“The longest day” is a great book on the subject were they interviewed thousands of people who were personally involved in D-Day and wove their stories together as well
Thanks, just bought it. "The Longest Day: June 6, 1944" by Cornelius Ryan (for others looking for it, there are multiple titles called "The Longest Day")
Not from D-Day or the European theater, but “With the Old Breed” is a really well done personal account of combat in the Pacific. It was part of the source material for Ken Burns’ “The War” and for the “The Pacific” miniseries on HBO.
My was inspired to be inspired about joining the military because of how amazing Band of Brothers was and paratrooping is akin to flying. Thank you for sharing this so I can read it and see another perspective.
The stat sheets on how likely a soldier who survived D-Day was to make it to the end of the war alive and intact may be worth looking at.
There’s individual heroism and that’s laudable, sure, but the war was a machine that used humans for fuel. Overall stats don’t look so bad but that’s because of how many folks it takes to support one front line soldier. If you were actually fighting your odds were… bad.
Modern footage of Ukraine may have a similar effect. Waiting around bored until a shell or drone kills you. Hooray, the glory of war.
It was a wake up call for me. I mean, I have known this, but like, when you are younger you can't seem to grasp it even though elders tell you upfront and clear. However, the real shock for me was the cheering on Reddit etc accompanied with the videos. I didn't understand I had these people around me.
I got unexpectedly shook up and a bit weepy reading about some of the goings on yesterday. I'm not much of a 'rah rah' guy, but those people stood up in the face of tyranny and many didn't come home. I thought what it'd be like for my own boy to go off to war. Democracy and freedom are worth defending.
A lot of people, including myself, feel similar when looking back at WWII. The roles of good and evil were very clearly defined and that has forged the US foreign policy up to today.
Of course, there's a lot of things we know now which show the conflict was a lot more complex, but at its core, the Axis needed to be defeated for our western style of freedom to exist.
I don't think we'll ever have something as clear cut as WWII again. News was highly controlled by a few media institutions and our country (US) was much less fractured than it is today.
You should read up a bit more on how people perceived it contemporaneously. It’s too easy to absolve oneself of having to think hard about the current goings on when we can look at WWII and act like the right answer was obvious to everyone.
This is an important point. There was a US isolationist strain as strong as it is today. The Man in the High Castle alt history, or The Plot Against America, both involve FDR not being involved for WW2, and that's where the US stands today: at a similar decision point about how it decides to act.
The right path is never clear when you're in the valley of the moment.
>> There was a US isolationist strain as strong as it is today
As strong as? I don't see much of an isolationist strain in the US today at all. The paleoconservatives are isolationist, but they barely exist any more. The Biden administration appointed a neoconservative as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
The former President reportedly was ready to pull the U.S. from NATO in his second term, and has demonstrated a strong affinity toward the autocrats currently making life miserable for our allies, which has carried over to his entire party.
And cutting ties with countries in NATO that repeatedly refuse to make the financial contributions towards defense that they pledged to make is also not "isolationism". NATO countries made a deal, part of that deal was 2% of GDP to defense, there are NATO countries that over and over have refused to keep their part of the deal, they promised to do something and year after year after year, broke their promise. Saying, "OK, we have had enough, deal is off" is not "isolationism", it's a common sense bargaining technique.
And "a strong affinity toward foreign autocrats", if it were true, would also not be "isolationism", it would be the opposite of isolationism. An isolationist country does not have a strong affinity for foreign leaders of any type.
I'm not quite an isolationist, but I lean that way. I wish Trump was an isolationist. I wish there was any major politician that was. Sadly, no.
> And cutting ties with countries in NATO that repeatedly refuse to make the financial contributions towards defense that they pledged to make is also not "isolationism".
I agree, it's more than isolationism: it's sheer stupidity and the Hallmark of a compromised government official.
I'm not going to engage with you because you are clearly being disingenuous. The "deal" that NATO represents is not spending, and GDP targets are at best a line in the sand of a proxy variable regarding readiness.
It's unbelievably stupid to claim that members of an alliance are protecting their interests by rejecting mutual defense agreements due to flutuations in the order of fractions of a percent in a metric that is by its very nature completely arbitrary.
you are confusing some words a former president said with actual events and material course of history. the US has been continuously directly or indirectly participating in wars for over 20 years at this point, while it directs the largest international military alliance in history and orchestrates the exclusion of its opponents from global financial markets. none of this is exclusive to any party; this is the logic of empire
yes, a strain that has manifested in...withdrawing from one (1) conflict after 20 years. even the example he gives, of threatening to withdraw from nato, is counterbalanced by the fact that nato has in fact expanded since! this is a 'strain in american politics' in the same way that being a billionaire is a strain in my worldview or speaking russian is a strain in mexican culture
I would remark that the isolationist strain developed after WW I, and included a fair bit of the liberal intelligentsia, e.g. Charles Beard. The Library of America Reporting WW II cheats on this, and implies that isolationism was a fetish of Republican congressmen from ethnic districts. Not so.
I was under the impression that the US was rather isolationist back in President Washington's day. And he argued rather strongly that it should remain so after he left office - in 1797.
