and while waiting for that to happen, they’re doing their own second coming of colonialism with the US to rape the world of it’s resources for the US’s gain, yes, these are your quintessential Republicans and who are trying to run and take over the GOP. Be afraid, be very afraid.
man you guys are just plain ridiculous you can’t take one person disagreeing with you before you start calling them names and making america stereotypes out of them
when i saw we its because I am a Lt in the United State Air Force
when you say “any amount of military training would teach you that” is something just plain ridiculous to say to someone who has been through extensive military training, and I doubt anyone else here has
as for calling me a southern bible beating moron I’m an atheist (you moron)
and as for calling me a republican I was an officer in the college democrats (yes I went to college and studied business) and have never voted for a republican
you are all patting yourselves on the back for being oh so smart and dismissing history as just a buncha garbage and that you know better because you read one statistic and that’s fine, but I take great offense at people minimizing America’s contribution and questioning our motives
and I’m done arguing, you have your opinions and I have mine
“and I’m done arguing”
Well, thank god for that.
I’d say the US Air Force is why NCguitarplyr has the spun version of the US single-handledly winning the war and saving the world but I’ve an ex who was also in the US Air Force stationed in Kuwait and, as part of US Intelligence, said off the record that Iraq did NOT in fact have any WMD as Bush alleged and was lying about, which is sadly going to be forgotten by history and, to her dismay after the invasion, there were many soldiers, probably like NCguitarplyr, who equated Iraq with 9/11. So it’s easily to be led, but not everyone in the military is like NCguitarplyr with that “U-S-A, U-S-A…” in your face BS mentality.
As someone else upthread mentioned too, NOT all US citizens are like this with the whole “US safekeeps the world and has won all wars” [cough Korea, Vietnam, et. al.] crap and plays world cop where it needs to, i.e. where it has great financial interests, modern day colonialism (lost on NCguitarplyr) like how they invaded Iraq on flimsy evidence yet let massive genocides continue in parts of Africa, picking and choosing clearly which governments they’ll prop up.
ncguitarplyr: I think the basis for the disagreement here, at least as far as what I think and what you think goes, is not the “minimizing” of America’s contribution and questionning of US motives. Quite the contrary; my family history pretty much dictates that I have a firm grasp on US involvement - my step Dad is former US Army, VMI grad, and currently a be-spectacled old military historian. I personally don’t “minimize” anyone’s or an country’s contributions - but to me it is not a contest, and as I said way up this page, I am not going to get into a pissing match about quantifying who did more, died more, spent more money, etc. etc. As an example of why - I’ll use Pearl Harbour. Somebody talked about it being an insignificant attack. Insignificant how? Compared to some other other attacks in the European and Asian “theatres” it may have been less significant in terms of sheer military hardware, destruction and loss of life, but in the context of America’s involvement in the war and the impact of the attack being carried out on US soil- well it was significant - ask some of the relatives of the boys still down there in the Arizona.
How do we dare to try and compare these events? Do we have the right? Does anyone? How does one justify comparing the Bataan Death March with the experience of Japanese soldiers on Suribachi or for that matter the experiences of civilians on Saipan? What’s the point? Is there a prize for being in first place? Our job is to remember and teach our children what happened and to try and keep it from happening again - we are not doing a great job of that by the way. Let’s focus on that.
“when you say “any amount of military training would teach you that” is something just plain ridiculous to say to someone who has been through extensive military training, and I doubt anyone else here has”
Well I’ve done a fair share of military training. I think there are some others here who have as well.
Hey Lt, I’m a Captain of 12 years in the Royal Canadian Artillery.
So I guess I’ll be expecting a “Sir” from you the next time you address me? I doubt it though.
I have a tour in Afghanistan and Bosnia. I graduated from the Royal Military College in ‘01 and have buddies in the all branches of the US forces.
They’d agree with me.
So I’ll flip you for the experience game.
You got some serious Daddy issues kid.
You feel because people disagree with you that they all are wrong. Maybe you’re wrong?
I’m not partisan to country in any of my above comments. You just made an asinine comment the relevance of air power, and I called you to task.
You’re out of your element, so trust me I don’t pat myself on the back for calling you out on that any more than I would for beating a handicapped paraplegic in a foot race.
You remind me of the parent on the parade square who has the one kid out of step and then says all the other marchers are off cadence.
Who minimized America’s contributions. again read the post junior. the author stresses placing america’s contributions into context as well as the soviets.
You’re emotionally tied to the conclusion of your argument that you don’t even read the overwhelming empirical evidence placed before you.
