Myths of WWII [Archive]

Beirut

05-14-2005, 12:18

I don't buy what he's selling. He is saying, as I read it, that since there in not purity of spirit and intent behind the Allies's actions, that the actions themselves, therefore, lose significance. Be it significance of morality or even efficiency.

He writes, "By contrast the morality of the Pacific war was much less clear-cut. To be sure, Japan launched that surprise attack, and Japanese troops behaved horribly to American, British, and Australian POWs and much worse to the Asian peoples they conquered. Still, the Marines scarcely pretended to take prisoners (even when the Japanese wanted to surrender), while the score for Pearl Harbor was more than settled at Hiroshima.

Well I think the morality of the Pacific war was very clear cut. Even if the US had gone to war against the Japanese for purely economic and imperialist reasons, the moral result would still have been a thousand-fold, a million-fold more sound than the Japanese occupation of the same countries. The Americans, as bad as they are or as bad as anyone would see them, would never have behaved as the the Japanese did. Not even remotely close.

...and Japanese troops behaved horribly... ...and much worse to the Asian peoples they conquered.

Ah, genocide in ten words or less. Very convenient and painless way to gloss over the murder and rape of millions, and then get on with your story about the US Marines and their barbaric practice of not always taking prisoners. And the ease of getting Japanese soldiers to surrender is well known.

Defeating Japan was simply the right thing to do, regardless of motivation. Even US actions towards the people of those tiny islands where the Americans tested nuclear weapons after the war, which was reprehensible at best, was a thousand generations beyond the scourge of Neanderthal behaviour the Japanese used against its millions of victims. There is no comparing the US and Japan.

Adrian II

05-14-2005, 12:36

Well I think the morality of the Pacific war was very clear cut.I don't think you get the gist of the article, and you misrepresent it by introducing words and suggestions the author clearly doesn't use.

Example. The casus belli versus Japan was clear-cut. The morality of the Pacific war wasn't, because of the way the Japanese were depicted, treated both in the war theatre and in the United States, etcetera. The same goes for the bombing of German cities toward the end of the war in Europe. The ambivalence of such episodes has been haunting the war generation, whether you like it or not. And rightly so. That war was fought in the name of certain ideas and ideals, remember?
There is no comparing the US and Japan.Nobody does, you're debating windmills.

Beirut

05-14-2005, 12:53

The casus belli versus Japan was clear-cut. The morality of the Pacific war wasn't, because of the way the Japanese were depicted, treated both in the war theatre and in the United States, etcetera.

And how, pray tell, could the Japanese have been better treated in the war theater? Should the US have have killed the Japanese with bombs that were not only smart, but polite and courteous as well?

And how, pray tell once more, should they have been depicted? As misguided men who were simply not hugged enough as children, therefore not responsible for their actions? "Listen, sorry about the massacres and rapes of millions, but don't judge them too harshly, they had a bad collective childhood."

The Japanese in the US should have been deported or jailed for the extent of the war. American citizens of Japanese descent should not have been mistreated in any way.

The same goes for the bombing of German cities toward the end of the war in Europe. The ambivalence of such episodes has been haunting the war generation, whether you like it or not. And rightly so. That war was fought in the name of certain ideas and ideals, remember?

The bombing of German cities towards the end of the war was partly for military reason and partly as a kick in the balls once you're down. It was punishment. Revenge. It was Sherman saying "I will make war on these people in such a fashion that generations will pass before their ancestors ever think of using war as an option again." Considering the brevity of the peace between WWI and WWII, it is not hard to understand the motivations of those who desired a longer span between WWII and WWIII. At that time, it was reasonable to fear a Germany that would rise again in twenty years and start a war that would kill hundreds of millions.

You're debating windmills.

They don't call me Beirut Quixote for nothing! :charge:

Adrian II

05-14-2005, 12:58

And how, pray tell once more, should they have been depicted? As misguided men who were simply not hugged enough as children, therefore not responsible for their actions?This is a thread about WWII, not capital punishment. There's a time and a place for every cliche, Beirut.

They don't call me cliche-Adrian for nothing! :duel:

Papewaio

05-14-2005, 13:00

The reason for the subtle shift in American perception is easy to see. If a purely evil regime ever existed, it was the Third Reich, and if any war ever had a moral purpose it must have been the war fought to end its mad persecution. By contrast the morality of the Pacific war was much less clear-cut.

This guy is full of shite and euro or is it caucasian-centric crap.

Nor is it sensible to say whom was the most evil of the two nations. But by no means is it clear cut which is worse.

Not only did it take the Western Allies nearly three years after the German attack on Russia seriously to engage the German army in Normandy, but even then most of the fighting was still on the other side of Europe.

Well the authour may be forgetting not only the importance of the Asian theater but that of Greece, Malta, Britain and North Africa. All these other zones where under attack and it wasn't an easy thing to go back into Europe. Anyone with any ability understands how hard a sea invasion is hard to mount. Also the authour is forgetting the Italian invasion.

Was it a just war? That tricky theological concept has to be weighed against very many injustices. Was it a good war? The phrase itself is dubious. No, there are no good wars, but there are necessary wars, and this was surely one.

This guy is a backbone short of being an invertabrate. Exactly at what point does he think giving in to the likes of facism is a good thing?

Nor on the other moral compromises at the wars end. Great Britain did not go to war to save the Jews from Hitlers torment

Actually quite a lot of people joined up to fight facism and the Nazis hatred of those whom are different including the Jews. Prior to WWII Sir Weary Dunlop was in London and used to go down to facist rallies to knock a few heads in. I think this guy is a cretin and a terrible revisionist at that. Trying to rewrite things to suit his own cowardly outlook.

Beirut

05-14-2005, 13:01

This is a thread about WWII, not capital punishment. There's a time and a place for every cliche, Beirut.

You brought up the point of the Japanese being badly depicted in the WWII theater (which I stil find very odd), I only answered.

Adrian II

05-14-2005, 13:32

You brought up the point of the Japanese being badly depicted in the WWII theater (which I stil find very odd), I only answered.You suggested I would have had the Japanese soldiers cuddled and given lots of quality time. I'm not interested in debating cliches.

I hate distortion of the truth, even if it takes place in the context of a just cause. The image of the war in the Pacific as a racial conflict has been impressed upon the Western public by means of racial war propaganda. There is ample evidence of that, you can find it on historic websites if you want.

