Myths of WWII

[Adrian II]

I happened upon a decent article that discusses some national myths and misunderstandings about WWII. I guess the debate over certain issues will probably never end, but it serves as a reminder that necessary wars aren't necessarily good wars.

Link

[Beirut]

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]

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]

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!

[Adrian II]

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!

[Beirut]

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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?

Behind this lies an awkward truth, one we didn’t learn in the cheerful war comics and books of my boyhood in the 1950s, but on which all serious military historians are now agreed. From the beginning to the end of that war, whenever the British Army met the Wehrmacht on anything like equal terms, the Germans always prevailed. And that pretty much goes for the US Army too, from their first disastrous encounter with the Germans, at Kasserine Pass in North Africa, in early 1943. American and British commanders always took good care thereafter that they had an overwhelming superiority in men and especially in weaponry before engaging the enemy.

Very true..

As 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.

[Adrian II]

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]

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.

[KafirChobee]

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.

[bmolsson]

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....