posted
Hmmm...I'd hope not. That's like saying that all you need to know about WWII can be learned by watching Pearl Harbor and Saving Private Ryan.
...and even if that was how you viewed the war in general, it'd still be more accurate than some of the hollywood schlock WWII movies from the 50's (John Wayne nonsense in particular). Sure made the kiddies gung-ho to prove themselves in war though. ...and they got plenty of chances in the 50's and 60's.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
So was it not as bad for the America AND Britain to bomb German cities? Do you realize that the USAAF of WW2 lost more men in four years over Europe than ALL US forces lost in Vietnam? The reason for the bombings of cities in WW2 was to stop PRODUCTION of war material. Without the civilian turning out tanks, planes, and munitions the enemy will lose its fighting ability.
Allied forces were looking at shifting a massive amount of men from one theatre of operations to another half way around the world to fight yet another enemy. Morale would have been in the toilet not to mention the logistic nightmare. There were elements at the top of the Japanese heirarchy that would have willingly fought to the death...for themselves and their entire nation. Had it been America facing such a threat, or Britain for that matter, would we have reacted any different?
You will never find me belittling the efforts of Brits, Aussies, Canucks, or anyone. If you want to see where WW2 was at its worst and who endured the worst of it, read about RUSSIA. Leningrad, Kursk (the largest tank battle of WW2) The Russians suffered far more than either Britain and America. But when do we see THEIR stories?
-------------------- I am the Anti-Abaddon. I build models at a scale of 2500/1
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Well....it's not as if Stalin would recognise the strains his men had to endure or his alliance with Hitler or the bad decisions his commanders occasionally made, the starvation of the troops in winter, or the ammo shortages, having to "borrow" american made planes, or the crazy schemes and fortune telling of his closest advisors or hiding Hitler's remains to piss off the Allies ....so many stories went untold.
It was hard to tell war stories that'd get you shot back in Soviet Ruussia under Stalin.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote: Man, what are you talking about? is that really how you view the US?
Yes. The sheer quantity of crap that is pumped over here, especially from Hollywood has certainly contributed to this- Pearl Harbor, U-571, Saving Private Ryan, etc, etc. Then there's the number of Americans, both in the UK and in America who have made comments about the UK being effectively irrelevant to the war effort. The constant bleating from you politicians about how we (and the Europeans) should do whatever the US tells them because 'we won the war.' Yes, the US was vital in the war effort and in all liklihood we would have ended up with a Nazi or Soviet Europe (neither terribly attractive propositions) without US aid but it just gets a bit much. I suppose I should've learned to live with it by now.
quote: I've certainly never seen any textbook refer to WWII as running only during US involvment
That's a new thing; there was an article in the Times about their introduction. I've read US books that belittle British and Imperial contributions.
quote: if anyone's countries have their participation downplayed it's Australlia and Canada
Not over here. They came when we asked for help, in both wars; without them, we would've been screwed, especially in 1940. the Poles and Czechs, too.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote: I've certainly never seen any textbook refer to WWII as running only during US involvment
That's a new thing; there was an article in the Times about their introduction. I've read US books that belittle British and Imperial contributions.
Almost every American publication I've ever seen lists the dates of World War II as 1941-1945, whereas Europe always lists it as 1939-1945.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Or 1937-1945 ocasionally in other countries. i.e.
quote: The war in Europe began on September 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland (Polish September Campaign). However, Japan had invaded China already in 1937 the (Second Sino-Japanese War), which sometimes is considered the start of the Second World War (Withdrawal of the Japanese after their defeat also catalysed the Chinese Communist Revolution.) Germany surrendered on May 7, 23:50 PM 1945, ending the war in Europe. The war in the Pacific ended on September 2, 1945, when Japan surrendered.
posted
I've never seen anything claim that WW2 started in 1941. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I don't think they're standard.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