There were notable exceptions, too, such as this 1945 movie My Japan (http://www.archive.org/details/MyJapan1945) in which the American public is warned that the Japanese are all but subhuman, that they are well-educated and that the cruelty of their occupation policies is not a mere reflection of an animal-like Japanese mind, but of the calculation of their leaders.

Most of the public however got to see only the war posters depicting Japanese as rats and the war stories in the local papers that made light of their short legs, slanted eyes (that's why they couldn't shoot straight, remember?) and lack of brains.

Beirut

05-14-2005, 13:52

Of course the Japanese were depicted as evil. Kind of hard to get Billy-Bob from Arkansas to travel 10,000 miles and island hop through hell, land mines and machinegun fire to kill a guy who isn't.

Besides the racial card was played by all sides. The publics conception race was a touch more... raw, in those days. And there was a war on. It was the country's duty (strange as it seems) to incite hatred.

If you really want to see "racial warfare", read about Japan's racial visions of other Asian peoples. That led to slaughters that numbered in the millions. I don't see anything the US did as even close to that. Why is the US being singled out as the evil one when it was Japan who started the war and acted so abominably? Just looks like the authour is a revisionist bleeding heart with a bachelor's degree in historical basket weaving.

Adrian II

05-14-2005, 16:04

Why is the US being singled out as the evil one when it was Japan who started the war and acted so abominably?This borders on dishonesty. I don't know what article you are talking about, but it's certainly not the article I linked to.

You know, I think here is what ticked you off -- the real reason why you try to find fault with the whole reasonable, well-balanced and well-informed article:

In all the western campaigns of the war against French, British, Americans, and troops of many other lands, some 200,000 German soldiers died. Four million Germans died on the Eastern Front.
The author says the Allies were militarily inferior to the Germans in most ways except in numbers and resources. That's a fact, borne out by many a study into the battles of WWII. The author also says that is no reason for shame, because democracies are defended by citizens in arms, not by blind robots of the kind that dictatorships produce.

Even then, others did the fighting. The best description of how Hitler was defeated was Stalin’s. The old monster said that England provided the time, America provided the money, and Russia provided the blood.
Maybe that hurts. The popping of myths always does.

Beirut

05-14-2005, 16:25

This borders on dishonesty. I don't know what article you are talking about, but it's certainly not the article I linked to.

It just seems to me that the authour of the article is, albeit with subtlety, tearing away at the Allies for no apparent reason.

You know, I think here is what ticked you off -- the real reason why you try to find fault with the whole reasonable, well-balanced and well-informed article:

In all the western campaigns of the war against French, British, Americans, and troops of many other lands, some 200,000 German soldiers died. Four million Germans died on the Eastern Front.
The author says the Allies were militarily inferior to the Germans in most ways except in numbers and resources. That's a fact, borne out by many a study into the battles of WWII. The author also says that is no reason for shame, because democracies are defended by citizens in arms, not by blind robots of the kind that dictatorships produce.

The war between the Russians and the Germans was different in ways from the war between the Germans and the West. One German officer said that when fighting the British and Americans, things would calm down at night. People could almost take a breather. He said the Russians were different, "they were trying to kill us all the time!" There was a hatred between the Germans and Russians that was unparalleled elsewhere in Europe. That changed the scope of their battles.

And I'm well aware of the quality of the German troops. They were top notch. But so were we after a while.

Even then, others did the fighting. The best description of how Hitler was defeated was Stalin’s. The old monster said that England provided the time, America provided the money, and Russia provided the blood.
Maybe that hurts. The popping of myths always does.

No myth popping there. I knew all that. I just don't agree with how it is represented. You can make Mother Theresa look like a monster if you word it properly. And I admit to being reluctant to taking Stalin's viewpoint on too many issues. Besides, one of the reasons the Soviets paid such a high price in blood is because their tactics demanded it. If Stalin chose to march a thousand men across a minefield in order to clear it, I can't see that as any more heroic than the Brits or Americans losing a hundred men by fighting their way around it. Clausewitz said blood is the price of victory. He was wrong. You can't always equate casualties with heroism. Sometimes you can equate them with carelessness and stupidity.

Adrian II

05-14-2005, 16:43

No myth popping there. I knew all that. I just don't agree with how it is represented. You can make Mother Theresa look like a monster if you word it properly. And I admit to being reluctant to taking Stalin's viewpoint on too many issues. Besides, one of the reasons the Soviets paid such a high price in blood is because their tactics demanded it. If Stalin chose to march a thousand men across a minefield in order to clear it, I can't see that as any more heroic than the Brits or Americans losing a hundred men by fighting their way around it. Clausewitz said blood is the price of victory. He was wrong. You can't always equate casualties with heroism. Sometimes you can equate them with carelessness and stupidity.I would agree to most of that. This is not the same Beirut who thinks I'm taking cheap shots at the U.S. or Canada. And speaking of war myths, I found a Russian myth that goes 'popski!'.

Link (http://context.themoscowtimes.com/story/142173)

Beirut

05-14-2005, 17:02

I never said anything about you, only about the authour of the article. ~:)

Don Corleone

05-14-2005, 17:14

Adrian,

Okay, I'm going to have to ask you to paraphrase the article to see what YOU got out of the article. I got the same take Beirut did.

What's more, in many ways, you could argue that the US, and most certainly Australia, were fighting a defensive war in the Pacific. The Japanese were going to take Hawaii and they had already started patrolling the California coast with submarines. It was probably a ways off, but their long term plans called for taking the American West Coast.

Is this guy saying that even though we may have started with a just cause, the fact that we had some racist propaganda means anything we did from that moment on was morally wrong? Well, I hate to break it to you, dehumanizing the enemy through propaganda is a requirement in getting a citizen army to go to war. We did it with Mexico, we did it with the Germans in both world wars.... how else do you think you take Cletus off his parents farm in Nebraska, stick a rocket launcher in his hands and have him start killiing large numbers of the enemy? You have to convince him he's not killing real human beings, that somehow those humans on the other side are subhuman, either morally, intellectually, physically or usually, all of the above.

And why don't we ever hear about things like Manchuria or Bataan in discussions like this? Is it fair to pick one side in a conflict and call them immoral and remove their actions from the context of their conflict?