I mention that in my 3rd sentence, but as an American of Jewish decent, the sides of WWII could not have been any clearer. My family did not have the option to weigh the facts and choose a side, it was chosen for us. I am just thankful that we happened to leave Europe before it all fell apart.
You said that now we see it as more complex. You should read about the actual arguments that were being made for and against intervention at that time. There absolutely was not an obvious consensus in the US until Pearl Harbor.
That's true towards the end of the war, but in the beginning ?
The US didn't join the war until they were attacked. Same goes for UK and France - they technically did declare the war when Poland was invaded - as there was a defensive agreement between the 3 countries - but in reality they didn't send any help.
What help could they realistically send? Poland was between the two nations that were invading it and the UK was only just introducing a bomber (Wellington) with the range for a direct return flight to Warsaw (and such a flight was impossible since it passes over Germany). Marine access means a long Baltic voyage past the main German navy bases. An assault on Germany would have been via the neighbouring countries and so needed their cooperation, and would still have come too late to save Poland.
France has a border with Germany - UK & France were supposed to launch an attack on Germany from there. In reality, they did a half-assed attempt to invade Germany and called it quits.
I believe that if UK & France did react, mobilize fully and went to war with Germany on 1 September 1939, the war would be much shorter.
Quite similarly, if the West did provide advanced arms (which we are providing now ! way too late) to Ukraine 2 years ago, Russia would be unable of unwilling to take any land and the war would be much shorter.
When Germany invaded Poland, the vast majority of its (believe it or not limited) fighting power was fully tied up in that conflict. During that same time, The larger, stronger, better equipped French army could have (with the aid of the BEF) invaded Germany from its border with it (and possibly even through Belgium) and caused absolute chaos in the German's plans for expansion. ven if the French/British had failed to make that invasion decisive, it would almost certainly have broken the back of the entire chain of lightning victories and support for Hitler that came later. At the very least, that preemptive invasion attempt would have been able to mobilize the French Army enough to completely forestall the terrible consequences of low morale and rapid military collapse that eventually befell France when it actually was invaded so spectacularly.
The above is in my view a near certainty if it had happened that way. More speculatively, had Churchill been Prime Minister instead of Chamberlain at the time of the Poland invasion (instead of becoming PM right at the time of the invasion of France), the British response would have been much stronger and that would have prompted an also stronger French response that could have dramatically curtailed the scope of the European war.
Hitler's army in 1939 simply wasn't good or well provisioned enough to sustain anything serious against any major enemy. It pulled off what it pulled off in the following months more through a mix of luck and sheer blunder by its enemies.
We did not send troops until '42, but from about 1941 FDR was sending massive amounts of aid to the UK and USSR thru the lend lease and other programs.
The European theater of WW2 was a war between nazism and communism, with free countries on both sides, depending on where they happened to be located. East of a certain line, the initial aggressor was the USSR, not Germany. It was a confusing war, with some countries switching sides more than once and some countries being at war with some but not all major powers on the other side.
Things looked clearer on the Western Front, because it was a peripheral front outside the main conflict.
> Of course, there's a lot of things we know now which show the conflict was a lot more complex, but at its core, the Axis needed to be defeated for our western style of freedom to exist.
The problem with this hero narrative is the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union (contrary to D-Day propaganda movies) was instrumental to winning the war. So how does the Soviet Union fit into that considering that these same patriots claim the the Soviet Union was evil and hated freedom?
Note that I make no claims about what the Soviet Union was about. This is about the cohesion of the “our western style of freedom” belief.
The post-hoc rationalizations are clearly defined, which makes people more comfortable paying homage to WWII despite it being incredibly dicey. I say post-hoc because the US actually had a rather large Nazi party forming. Most people joining the war were pretty aloof as to why. It was only when those troops encountered the the Nazi death camps that the state of things became clear. The US primarily joined the war effort not because we heard what was happening to Jews, not because there was a massive land grab occurring, and not because two countries had gone an absolutely psychotic blitzkrieg - but because the Japanese Empire dared to bomb our strategic island fleet. It was a major blow, but just enough to wake up a sleeping beast.
I say WWII was dicey because we literally burned cities, we dropped nuclear bombs, we leveled entire cities with bombing runs as show of force. You can argue these things were necessary - and I agree! But it's important to realize much of this occurred before we knew about the atrocities.
If you read enough Sun Tzu, nobody really knows (from a warriors perspective) why they go to war until you're there. The populace almost never knows the truth, even through time, because most of what they're told is a story that changes with time. It's true of most wars.
It has been said if the US and its allies lost WWII, the victorious Axis would have tried and executed the US military leaders for war crimes for the bombing campaigns. A prime example of history is written by the victors.
PBS did a great documentary of Nazis in the US pre-WWII
Were any axis leaders tried for war crimes related to bombing campaigns? Most of what I've heard of relates to smaller more specific warcrimes and ones related to genocide.
I'm sure there's more examples, but the only allied case I can think of was a soldier convicted for hiding in an ambulance and shooting from it.
> A prime example of history is written by the victors.