Frankly, you should feel quite honoured for garnering so much attention. I guess the other village idiots took the day off.
AIM HIGH AIR FORCE!
Oh and I guess that would explain your bias to the Air Corps in WW2…but again, they were part of the Army back then so even still you don’t get to say “we”.
I don’t take credit for my Regiment’s contributions in those wars, so that is plain wrong that you would for something you weren’t around for, and you should be ashamed for your commission for being so arrogant to do so.
Who’s your wing commander and does he drink heavily. I just can’t figure how did you make it past basic?
Brian: “Our job is to remember and teach our children what happened and to try and keep it from happening again - we are not doing a great job of that by the way. Let’s focus on that.”
Well said.
I wonder how many U.S. citizens use the fact that they come from immigrant families to disassociate themselves from “The American” status? Trust me, Imagewrangler, if your grandparents came to the States at the turn of the century, you’re an American with Russian roots and not a second generation Russian.
I have to completely agree with Brian - any human loss is tragic, thinking of it in terms of percentages or numbers should be simply unacceptable. Back home, in Saint Petersburg, one of my favorite war monuments spans across the road leading into the city where the troop were finally able to fully break the Seige. At least 650 000 people died because they refused to have their city occupied. At one point the ration was 125 g. of bread per person per day. That monument means the world to me - it stands in memory of those who died and as a symbol of hope for change.
I don’t think that our job is to teach our children what happened but to tell them what we remember, to share with them what we know, and to inspire them to learn more.
p.s. I think we should let Lt. ncguitarplyr lead the discussion into Socratic dialogue the next time around. Those points were interesting.
Power said to the world,
“You are mine.”
The world kept it prisoner on her throne.
Love said to the world, “I am thine.”
The world gave it the freedom of her house.
Tagore, Stray Birds
“Man does not reveal himself in his history, he struggles up
through it” - I guess this one by Rabindranath Tagore is more to the point
Vika, I’m not clear on whether you’ve read the post in it’s entirety. Which of NC’s points are you referring to? Socrates/ NC in this case, stated the 9, 8 points, as a means of arguing against them and pointing to what NC viewed as the inaccurate sentiments of everyone on here, other than NC of course. Which in some cases may have been somewhat valid but from a seemingly skewed viewpoint. Don’t you feel like the idea that the Americans single-handedly won the war with a-bombs downplays the importance of Russia and the Soviet Union in general?
I’m not looking to argue with you, or to get you arguing with NC, I just want to make sure I understand what you’re saying.
PS. “…inspire them to learn more.” Excellent and progressive point.
First… Brian? Hammer… Nail… Head. Can’t say that enough about both of your comments.
Also, thank you Patrick for noting the misguided faith in air power. While the boys and girls in the skies certainly play an important part in any combat operation, it is ultimately the boots on the ground that will determine if victory is achieved. One really only needs to look at the Soviet (and dare I say NATO and US) losses in Afghanistan to see the absolute truth of that.
Ya, calling out Pat wasn’t the best of ideas. I really wish Dan R was around to comment. Now that would be interesting.
MooseCracker,
I guess it wasn’t clear - I was trying to be somewhat sarcastic. Socratic dialogue is drawing conclusion by asking questions and engaging in a fruitful discussion (I ‘m sure you are aware of that since you are on this blog). I found ncguitarplrs “history of WWII” (those are the points that I refer to) summary quite interesting, as conclusions drawn out of other people’s comments were, shall I say, blunt?
You may have figured out that I am Russian. Yes, Soviet involvement is downplayed, severely. I think Robert R mentioned in previous post that older generations are aware of the extent of Soviet involvement, may be it is so. I know that if soldiers fight on the same ground, there is a strong sense of camaraderie, no matter what your language.
My question is - what would have happened if France and Britain were to ally with Soviet Union, as offered before the war broke out? Stalin was ready to send troops to the German border were they to invade. But they were “suspicious” So, instead, a non-aggression pact was signed between Soviet Union and Germany. Yes, they decided to split some countries amongst themselves - nothing wrong with that, just look what England and U.S. did right after the war. Soviet union entered the war later, as Hitler, after he swiftly ravaged all of Eastern Europe (with silent blessing of his western friends who offered little assistance) and was getting Western front under control got cocky and decided to attack Russia. What if he had left Russia alone, kept up his end of the bargain and just worked on Europe? I doubt that U.S. would have gotten involved - navy and air force would not have sufficed.
In conclusion, the west has always been much better in propaganda. The banner of Democracy is also a much better cover for mass control, because you are led to believe that it is good for you. We stand for change. I ask, what change?