KafirChobee

05-14-2005, 17:49

An OK article, a bit enhanced on some points - but, the arguement that a war can be out of necessity and not have a purely noble purpose ('til created by propaganda) pretty much holds true. The villification of ones' enemy has always been a time honored means to convince a nations' local yokels to run off and join the fight against their evil foe. One must remember, the Japanese people were told that if the USA invaded their Islands - they would rape their women, eat their children, and murder their men. The American people were told the Nips were evil to the bone, one and all - that they were raised that way, and that they preferred death to surrender (which seems to have been true - listen to the interviews with their surviving soldiers, all have one common thread - "die to the man" - Death before dishonor).

Still, I agree the incindiarybombings of the civilian German city Dresden, was and act of vengeance - and nothing more. Even LeMay, confessed that had we lost the war he would have been tried as a war criminal. Which in many of his actions - he was. Still, no one trys the victors, and they are the ones that write history - to their politically correct and morally justified conclusions.

The points about Russia are well taken. Anyone that proclaims the invassion of Italy a "second front", is dillusional. Though it did end Italy's involvement, it by no means detracted from the real war - the Eastern front. I mean, we would still be bogged down there today. A division held off 2 armies for ever.

Russia (USSR), with just our supplying them, would have conquered Germany. Of course then we would have had WWIII, to dislodge them from Western Europe. Point is, the article is absolutely on the money when talking about Poland and the other nations that fell under USSR control - and we (America, Britain, and France) accepted it. Fair enough, to the victor goes the spoils. Denial that the Wests' nations conspired to this end, to get Russia in the war againt Japan ... well Potsdam is historical fact.

That there is a great deal of hooplah over the "great generation" on the 60th anniversity of their conquest is to be expected. To deny that attrocities were committed by some of them, is to deny the reality of war.

I didn't read in any subversive thoughts into the article, as others have. I do comprehend his version, and none of it stretched the reality of the day with the actions committed.

US Marines were not known to take many prisoners, and anyone that has spoken with one that was on Guatal (ms) Canal (my step-dad), or Iwo Jima - understands why. The Nip soldier was fanatical - his superiors forced their will upon them and they accepted that will. After all, they knew what their Army was doing to Allied prisoners - would it not follow that the Allies were doing the same?

Still, the premise that war is war, and that a "golden" one never existed is correct. Justification for the entry into a conflict vary, but the intent is always the same.

:balloon2:

Proletariat

05-14-2005, 18:08

Puuure foolishness. Using today's politically correct standards to judge 1940's American war propaganda is the only thing intellectually dishonest here.

Adrian II

05-14-2005, 18:15

Is this guy saying that even though we may have started with a just cause, the fact that we had some racist propaganda means anything we did from that moment on was morally wrong?Nope, he's just saying that some things were, and he's not arguing that those things disqualify the Allied war effort.
(..) how else do you think you take Cletus off his parents farm in Nebraska, stick a rocket launcher in his hands and have him start killiing large numbers of the enemy? You have to convince him he's not killing real human beings, that somehow those humans on the other side are subhuman, either morally, intellectually, physically or usually, all of the above.I know Cletus. He lives in Holland too. And I believe I hold him in much higher regard than you do. This is weird, you know - I don't have the impression that the U.S. Army in WWII was made up of Cletus caricatures at all. They were for the most part decent, upstanding citizens of a democracy. To take an image from a book to illustrate this: in Catch22 there is only one (1) Aardvark. Oral history bears out this fact, I think: the large majority of GI's knew very well what they were doing and what they were doing it for.

Now you've got me confused, Don. Who's looking down on Americans -- you or me?

Adrian II

05-14-2005, 18:29

Puuure foolishness. Using today's politically correct standards to judge 1940's American war propaganda is the only thing intellectually dishonest here.The thrust of the article has more to do with Soviet Russia than anyone's war propaganda. But hey, some Americans just like to see PC windmills everywhere so they can charge into them at full speed. Sancho, where's my helmet!

Proletariat, why don't you explain why Japanese Americans were interned during WWII and German Americans weren't? Can you do that without going: 'Oh, so you think the U.S. started the Pacific War out of racism? Have you ever heard of Pearl Harbour? Do you think that war is a tea party et cetera?...'

Can we just, you know, skip the boring part?

PanzerJaeger

05-14-2005, 19:15

Proletariat

05-14-2005, 19:18

The thrust of the article has more to do with Soviet Russia than anyone's war propaganda. But hey, some Americans just like to see PC windmills everywhere so they can charge into them at full speed. Sancho, where's my helmet!

I guess I misunderstood you here:

Most of the public however got to see only the war posters depicting Japanese as rats and the war stories in the local papers that made light of their short legs, slanted eyes (that's why they couldn't shoot straight, remember?) and lack of brains.

Proletariat, why don't you explain why Japanese Americans were interned during WWII and German Americans weren't? Can you do that without going: 'Oh, so you think the U.S. started the Pacific War out of racism? Have you ever heard of Pearl Harbour? Do you think that war is a tea party et cetera?...'

Can we just, you know, skip the boring part?

German Americans go back as far as America itself. I don't find it very difficult to understand why there was a general mistrust towards Japanese Americans when you consider the significant cultural differences coupled with their nationalistic perception.

Could you answer Don's question about what you got out of the article? So far I agree with his and Beirut's views completely, yet you keep claiming you and your article are being misunderstood.

What was your point in bringing up the posters portraying the Japanese as rats? Since my PC comment was just a windmill and all.

Adrian II

05-14-2005, 19:25

I liked the fact that he acknowledged where the war in Europe was actually decided and the formidablility of the Germans. In far too many movies, books, and most recently video games the German soldier has been portrayed as a bumbling idiot. How often has one GI taken down 50 Germans in popular culture?Yup. And I think this is one reason why Brits and more particularly Americans fail to understand why so many Europeans in occupied countries came to some sort of accommodation with the Germans. They had seen the German army easily, in some cases almost effortlessly overrun their own, their cities and their countryside -- an event as morally devasting as it was physically threatening. In the first year of all-out war in Europe, most people in the occupied zones thought the Germans were there to stay for a thousand years indeed. Maybe Americans will understand some of that crushing dynamic if they recall the way the South reacted to the victory of (and partly the occupation by) the North at the end of the Civil War. It's a far cry, but it's a start to come to some sort of understanding.