Not quite; that requires equalities; the Nazis and that version of Japan were not nearly equal in their evil or atrocities to the Allies. My point moreso was that the Allies were doing a thing in war we don't do anymore, which is matching force with force - which today is illegal. We have the Geneva Convention that stops us from doing that anymore. Now of course, late in the war we discovered the death camps and that is the post-hoc rationalization that I'm referring to but nonetheless the Geneva convention is a byproduct of the shock of what it took to win. It more or less attempts to put a ceiling on the ferocity of war.
The podcast "We Have Ways of Making You Talk" has a really good multi-part program about the 80th anniversary of D-Day. I highly recommend the podcast (I'm just about to catch up, after about 770 1-hour episodes).
I strongly recommend a series of books called "D-Day Through German Eyes" that narrates the experience of the seaborne invasion through the translated narratives of German soldiers. One theme that comes up again and again is their sheer demoralizing shock at seeing just how colossal the armada confronting "their" beaches was.
Despite this, because of the harsh sense of discipline inherent to the German Army during the war, they fought remarkably hard against the still largely inexperienced allied western soldiers and made the first weeks after the D-Day landings much harder then they should have been for the Anglo/British/Canadian and sundry forces.
Really? My journey was the opposite. That war in combo with another war made me realize the indignation is more or less manufactured and that the elite rather have my face blown into pieces than not lose their face in a figurative way.
It is like watching a self-playing piano pitting me against another self-playing piano and I am supposed to cheer the whole parade.
Right there with you. Making it even more surreal to be "pro-war" is that the party of the previous president was rabidly anti-Russia until he came into office and did a 180.
Here's the deal, though -- the guy is glorified by some people in Ukraine, but not in any official capacity at the national level. When an attempt was made to grant him official "Hero" status at the national level, it was rejected. The monument in particular is a local endeavor.
Doesn't make Putin's war anymore justified
Right, but the idea here seems to be to throw cold water on idea that Ukraine is unambiguously the victim of aggression here, or to at least sow some general confusion around it.
It's all very straightforward as to why Putin invaded -- and (despite what he says) none of the Nazi stuff had anything to do with it. It's just noise that he puts out there to push people's buttons; to sow doubts about Ukraine's legitimacy as independent state or its right to defend itself; and internally, to get people to sign up for his lemming march.
"Right, but the idea here seems to be to throw cold water on idea that Ukraine is unambiguously the victim of aggression here"
Yes, that is Putins plan. That doesn't mean there isn't any truth in its propaganda.
The point we are discussing is, if the war Ukraine vs Russia is "as black and white as it gets". To which I disagree, you can find quite some black elements in Ukraine, too. Not at all on the same level and I support weapon delivery etc. But I do not support closing my eyes to only see everything in simple shapes and colors.
Russia is raping and slaughtering its way through a country that did not invade it, was not threatening its neighbors, whose primary crime was being too friendly with the West.
Why does it matter whether all Ukrainian citizens are angels or devils?
Like I said, the official former embassador of Ukraine in germany is a big fan of him. (and there was a scandal about some of his statements, so he was pulled back, but rewarded).
A ambassador is not a private person, but pretty official.
And no, I did not say all of Ukraine glorifies him.
> A ambassador is not a private person, but pretty official.
“The opinion that the Ambassador of Ukraine to Germany Andrii Melnyk expressed in an interview with a German journalist is of his own and does not reflect the position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine.”
Come on, this is silly. A private opinion was publicly disowned by the government. Of all the things to use as a “well, actually”, this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. To say he was “officially glorified” is absolutely false.
> Also the russian language get supressed and in general russians are seen as enemies. Not just russian soldiers, but people with a russian cultural background. Nationalism in all its glory.
That's not anywhere near as bad as the U.S. during WWII when Japanese Americans were sent to actual internment camps.
Sure. Or german jews fleeing from Hitler also being put in such camps. Or the use of weapons of mass distruction. WW2 was not a clean war by our standards.
>> Prior to the war Ukrainians' views on russians seemed way more friendly than the 'mainstream' american's views on mexicans.
The 2019 "On Protecting the functioning of the Ukrainian language as the State language" law forbid the publishing of print media in Russian unless the same publication was available in Ukrainian, it forbid requiring Russian language ability for any job, it forbid Russian instruction in schools after elementary school, and it limited the amount of Russian content allowed in broadcasting.
That does not seem to me to be more friendly than the way Mexicans are treated in the US. It seems like a law that was designed to cause conflict. If Canada passed a law that treated French speakers like that, I would expect violence and I would assume that the legislators who passed the law were trying to provoke violence.
"and in general russians are seen as enemies. Not just russian soldiers, but people with a russian cultural background. Nationalism in all its glory."
is complete BS. My reference regarding attitudes towards Mexicans was a response to that comment, not to the law you just mentioned.
But what a weird argument you make. Canada has numerous laws like these in order to protect French speakers. How much 'expected violence' by Anglo Canadians has that resulted in?