Only after 'Stalingrad' did hope seem justified again.

Proletariat

05-14-2005, 19:30

Maybe Americans will understand some of that crushing dynamic if they recall the way the South reacted to the victory of (and partly the occupation by) the North at the end of the Civil War. It's a far cry, but it's a start to come to some sort of understanding.

I don't think this misconception exists in America. If it has, I have never seen it. If anything, Americans almost build up or brag about how great the Nazi's were just to boost themselves. Maybe the way the Romans spoke of the Carthiginians, I think.

The more I think of this, the more perplexing it is. Who the hell are these Americans you speak of that think the European theatre was some cake walk? We call those people in this country The Greatest Generation, not because they went and shot fish in a barrel. Because the defeated an amazing machine of destruction.

Adrian II

05-14-2005, 20:19

I don't find it very difficult to understand why there was a general mistrust towards Japanese Americans when you consider the significant cultural differences coupled with their nationalistic perception.I'd say the racist perception of Japanese by Americans was more to blame for the internment policy than anything else, coupled of course with economic envy: business owners wanted to get rid of Japanese competitors, labour organisations wanted to get rid of Japanese workers whose presence lowered wages and living conditions. The Japanse had been pioneer farmers on the West Coast for generations. White farmer organisations lobbying for their internment wanted their lands, white businessmen lobbied for the confiscation and public sale of Japanese shops, factories, farms and fishing vessels whilst their owners were being interned in camps.

The Japanese were among the few groups of immigrants who until 1952 were ineligible for U.S. citizenship for racial reasons alone. Clauses against renting or selling to 'Orientals' were routinely written into real estate contracts, anti-miscegenation laws barred their marriage to whites, and Japanese children had to go to segregated schools. No wonder many Americans saw 'significant cultural differences' between themselves and Japanese. That is what officially sanctioned racism does.

Even the chief official in charge of the internment, Wartime Relocation Authority Director Milton Eisenhower, thought it was racism, as he wrote in countless memo's to the President and others in authority.

Here's one of his memos to Roosevelt from April 1943:

...My friends in the War Relocation Authority, like Secretary Ickes, are deeply distressed over the effects of the entire evacuation and relocation program upon the Japanese-Americans, particularly upon the young citizen group. Persons in this group find themselves living in an atmosphere for which their public school and democratic teachings have not prepared them. It is hard for them to escape a conviction that their plight is due more to racial discrimination, economic motivations, and wartime prejudices than to any real necessity from the military point of view for evacuation from the West Coast.
Life in a relocation center cannot possibly be pleasant. The evacuees are surrounded by barbed wire fences under the eyes of armed military police. They have suffered heavily in property losses; they have lost their businesses and their means of support. The State Legislatures, Members of the Congress, and local groups, by their actions and statements bring home to them almost constantly that as a people they are not really welcome anywhere. States in which they are now located have enacted restrictive legislation forbidding permanent resettlement, for example. The American Legion, many local groups, and city councils have approved discriminatory resolutions, going so far in some instances as to advocate confiscation of their property. Bills have been introduced which would deprive them of citizenship...
Furthermore, in the opinion of the evacuees the Government may not be excused for not having attempted to distinguish between the loyal and the disloyal in carrying out the evacuation.
Under such circumstances it would be amazing if extreme bitterness did not develop.
...The director of the Authority is striving to avoid, if possible, creation of a racial minority problem after the war which might result in something akin to Indian reservations. It is for these reasons primarily, I think, that he advocates the maximum individual relocation as against the maintenance of all ten relocation centers...
Attorney General Francis Biddle wrote in his 1947 memoirs:

American citizens of Japanese origin were not even handled like aliens of the other enemy nationalities -- Germans and Italians -- on a selective basis, but as untouchables, a group who could not be trusted and had to be shut up only because they were of Japanese descent...
Their constitutional rights were the same as those of the men who were responsible for the program.
My impression is that apart from a few (mainly military) hardliners in the U.S. government, few politicians actually wanted the Japanese Americans to be interned. Milton Eisenhower himself hated the policy and despised the hard-liners who saw any use for it. A post-war congressional investigation established that there had been no need for their internment whatsoever. But the powers that be, including Roosevelt, had to give in to public pressure and indignation whipped up by racism and racist organisations directed specifically against Japanese.
What was your point in bringing up the posters portraying the Japanese as rats?I answered Beirut's remark about the morality of the Pacific War. Shit happens, even in great democracies. Admit it.

Proletariat

05-14-2005, 20:38

Shit happens, even in great democracies. Admit it.

I never said it doesn't. What am I not admitting?

Also, interesting info you posted and sure, it is despicable. I still don't understand the point, though. That America had a semi-racist stance towards Japan moreso than Germany during WW2?

Maybe Americans will understand some of that crushing dynamic if they recall the way the South reacted to the victory of (and partly the occupation by) the North at the end of the Civil War.

Also, can you or Panzer tell me who these Americans are that think we just beat a bunch of limp wristed San Francisons and not Nazi Germany's Wehrmacht? I'd like to also understand some of this crushing dynamic that is lost on me and my fellow American morons.

Adrian II

05-14-2005, 20:50

I still don't understand the point, though. That America had a semi-racist stance towards Japan moreso than Germany during WW2?Americans did, certainly. I just pointed out that the attitude wasn't widespread among the political elite, but they were forced to adhere under public pressure.
I'd like to also understand some of this crushing dynamic that is lost on me and my fellow American morons.This has nothing to do with stupidity, only with different historical experience. Or did I miss something and was the U.S. crushed and conquered by Germany in 1941?

Don Corleone

05-14-2005, 23:55

Nope, he's just saying that some things were, and he's not arguing that those things disqualify the Allied war effort.I know Cletus. He lives in Holland too. And I believe I hold him in much higher regard than you do. This is weird, you know - I don't have the impression that the U.S. Army in WWII was made up of Cletus caricatures at all. They were for the most part decent, upstanding citizens of a democracy. To take an image from a book to illustrate this: in Catch22 there is only one (1) Aardvark. Oral history bears out this fact, I think: the large majority of GI's knew very well what they were doing and what they were doing it for.

Now you've got me confused, Don. Who's looking down on Americans -- you or me?

You missed my point. I didn't mean to imply that the average American GI during WWII was stupid. Far from it. But at 19, with limited world experience, just showing up and plugging some holes in some people will probably be pretty traumatic for your psyche, even if they had it coming. If demonizing your enemy helps abate that, so be it. Maybe Dutch 19 year olds are more worldly and hardened and have no problem shooting a bunch of people they barely know, but it was a big concern over here... whether our men would be able to deal with the guilt & angst.

Americans have this foolish myth that we somehow brought civilization to Japan when we occupied it. Of course the Japanese were intelligent and civilized. Why were Mitsubishi zeroes the best fighters of their day? But in my mind, that makes what they did all the worse! If they raped all those women in China just to blow off some steam because they couldn't control their hormones, that would be bad enough. But it was a deliberate well-thought out policy. Systemic rape like that is done to break the spirit of an occupied people. The man will never look at his wife the same way again after every member of a 50 man rifle company screws her in public in the middle of the village. Worse, she damn sure will never trust him again to be the defender of the household. Both will be much more submissive and subservient as an occupied people. It is a very effective tool for breaking the spirit of a people so you don't have to put down uprisings in your lands as you continue to push your boundaries forward.

PanzerJaeger

05-15-2005, 01:49

Yup. And I think this is one reason why Brits and more particularly Americans fail to understand why so many Europeans in occupied countries came to some sort of accommodation with the Germans. They had seen the German army easily, in some cases almost effortlessly overrun their own, their cities and their countryside -- an event as morally devasting as it was physically threatening. In the first year of all-out war in Europe, most people in the occupied zones thought the Germans were there to stay for a thousand years indeed. Maybe Americans will understand some of that crushing dynamic if they recall the way the South reacted to the victory of (and partly the occupation by) the North at the end of the Civil War. It's a far cry, but it's a start to come to some sort of understanding.

That had a lot to do with the volunteers that came out of the occupied countries as well. In denmark i believe it was, the occupational leaders told men to join up and fight in the SS to ensure a favorable place in Hitler's new Europe.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-15-2005, 02:42

Even then, others did the fighting. The best description of how Hitler was defeated was Stalin’s. The old monster said that England provided the time, America provided the money, and Russia provided the blood.

You know for years I advocated that we should not have entered WW2 until Russia and Germany beat each other to death or one threatened to beat the other. I never realized until I joined these forums , even thought Ive read hundreds of books on WW2, that thats just what we did.

KafirChobee

05-15-2005, 03:42

Interesting article...

I liked the fact that he acknowledged where the war in Europe was actually decided and the formidablility of the Germans. In far too many movies, books, and most recently video games the German soldier has been portrayed as a bumbling idiot. How often has one GI taken down 50 Germans in popular culture?

Very true..

for the relativity argument.. i guess it holds some truth. If the point he is trying to make is that: The Western Allies should not be proud of what they did and should not think of themselves on the morally right side. -Thats wrong.

The biggest moral corruption of America and the Anglo countries was the alliance with Stalin.

I have no doubt that the war would be looked on the exact same way today if the Anglos had allied themselves with Hitler to take out communism. Hell, the basis for war was already there - Finland.

Say what?

Finland caused WWII? WOW! Who'ld a guessed. The German culture was popular? Outside of the Nazi germany (that proved their roots to Mongolia)? Who'ld have suspected the Brits were jealous enough to start WWII over that.

I jest, of course. Not that many enjoy my sarcism - or appreciate it. But, someone blaming Finland for WWII - well, I couldn't stop myself. Forgive me.
All know it was Katzmanstan.

A few need to actually attend their history courses, and cease in deriving their information from the "History Channel" (though informative; if you haven't noticed - no creadible historian gives creadance to most of their new programming).

To conjure up a defense for the entourment of American-Japs (3rd and 4th generation in the USA) and deny the prejudice that inspired it - is the same excuse that is being used today against Muslims that recide here today. It was economically in favor of whites, it was popular to a scared public (few of whom knew an American-Japanese family --- fortunately for the sell, because few Americans back then disliked politeness - the cleanlyness might have been a problem, but, what the hey), and demonstrate that their government was defending them against a devious foe. A foe, that was able to bridge generations. Not that, that is not possible - but, think about it. (Or, go to ManchurianCandidate.com where you will see Bushys face).

To argue beyond the premice of an article, opinion, arguement, defined perception of history - is to be obsessed with ones' own conclusions. Having used Modern History as one of my four minors in college - because not to know history is to repeat it - I now close.

Many have attempted to clear their point (s), only to be rechallenged by those that may understand the article in question, but choose to use their own person beliefs to cloud the issue.

The issue? Was WWII the golden path? The final conflcit (obviously not - and the acceptance of what is happening in Dalfur proves that), or is has this again degenerated into a "Gee, if only the Nazis had won". j/k (of course)

Russia would have won the European theatre all on Stalin's own - it cost them 20million lives you know? I mean, you throw enough humanity at a problem (if you have the humans to waste) and the problem may go away.

Imagine an enemy outside your city (in winter) and a General forcing the citizens to throw their bodies beneath the enemy tanks - so their excrements (guts) would lodge and freeze in the treads (only a sadist would come up with that plan, but they did use it - and propagandized it as if it were voluntary for women to throw their new borns under a tank). The Russians did that at Stalingrade. They did it and they won the battle. Does it make it right? Is that patriotism - being driven before machineguns to die or else? Or, was it done just to maintain a regime, a political corruption of Lenin and Marx philosophies - but to maintain the perception that Stalinism upheld their principles, their values for the working class (if you will).

To imagine that WWII was a clean war, justifiable because of Hitler, the rape of Nanging, the murder or 40million people in all. Is BS. There never was, and never will be a justifiable war, or one that could not have been avoided by sharing the wealth.

Never mind.

WWII. was a wonderful thing. 'Cept for the few dead (+40million, that God hated anyways), and the insertional belief that America! right or wrong! Godbless us all, especially the dudes that commit the most attrocities in our (god's) name.

Wow! sorry about that. Maybe it was something laying on my chest.

DisruptorX

05-15-2005, 04:29

The most ignored fact about the Holocaust is that the Nazi's killed just as many Slavs as they killed Jews. This is not including soldiers killed on the battlefield. The racial ideology of the Nazi's is simplified into "they wanted to kill all the Jews". The real truth is far, far worse. The Nazis viewed all non-aryan races as fit for nothing other than slave labour, followed by death.