Again, in my experience, every Ukrainian I have met can speak some russian. A good portion can not speak ukrainian. The President of Ukraine's native language is Russian and was a well known Russian language entertainer who stared in 'Servant of the People' a Ukrainian TV show where he spoke Russian. Strange for a country that's being labeled so historically and systemically anti-Russia.
>> The post I was responding to:
"and in general russians are seen as enemies. Not just russian soldiers, but people with a russian cultural background. Nationalism in all its glory."
OK, now I am laughing.
The post you were responding to:
>> Also the russian language get supressed and in general russians are seen as enemies. Not just russian soldiers, but people with a russian cultural background. Nationalism in all its glory.
Any reason you would leave out that first part? Seems sort of relevant does it not?
Yes, because 'and' here indicates an additional point being made, which was the point I was responding to (notice I talked about Mexicans and not about spanish). Now please respond to my Canadian laws that protect and/or elevate the french language challenge to your assertion that there would be violence if Canada had laws that favored a specific language. Because Canada has just those very laws to protect French.
>> Now please respond to my Canadian laws that protect and/or elevate the french language challenge
I'm honestly not sure what your point is here. Are you comparing laws like the ones in Canada that guarantee an ethnic minority the right to be educated in their own language to laws like the ones in Ukraine that deny an ethnic minority the right to be educated in their own language?
Why different? English speakers are the minority in Quebec.
French speakers in a majority French speaking region felt their language should be protected from the much larger influence english. Ukrainian speakers feel their language should be protected from the much larger influence russian language.
Again see my above video of the President of Ukraine performing on Russian state TV in the russian language to celebrate New Years. Hardly the behavior of a Russophobe.
My wording was indeed bad, what I meant was there is a general trend towards doing that, not that the majority already does it.
But the ukrainian Ultra Nationalist do. They are the black spot I am seeing. There are hardcore Nazis in my (german) home town - and they went to support their nationalistic comrades in Azow and co. They do not fight for democracy.
There are hardcore Nazis in my (german) home town - and they went to support their nationalistic comrades in Azow and co
So you base your view of what's going on in Ukraine not from talking broadly to Ukrainians; not from an objective reading of history and news reports -- but on what the Nazis in your hometown are saying?
Because you offered them as your primary point of reference.
These people aren't a "pretty strong indicator" of anything. They definitely do not have an interesting or useful perspective as to what mainstream Ukrainian society thinks or is actually like.
Let's put it like this, in germany we try to keep those people away from weapons and police actually (partly) prevented them from going to Ukraine. In Ukraine they would officially armed.
So yeah, germany is not directly in war and if a war comes here, we probably would also arm our Nazis again and hope they shoot in the direction we want - but I would be against that and I would consider this "black".
And at that start of US participation in WW2 all units were racially segregated. I guess we shouldn't have supplied to US armed forces with weapons since they had entrenched policy enforced racism.
99% of Ukrainians can speak Russian. This is like saying that the English language is suppressed in Ireland because there are certain efforts around trying to prop up the native language after centuries of attempted extermination by the local colonial power.
"general russians are seen as enemies. Not just russian soldiers, but people with a russian cultural background. Nationalism in all its glory."
Russians are seen as enemies because all evidence suggests that they largely support, or at best do very little to oppose, the Russian state which invaded them, butcher and torture their countrymen.
"This is like saying that the English language is suppressed in Ireland because there are certain efforts around trying to prop up the native language after centuries of attempted extermination by the local colonial power"
Now the popular portrayal of WWII seems kind of idealistic, but there's plenty of historical evidence to suggest many Allied troops really did not want to be there, and the scale of desertion [1] was quite high - In addition to corruption, mismanagement, and racketeering [2].
I only really considered this after encountering "Deserter: The Last Untold Story of the Second World War" by Charles Glass in a used bookstore, which is appropriately referenced etc.
[1] But what is desertion, really? A legal matter the facts of which are decided through process...
[1] like, Catch-22 was actually toned down from reality so to speak, yes it's technically written by a Korean war vet but
It seems to me that a deserter in the hands of the US military system was an asset that a) had undergone training, b) was on the action side of whatever ocean, c) must be made to understand that there were worse things than the front line. The retraining camps were brutal, I gather, but the only deserter convicted by a court martial and then shot, Eddie Slovik, had said outright that if returned to the line he would desert again.
And Joseph Heller was a veteran of WW II. The NY Times Magazine's issue for the 50th anniversary of VJ day included an essay by him. Some reservists were called back for Korea, but was he one of them?
[Edit: added qualified military system with "US".]
Canada had the [Terrace Mutiny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrace_mutiny) where conscripts were told they were going to be sent overseas after being assured that only volunteers would go. A train travelling from BC to Halifax with thousands of soldiers headed overseas arrived at its destination several thousand men lighter, due to desertions.
The Italian campaign was infamous for the number of desertions in all the Allied armies. General Alexander wanted to bring back the death penalty to curb the losses.
Hmm, I don't know, I feel like America in perticular came away from WWII with pretty clean hands, bombing Japan aside, the pacific war devolved into something a bit grotesque. The American soldiers marched towards Japan carrying around the skulls of the Japanese as trophies. A representative gave Roosevelt a letter opener made out of a Japanese soldier's arm. The Americans were WAY more chill in the European theatre and generally fought "A good war".