Which brings us the lovely, clean cut simplified version of what an "Aryan" is that they teach you in School: A blue-eyed, blonde-haired German. I know you all know that not all so called "aryans" are Germans, and the majority of them do not have blonde hair or blue eyes. Even kids bring up the obvious "um, Hitler didn't have blonde hair". This funny misconception isn't really important, like the above, but it is amusing.

Then there is the humourous idea of the French Armies being a bunch of weaklings and cowards. "Amée" in french must be feminine for a reason. ~D
As funny as the cliche is, the French didn't lose because their soldiers weren't brave, they lost because of horrible leaders and obsolete tactcs.

-edit- Um....Kafir, you seem to be forgetting something....

The Allies didn't want to go to war. We did nothing to stop Japan, Italy, and Germany from seizing huge amounts of territory, brutally in the case of Japan and with pleas for help from diplomats of all the conquered nations to help them, which the allies were obliged to do, under treaty.

The Axis powers STARTED the war and even declared war on America. War isn't pretty, and *gasp* lots of people die. It isn't a good thing. You seem to be very harsh on the Allies, who's armies took no actions untill they were attacked first. It is [b]very[/i] clear who was in the right..

Also, Stalin was a more pure Bloshevik Marxist than Lenin was. In fact, the brutal policy against the kulaks was Lenin's idea. The nonsense about Stalin "corrupting Lenin's glorious peacefull non-violent marxist ideas" comes from Kruschev and other hypocrits who, after Stalin's death, wanted to distance themselves from him. Kruschev oversaw many atrocities under Stalin, and in the end, is responsible for what he did.

bmolsson

05-15-2005, 04:44

I just watched a movie with Christian Slater as Winston Churchill an Amercian GI who hooked up with Princess Elisabeth. Another view on what really happened in WWII.... ~;)

KafirChobee

05-15-2005, 05:02

Agree, America did not want to go to war - nor did Britain or France (though they were secure behind the "Marginal line (ms itentional)".

Americans have hated losing their sons (daughters) in war for the proclimations of men, or the objective principle theory (if it is good for business, it is good for us all). We have always challenged them. The real reason for the end of our involvement in Vietnam was because WWII (and Korea) vets joined the children to object about their being killed.

Some, accept that war is, as their nation defines it. Ignores the premices presentend and accept the following answers for its entrance into a quagmire that was undefined, undefendable, and unacceptable in a truely democratic society.

Then again, why do have this impulse to raise my right arm to
Gawain?

SIGAZEENUTS.

Or, F' off mate. Some how you lost the path. Missed the step between America and what happened in OK before 9/11.

Hope, I am wrong. Still, for us white guys facism has its attractions. J/K

:balloon2:

KafirChobee

05-15-2005, 05:43

Then again maybe it (Facism) is just about you and your new found minions - the conservative club. What a pity, that none of you can see beyond a race, an issue, a cause, religious precept or conception, that not going along means challanging the entire concept of your idea of patriotism - Americanism - rreality.

Now, I know you claim to have been in 'nam as a Marine (what else - certainly not a doggy, grunt, or fodder). Atleast, that is your claim. NOW, you have had the time to look up events, alter previous statements to conform to past reality. You, are just smart enough to create a false image. Nothing you have given, is real.

Name a date, a person that stood beside you (for me to call - I still have buds that will verify my military "experience", and the number of times those that thought they could attempted to courtmartial me - when they were the ones in need of being investigate. Still, that is another story) - just give me something to make me believe that. Like trying to remember a black (for you negroe, colored, or ex-slave) covering your butt in combat (or, maybe one did it otherwise and that is why you are so upset - with the colords that is).

Still, I rarely judge the intents of others. Question? Yes.

The new intensity that the Conservative club has attempted against a variety of arguements - well, it seems they never bother to question their principles.

Seems, what ever the victors did was good. The losers, wrong. Or, that the only thing wrong Hitler's forces did was not kill more Jews, Slavs, Gypsys, Armenians, Finlanders, etcetera.

Then again, maybe PJ and Gawain can explain that. Who knows, maybe they can stand up for their prejudice. We are after all bigots in our own way - some for mankind, others for hanging nigers.

:balloon2:

DisruptorX

05-15-2005, 05:47

Hope, I am wrong. Still, for us white guys facism has its attractions. J/K

Fascism is merely the logical conclusion of extreme nationalism. In Facism, the state is a goal in and of itself. All parts of society are expected to work in harmony for the good of the state, the exact opposite of Democracy, in fact. To say that Fascism doesn't have attractiveness would be foolish. Fascism is a very romantic ideology that emphasises traditional pride.

America is lucky in that our nationalism is focused on pride in our constitution, which means that there is a major cultural check on our government. I'm not saying our government is better than anyone's or anything, its just interesting that we have much more nationalist sentiment than any other democracy, but do not have a right wing authoritarian government (please, no Bush jokes. ~D )

DisruptorX

05-15-2005, 05:52

Then again maybe it (Facism) is just about you and your new found minions - the conservative club. What a pity, that none of you can see beyond a race, an issue, a cause, religious precept or conception, that not going along means challanging the entire concept of your idea of patriotism - Americanism - rreality.

You obviously aren't very familiar with Fascism, are you? American democracy is almost the polar opposite of Fascism. American conservatives merely seek to implement liberal policies as they were in pre-industrial times. Fascism requires monolithic central government, the United States is a federation. We literally have tens of thousands of seperate governments.

Well, actually I know what you are doing. You are using the word "fascism" because it is a strong, negative word, not because it is an accurate description.

Seems, what ever the victors did was good. The losers, wrong. Or, that the only thing wrong Hitler's forces did was not kill more Jews, Slavs, Gypsys, Armenians, Finlanders, etcetera.

"But what about all the good things Hitler did?" Good joke. ~:)

Because, you know, he did anything other than treat Eastern Europe as subhumans, and his flunkies plundered France for frikkin' art treasures. That isn't even looting for necessity of war. ~:confused:

Your relativist views are sickening. There is nothing nice to say about the Nazis. Every positive achievement they accoplished was on the bones of those they casually exterminated or brutally slaughtered. You can hate the allies all you like, but hearing you defend the Nazis because you think that hating the Nazis is wrong because its propaganda is too much.

Don Corleone

05-15-2005, 05:55

DisruptorX

05-15-2005, 06:03

Why do you read a word KhafirChobee has to say? I used to get upset about his rants too, but why bother? I already know, without reading a single word, what he's going to say... that conservatives are stupid, thuggish, cowardly and have abused the political system to take over the country. Pretty much any invective he can think of will be hurled. There's plenty of people I disagree with around here I do actually listen to, because I see a thought process behind what they're saying. But he just hates Republicans and that's all you're going to get.

*sigh*, that's just what I ranted about randomly in another thread. His entire cynical anti-Ally rant comes from his belief that actions are good or bad depending on the personal opinions of those who do them, rather than whether the actions themselves are good or bad. There's relativism for ya. The communists in Russia caused millions of deaths for the sake of an ideal, that does not make their actions right, it makes them all the worse. Heck, so did the Nazis. Whether a policy is conservative or liberal does not make something good or bad, whether the effects are good or bad make the policy good or bad.

Of course, he's starting to rant like a zeolot, which is always ironic. Some people treat their political leaning like a religion, complete with commandments that cannot be broken for any reason and an enemy to wage a holy war on.

Obvious the allies were evil, duh, Churchill was a conservative, after all.

Thanks for the warning. As portent.net shut down, I no longer can get my political fix and came here. Portent had actual standards that were observed, though. The point was debate based on issues, not debate based on political leaning. You're right in that I just took his flamebait.

TThe new intensity that the Conservative club has attempted against a variety of arguements - well, it seems they never bother to question their principles.

That pretty ends your rant pre-maturely. You just told other people to question their principles while you play devil's advocate for the Nazi party. Wonderful. Do you even have principles? It would seem not, as you have show only a cynical, relativist view that sees the entire world as being victims of those countries now most succesful. The great thing is, unlike in those wonderful countries you mentioned, in America we let you think what you like, if it hurts no one. Think about that for a moment, really think about it.

Adrian II

05-15-2005, 09:27

(..) it was a big concern over here... whether our men would be able to deal with the guilt & angst.Was there that much guilt & angst after Pearl Harbour? I always thought December 7, 1941, was the start of a fast, almost spontaneous recruitment drive throughout the country because Americans were so angry about the cowardly attack.

PanzerJaeger

05-15-2005, 09:35

Say what?

Finland caused WWII? WOW! Who'ld a guessed. The German culture was popular? Outside of the Nazi germany (that proved their roots to Mongolia)? Who'ld have suspected the Brits were jealous enough to start WWII over that.

I jest, of course. Not that many enjoy my sarcism - or appreciate it. But, someone blaming Finland for WWII - well, I couldn't stop myself. Forgive me.
All know it was Katzmanstan.

What the hell are you talking about? Show me where i blamed finland for causing WW2... ~:confused:

My arguement was that Finland was an innocent nation attacked just as Poland..

PanzerJaeger

05-15-2005, 09:49

Now, I know you claim to have been in 'nam as a Marine (what else - certainly not a doggy, grunt, or fodder). Atleast, that is your claim. NOW, you have had the time to look up events, alter previous statements to conform to past reality. You, are just smart enough to create a false image. Nothing you have given, is real.

What a horrible person you are..

Then again, maybe PJ and Gawain can explain that. Who knows, maybe they can stand up for their prejudice. We are after all bigots in our own way - some for mankind, others for hanging nigers.

Bitter as well. Bitter that America can see past the elementary race baiting and class baiting your ilk have used on us for years. Bitter that Americans are proud of their country - proud of their success.. maybe youre not so successful? Is that why you hate this country?

Maybe the government hasnt given you what you think you deserve.. is that why youre so bitter? Are you upset because America has gotten over the 60's.. and possibly left you behind? Have people stopped listening to your rants in the coffee shop? Has the fall of your beloved Soviet Union, the socialist beacon in the world, hurt you?

Or maybe a republican simply ran over your dog.. really, its hard to see where such hatred of a fellow veteran and some guy youve never met could come from.. :help:

Brenus

05-15-2005, 12:01

I wanted to bring my contribution to the debate on few points:
The bombing of the German’s towns: I could start by “who started? (Rotterdam, Coventry, the bombing and killing of the refugees) but I won’t. I will just remind that after the WW1 the German were able to deny the defeat because they didn’t see any sign in Germany proper of the defeat. In 1944, they couldn’t deny the defeat. That is also the reason why this time, the Allies wanted an total surrender (unconditional) and a occupation zone.
What happened after WW1: The aggressor suffered no loses on his territory and was able to rearm. That wasn’t possible after 1945.

Using the atomic bomb SAVED Japanese lives. People who don’t believe that just have to go for the statistic for Tarawa, Okinawa and other Iwo Jima. Why during an invasion of their soil, the Japanese should have been less fanatic?

The war wasn’t DECLEARED by any Allies’ countries; they were attacked by aggressive powers, and were obliged to go to war to protect others countries. You can’t blame France and England for Munich AND blame them to declare war on Germany for the invasion of Poland. The US tried to stay out of the war (not Roosevelt, on that I agreed) by they were clearly attacked.

No, France and England didn’t declare war to protect the Jews. The war was opened September 1st 1939 when the Stuka dropped their bomb on a bridge on the Vistule, and the Final Solution decision was finalised in January 1942, during the Wannzee Conference and Ghettos were official only in 1939, at the start of the war.
So, to deny the morality of the Allies Causes on this is just crap.

To depict you enemy under dark colours is usual when you are in war. The times were like that. Just to remind people: I belong to a country which was described not so long ago as “surrendering cheese eater monkeys” by somebody quiet well known, and just read what some people wrote in this site in the French Bashing game….

The opening of the Italian front obliged Hitler to withdraw few of his best units (SS) from the Eastern Front. It is called Strategy. A second front was vital for the Russian.
I agreed about the Allies’ atrocities, just remember that a Russian soldier had no pity to spare for the German after discovering what happened in Karkov, Minsk and other thousands ignored villages, remember the Einsatzgruppen.

There are wars you have to fight. There are just causes, and the war against Nazism IS none of these. If one day you go to France in holidays, just go to visit a village named Oradour sur Glane. And you will touch physically what Nazism is about. The French kept the village like the 2 SS DAS REICH left it. Burned to the ground…

Don Corleone

05-15-2005, 12:44

Was there that much guilt & angst after Pearl Harbour? I always thought December 7, 1941, was the start of a fast, almost spontaneous recruitment drive throughout the country because Americans were so angry about the cowardly attack.