The rest of the Allies always struck me more as cynical imperialists, and the whole narrative of the British desperately trying to stop that madman Hitler but Chamberlain loving peace too much to stop him as being a bit naive. Stalin saw things differently and saw the allies as trying to intentionally make Hitler stronger to keep the USSR in check. From that perspective, it's not shocking the allies went to war against the Nazis almost immediately after Molotov-Ribbentrop was signed. Plus you know, there were all the colonial shenanigans.
Also, with all that being stressed, it is actually unbelievable how comically supervillaniously evil the Nazis actually were. These were a group of people who made Josef Stalin seem ethical. It's hard to fight the Nazis and NOT be the good guys.
>bombing Japan aside, the pacific war devolved into something a bit grotesque. The American soldiers marched towards Japan carrying around the skulls of the Japanese as trophies.
If you think that was grotesquely terrible, I really recommend a thorough reading of what the Japanese themselves did during their imperial conquests, WWII and their increasingly bloody, desperate retreats in the face of American power! You'll be breathtakingly surprised by what barbarity can look like outside what the Nazis did.
There was of course a major element of racism in the hatred American soldiers had for Japanese soldiers, but it was only part of it. The Japanese did themselves zero favors in their conduct toward.... pretty much everyone, and were barbaric even in their handling of captured or wounded enemies (not to even mention how they behaved towards conquered civilian populations, which in their own form of nearly nazi-like racial disdain, they often looked upon as little better than animals). All the racism aside, the Americans also had an enormous multitude of good reasons for hating them so much.. The Empire even treated its own soldiers viciously and inhumanely in just about every way, which certainly didn't help those soldiers' attitudes towards all others..
Further note, fully agreed on the nearly cartoonish evil of the Nazis. I can't really think of another political system that took things to such deliberate extremes in the rest of known, relatively modern history. The closest anyone comes might be Stalin, or maybe the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot, but even these examples don't quite match the sheer open viciousness of Nazi policies and practice.
The tank commander, (edit2) David Render, in this podcast has a pretty amazing description of joining at age 18, landing on the beaches and not long afterwards finding himself commanding a squadron of tanks in Normandy. Absolute humility and incredibly sanguine about what happened to him. No bullshit about glory and bravery. Just a straightforward but very engaging description.
https://www.historyhit.com/what-it-was-like-to-be-a-young-ta...
My grandfather was a medic and was part of the storm of Normandy beach on D-Day. He never really spoke of it and had a stroke and passed away before Saving Private Ryan came out. We wondered what he would have thought of the beginning of that movie, as someone who was there and was running around helping people the whole time.
My take is that Saving Private Ryan is "pro-war" movie like most Hollywood productions on the topic and not about 2WW really.
The give away is how the save Ryan squad seem to have agency and do like cool self-govern manouvers, like the storming of the 80mm AA gun hill, etc. More like a teenage boy fantasy. Band of Brothers is another good example of cool agency.
The opening assualt on the beach is some sort of low point for things to get better and under the protagonists' control.
A true to history version would be soldiers getting shrapnel wounds from indirect fire and being shot at by soldiers they can't see. Then they redo it somewhere else becouse someone said so.
> A true to history version would be soldiers getting shrapnel wounds from indirect fire and being shot at by soldiers they can't see. Then they redo it somewhere else becouse someone said so.
No offense intended, but did you really watch Saving Private Ryan? Both of those things you mention occurred within the first 60 seconds of the start of the beach scene.
This take is baffling... in SPR the protagonists lose man after man over the course of the movie, right up until the end. A central theme is the irony and tragedy of how the mission to rescue a single man costs so many lives.
BoB was somewhat like that too. They lost "brothers" along the way. While there are heroic deeds along the way, it shows the sad realities of war as well.
> The point I am trying to make is that the opening is the 'low point' and then it becomes an action movie with the heroes in control.
To be quite candid, I did not appreciate the brutality of WW2 until I spent a few months a decade ago researching the progression of events from 1939 to 1945. I say this as someone who had a fairly decent exposure to WW2 (Gramps was a B29 bomber pilot). Even now, every time I do a little digging or reading about a certain WW2 event/battle/massacre, I am still left shocked by the absolute brutality that occurred on a large scale. Conflicts since WW2 have not approached the same level of killing intensity, thank god. Perhaps nuclear weapons are indeed proving to be the ultimate moderator of human conquest ambition.
Sorry for rambling a bit: Back to your quote about it being a hero action movie - in my opinion WW2 kinda was an action movie with many stories of heros who sacrificed themselves or risked their lives directly to save their buddies - on all sides. The reason we hear so many of these stories from that time period is due to the massive number of engagements and opportunities presented near daily for men to attempt extraordinary maneuvers (e.g. flank attacking an overwhelming force who has their squad pinned down).
Some of the stories you hear from WW2 are absolutely over the top insane (risky). You will never hear nearly as many "hero" stories these days in my opinion due to all professional militaries employing similar risk-mitigation strategies to avoid unnecessary losses. Times were different back then.
Dad did not land at Normandy, but he was wounded during the Battle of the Bulge. He was hit by a ricochet in the neck. A relatively minor wound that if the bullet had hit him a little further to the left, would have killed him. He never saw his attacker. But as a radio operator he was specifically targeted by enemy soldiers.
> Then they redo it somewhere else becouse someone said so.
Yes. You follow orders when in the military. Freedom of movement is one of the things you give up when you join. Or are drafted.
> The give away is how the save Ryan squad seem to have agency
They had orders direct from General Marshall (Army Chief of Staff at the time) to go get Ryan. That gave them a ton of agency.
The BBC has a series called "D-Day: The Unheard Tapes". It has actual interviews with D-Day survivors (both Allied and Axis). They use the real audio, lip-synced by actors. It's mesmerizing.
The worlds greatest, fiercest and bloodiest battle was Russia defeating nazi forces from Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania and Croatia in Stalingrad. It broke the back of the Nazi Germany war machine and turned the tide of the Second World War resulting in allied victory and the raising of the Soviet flag over the Reichstag.
Those unpowered gliders pictured in the article weren't something I knew much about until I saw it as part of a d-day in real time video. [0] Fantastic solution to a pretty specific logistics problem. I appreciate how the solution they arrived on for how to quickly get everyone out once they landed was to give the four men at the back spanners to quickly unbolt the rear end of the vehicle.
129 comments
[ 1.4 ms ] story [ 214 ms ] threadThere’s individual heroism and that’s laudable, sure, but the war was a machine that used humans for fuel. Overall stats don’t look so bad but that’s because of how many folks it takes to support one front line soldier. If you were actually fighting your odds were… bad.
Modern footage of Ukraine may have a similar effect. Waiting around bored until a shell or drone kills you. Hooray, the glory of war.
It was a wake up call for me. I mean, I have known this, but like, when you are younger you can't seem to grasp it even though elders tell you upfront and clear. However, the real shock for me was the cheering on Reddit etc accompanied with the videos. I didn't understand I had these people around me.
Of course, there's a lot of things we know now which show the conflict was a lot more complex, but at its core, the Axis needed to be defeated for our western style of freedom to exist.
I don't think we'll ever have something as clear cut as WWII again. News was highly controlled by a few media institutions and our country (US) was much less fractured than it is today.
It also feels like some things have shifted and there actually is a lot more clarity lately.
The right path is never clear when you're in the valley of the moment.
Also in hindsight it is not always clear, if the choosen path was really the best.
As strong as? I don't see much of an isolationist strain in the US today at all. The paleoconservatives are isolationist, but they barely exist any more. The Biden administration appointed a neoconservative as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
And cutting ties with countries in NATO that repeatedly refuse to make the financial contributions towards defense that they pledged to make is also not "isolationism". NATO countries made a deal, part of that deal was 2% of GDP to defense, there are NATO countries that over and over have refused to keep their part of the deal, they promised to do something and year after year after year, broke their promise. Saying, "OK, we have had enough, deal is off" is not "isolationism", it's a common sense bargaining technique.
And "a strong affinity toward foreign autocrats", if it were true, would also not be "isolationism", it would be the opposite of isolationism. An isolationist country does not have a strong affinity for foreign leaders of any type.
I'm not quite an isolationist, but I lean that way. I wish Trump was an isolationist. I wish there was any major politician that was. Sadly, no.
I agree, it's more than isolationism: it's sheer stupidity and the Hallmark of a compromised government official.
It's unbelievably stupid to claim that members of an alliance are protecting their interests by rejecting mutual defense agreements due to flutuations in the order of fractions of a percent in a metric that is by its very nature completely arbitrary.
It is fascinating to see bent-reality arithmetic in real time:
“There is no isolationist strain”
“Okay yes there is but it’s ‘counterbalanced’ (whatever that means) through vigorous efforts by the opponents of that strain!”
That’s called there being an isolationist strain buddy.
It just isn't. That's not what "isolationism" means.
> ‘counterbalanced’ (whatever that means)
ah, you are engaging in bad faith. adios!
Huh
And I've just explained exactly how it's consequential and not meaningless. It succeeded in delaying aid to Ukraine. There you go: a consequence!
The US didn't join the war until they were attacked. Same goes for UK and France - they technically did declare the war when Poland was invaded - as there was a defensive agreement between the 3 countries - but in reality they didn't send any help.
France has a border with Germany - UK & France were supposed to launch an attack on Germany from there. In reality, they did a half-assed attempt to invade Germany and called it quits.
I believe that if UK & France did react, mobilize fully and went to war with Germany on 1 September 1939, the war would be much shorter.
Quite similarly, if the West did provide advanced arms (which we are providing now ! way too late) to Ukraine 2 years ago, Russia would be unable of unwilling to take any land and the war would be much shorter.
The above is in my view a near certainty if it had happened that way. More speculatively, had Churchill been Prime Minister instead of Chamberlain at the time of the Poland invasion (instead of becoming PM right at the time of the invasion of France), the British response would have been much stronger and that would have prompted an also stronger French response that could have dramatically curtailed the scope of the European war.