You asked why America was so pervasive with propaganda that dehumanized the Japanese. I'm telling you it was done in no small part because they didn't want to have to worry about millions of soldiers having a crisis of conscience out on the battlefield. Of couse Pearl Harbor was a big rallying cry. And it played a big part in the propaganda. "But did they declare war and attack us like men? No, they pulled a sneak attack because that's all they're capable of".

Meneldil

05-15-2005, 13:09

The real truth is far, far worse. The Nazis viewed all non-aryan races as fit for nothing other than slave labour, followed by death.

Quite untrue. There was a 'race ladder' established by Hitler and his fellows.
Obviously, Jews were at the bottom of it, which meant systematical extermination.
Slavs were a bit higher, as they were considered as sub-human, but still worth something. Many were hired as soldiers to help the Germans (white russians, poles, ukrainians, etc.). Of course, they were used for dangerous tasks, but they were not supposed to be killed on sight, except in some cases (invasion of USSR).
Higher, there were French, Italians, and other non germanic people considered as civilized, then non-aryan germanic people (Anglo-saxons, Dutch, etc.) and eventually, the so called Aryans.

All these so called races weren't considered equal by the Nazis.

Adrian II

05-15-2005, 13:25

There are wars you have to fight. There are just causes, and the war against Nazism IS none of these.I suppose you mean: the war against Nazism is one of these, not 'none' of these.

Of course it was a just cause. That's why the Allied war effort was necessary and the outcome was predominantly good, but certainly not in every sense. The outcome in Europe was almost as bad as a German victory would have been, because that outcome relied so much on the contribution of that other ruthless dictatorship, the USSR. 'Potsdam' was both a victory and a defeat for freedom. The war generation hasn't forgotten this ambivalence; they were well aware at the time that 'Potsdam' was necessary in order to crush the beast, but that it was a defeat at the same time. Russians soldiers realised this just as much, judging by the story I linked to above. They were happy with Germany's defeat, not with Uncle Joe's triumph.

The outcome in the East was a crucial grab for power by the Chinese Communists -- enabled by the Japanese defeat just as much as by Chiang's incompetence -- and a series of devastating colonial wars ending in national independence and a flurry of native dictatorships taking over from the colonial powers. Count your blessings...

I have been thinking about Don Corleone's and Proletariat's question what I got out of the article. I've been thinking both about the answer to that question and about the question itself.

If different birds like Panzerjager, KafirChobee and I all get something out of it for our own reasons, the author must be doing something right. His article lacks all the popular markers of conservatism, PC or leftist lunacy that Americans seem to be trained to look for these days. Maybe that's what makes it confusing to some. They keep looking for the subliminal message buried in the text that whispers: 'America bad, Communism/Jihadism good' or something to that effect. It isn't there. The article leaves no room for an easy way out.

What I got out of it? I think the main thrust of the article is that the triumph of a good cause always, or at least very often, requires some costly compromise with evil. The victory over fascist Japan and Nazi-Germany required a compromise with the USSR, an understanding with the Chinese Communists and undue tolerance for the old British, French and Dutch colonial bastards who wanted to resume exploitation-as-usual in their former overseas empires. The victory in the Cold War required costly compromises with unpalatable forces all over the world, some of which have come to haunt us in the shape of islamist terrorism that grew out of the islamic movements fostered by the West as an antidote against Arab and South East Asian Communism.

There's a lesson there for everyone. Foreigners who demand that America fight a 'clean' war on terrorism are just as deluded as Americans who expect their country to win a decisive victory over 'evil' in the world.

If we want to fight islamist terrorism, it is going to require another compromise, another 'Potsdam'. Who should be our partners? What will be the new iron curtain drawn across the world, cutting right through our own societies and probably our own hearts and minds?

Proletariat, you wrote some months ago that Anericans should keep guns at home and keep them well-greased, just in case the Patriot Act turns out to be the beginning of an all-out offensive against liberty in their country and they would have to defend themselves. Osama would love to see Americans fight their own government. Are you willing to compromise and accept your won 'Potsdam'?

Meneldil

05-15-2005, 14:29

Hum, I think western world already signed a Postdam to get rid of terrorism, by supporting all tyrannical gvts who are supposedly fighting terrorism (though IMO they're only making the issue bigger) : Pakistan, Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, etc.

Brenus

05-15-2005, 14:51

ADRIAN II, thank for the rectification. Of course it was one of…

About the result, no, I don’t think a German victory and a Russian (read Communist) victory would have the same effect, The Russians succeeded to escape from Communism. No escape for the Unter-menshen in case of Nazism.
Do not misunderstand me. I refuse the choice offered in the 70’ between left and right. To be awake at 4 in the morning by the Gestapo or the KGB and to finish in the Wilhemstrass or the Lubianka isn’t a choice. To choose between Castro and Pinochet, no thank you.
But between plague and cholera choose cholera. With a lot of water and perfusion you may survive. But not all...
I agree: there aren’t easy ways.
Concerning the actual fight against “Evil”, just the choice of the word shows a big mistake, and both camps use it to qualify their opponents. Both Bush Jr and Bin Laden think God is with them.
If you fight Evil, no compromise is possible. It allowed the dilemma “who isn’t with me is against me” not only in politic, but also in economy and other aspects of our life. Like in good 70” when a Peruvian, Bolivian or Chilean was a “Commy” when he asked for a better salary or for his dignity.
For the Muslim, this allowed them to think of the Umma, the community of the Believers which never existed, except as a dream.
There aren’t clean wars or intelligent weapons. A soldier is a human being and will react to some stress wit inappropriate behaviour. The French won the “dirty war” in Algeria military speaking but lost it politically, but they also lost the aims of the Republic expressed in their own Constitution and their own Universal Right Chart. That’s one of the lessons the decolonisation. It is absurd but true: some torturers in the French Army were themselves tortured by the Gestapo… I just hope the US army and the US won’t loose their own values in Iraq.
The outcome of the WW2 shows there isn’t a clear victory of the goodies against the badies.

We are farm from the Myths of the WW2. Well, yes and no. If you read the pamphlet distributed by the English in 1942? (I am not sure of the date) to the Iraqis, it was also to save them from a tyrant. And the result was quiet the same…