Hitler's army in 1939 simply wasn't good or well provisioned enough to sustain anything serious against any major enemy. It pulled off what it pulled off in the following months more through a mix of luck and sheer blunder by its enemies.
Things looked clearer on the Western Front, because it was a peripheral front outside the main conflict.
The problem with this hero narrative is the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union (contrary to D-Day propaganda movies) was instrumental to winning the war. So how does the Soviet Union fit into that considering that these same patriots claim the the Soviet Union was evil and hated freedom?
Note that I make no claims about what the Soviet Union was about. This is about the cohesion of the “our western style of freedom” belief.
I say WWII was dicey because we literally burned cities, we dropped nuclear bombs, we leveled entire cities with bombing runs as show of force. You can argue these things were necessary - and I agree! But it's important to realize much of this occurred before we knew about the atrocities.
If you read enough Sun Tzu, nobody really knows (from a warriors perspective) why they go to war until you're there. The populace almost never knows the truth, even through time, because most of what they're told is a story that changes with time. It's true of most wars.
PBS did a great documentary of Nazis in the US pre-WWII
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/nazi-town-...
It elaborates on your point about the large US Nazi presence.
I'm sure there's more examples, but the only allied case I can think of was a soldier convicted for hiding in an ambulance and shooting from it.
There was a strategic decision not to charge Nazis for the bombing of London.
Not quite; that requires equalities; the Nazis and that version of Japan were not nearly equal in their evil or atrocities to the Allies. My point moreso was that the Allies were doing a thing in war we don't do anymore, which is matching force with force - which today is illegal. We have the Geneva Convention that stops us from doing that anymore. Now of course, late in the war we discovered the death camps and that is the post-hoc rationalization that I'm referring to but nonetheless the Geneva convention is a byproduct of the shock of what it took to win. It more or less attempts to put a ceiling on the ferocity of war.
Pretty much everyone mentions how terrified they were of Allied white phosphorus.
It just struck me how dominant that memory was among people who served in all sorts of roles.
https://www.dw.com/en/ticking-time-bombs-on-the-bottom-of-th...
Despite this, because of the harsh sense of discipline inherent to the German Army during the war, they fought remarkably hard against the still largely inexperienced allied western soldiers and made the first weeks after the D-Day landings much harder then they should have been for the Anglo/British/Canadian and sundry forces.
It is like watching a self-playing piano pitting me against another self-playing piano and I am supposed to cheer the whole parade.
Ooh, scary.
Here's the deal, though -- the guy is glorified by some people in Ukraine, but not in any official capacity at the national level. When an attempt was made to grant him official "Hero" status at the national level, it was rejected. The monument in particular is a local endeavor.
Doesn't make Putin's war anymore justified
Right, but the idea here seems to be to throw cold water on idea that Ukraine is unambiguously the victim of aggression here, or to at least sow some general confusion around it.
It's all very straightforward as to why Putin invaded -- and (despite what he says) none of the Nazi stuff had anything to do with it. It's just noise that he puts out there to push people's buttons; to sow doubts about Ukraine's legitimacy as independent state or its right to defend itself; and internally, to get people to sign up for his lemming march.
Yes, that is Putins plan. That doesn't mean there isn't any truth in its propaganda.
The point we are discussing is, if the war Ukraine vs Russia is "as black and white as it gets". To which I disagree, you can find quite some black elements in Ukraine, too. Not at all on the same level and I support weapon delivery etc. But I do not support closing my eyes to only see everything in simple shapes and colors.
Why does it matter whether all Ukrainian citizens are angels or devils?
Because people who are devils and who are officially allowed to have weapons and use them sometimes has bad side effects.
A ambassador is not a private person, but pretty official.
And no, I did not say all of Ukraine glorifies him.
“The opinion that the Ambassador of Ukraine to Germany Andrii Melnyk expressed in an interview with a German journalist is of his own and does not reflect the position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine.”
https://mfa.gov.ua/en/news/komentar-rechnika-mzs-ukrayini-ol...
Come on, this is silly. A private opinion was publicly disowned by the government. Of all the things to use as a “well, actually”, this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. To say he was “officially glorified” is absolutely false.
That's not anywhere near as bad as the U.S. during WWII when Japanese Americans were sent to actual internment camps.
A large portion went to university at least in part in Russia.
A large portion are intermarried with Russians or have intermarried Russian/Ukrainian parents.
Prior to the war Ukrainians' views on russians seemed way more friendly than the 'mainstream' american's views on mexicans.
The 2019 "On Protecting the functioning of the Ukrainian language as the State language" law forbid the publishing of print media in Russian unless the same publication was available in Ukrainian, it forbid requiring Russian language ability for any job, it forbid Russian instruction in schools after elementary school, and it limited the amount of Russian content allowed in broadcasting.
That does not seem to me to be more friendly than the way Mexicans are treated in the US. It seems like a law that was designed to cause conflict. If Canada passed a law that treated French speakers like that, I would expect violence and I would assume that the legislators who passed the law were trying to provoke violence.
And I never claimed it qualifies as cultural genocide (like Putin does), but some Ukrainians want that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/ukrain...
"and in general russians are seen as enemies. Not just russian soldiers, but people with a russian cultural background. Nationalism in all its glory."
is complete BS. My reference regarding attitudes towards Mexicans was a response to that comment, not to the law you just mentioned.
But what a weird argument you make. Canada has numerous laws like these in order to protect French speakers. How much 'expected violence' by Anglo Canadians has that resulted in?
Again, in my experience, every Ukrainian I have met can speak some russian. A good portion can not speak ukrainian. The President of Ukraine's native language is Russian and was a well known Russian language entertainer who stared in 'Servant of the People' a Ukrainian TV show where he spoke Russian. Strange for a country that's being labeled so historically and systemically anti-Russia.
Edit: See also Zelensky performing on Russian state TV New Years special https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTmhTxzAH70
OK, now I am laughing.
The post you were responding to:
>> Also the russian language get supressed and in general russians are seen as enemies. Not just russian soldiers, but people with a russian cultural background. Nationalism in all its glory.
Any reason you would leave out that first part? Seems sort of relevant does it not?
I'm honestly not sure what your point is here. Are you comparing laws like the ones in Canada that guarantee an ethnic minority the right to be educated in their own language to laws like the ones in Ukraine that deny an ethnic minority the right to be educated in their own language?
To me, those seem to be very different things.
French speakers in a majority French speaking region felt their language should be protected from the much larger influence english. Ukrainian speakers feel their language should be protected from the much larger influence russian language.
Again see my above video of the President of Ukraine performing on Russian state TV in the russian language to celebrate New Years. Hardly the behavior of a Russophobe.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bill-96-major-provis...
My wording was indeed bad, what I meant was there is a general trend towards doing that, not that the majority already does it.
But the ukrainian Ultra Nationalist do. They are the black spot I am seeing. There are hardcore Nazis in my (german) home town - and they went to support their nationalistic comrades in Azow and co. They do not fight for democracy.
So you base your view of what's going on in Ukraine not from talking broadly to Ukrainians; not from an objective reading of history and news reports -- but on what the Nazis in your hometown are saying?
It is just a pretty strong indicator. And what people are saying does not matter so much to me, as what people are doing.
These people aren't a "pretty strong indicator" of anything. They definitely do not have an interesting or useful perspective as to what mainstream Ukrainian society thinks or is actually like.
So yeah, germany is not directly in war and if a war comes here, we probably would also arm our Nazis again and hope they shoot in the direction we want - but I would be against that and I would consider this "black".
99% of Ukrainians can speak Russian. This is like saying that the English language is suppressed in Ireland because there are certain efforts around trying to prop up the native language after centuries of attempted extermination by the local colonial power.
"general russians are seen as enemies. Not just russian soldiers, but people with a russian cultural background. Nationalism in all its glory."
Russians are seen as enemies because all evidence suggests that they largely support, or at best do very little to oppose, the Russian state which invaded them, butcher and torture their countrymen.
I think it is a bit more then that:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-nazi...
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/great-debate
I only really considered this after encountering "Deserter: The Last Untold Story of the Second World War" by Charles Glass in a used bookstore, which is appropriately referenced etc.
[1] But what is desertion, really? A legal matter the facts of which are decided through process...
[1] like, Catch-22 was actually toned down from reality so to speak, yes it's technically written by a Korean war vet but
Here’s one that estimates 0.22%, which is low historically. https://www.armyheritage.org/wp-content/uploads/ref-bibs/sub...
I’ll certainly check out the book; thanks for the recommendation.
And Joseph Heller was a veteran of WW II. The NY Times Magazine's issue for the 50th anniversary of VJ day included an essay by him. Some reservists were called back for Korea, but was he one of them?
[Edit: added qualified military system with "US".]
Canada had the [Terrace Mutiny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrace_mutiny) where conscripts were told they were going to be sent overseas after being assured that only volunteers would go. A train travelling from BC to Halifax with thousands of soldiers headed overseas arrived at its destination several thousand men lighter, due to desertions.
The Italian campaign was infamous for the number of desertions in all the Allied armies. General Alexander wanted to bring back the death penalty to curb the losses.
The rest of the Allies always struck me more as cynical imperialists, and the whole narrative of the British desperately trying to stop that madman Hitler but Chamberlain loving peace too much to stop him as being a bit naive. Stalin saw things differently and saw the allies as trying to intentionally make Hitler stronger to keep the USSR in check. From that perspective, it's not shocking the allies went to war against the Nazis almost immediately after Molotov-Ribbentrop was signed. Plus you know, there were all the colonial shenanigans.
Also, with all that being stressed, it is actually unbelievable how comically supervillaniously evil the Nazis actually were. These were a group of people who made Josef Stalin seem ethical. It's hard to fight the Nazis and NOT be the good guys.
If you think that was grotesquely terrible, I really recommend a thorough reading of what the Japanese themselves did during their imperial conquests, WWII and their increasingly bloody, desperate retreats in the face of American power! You'll be breathtakingly surprised by what barbarity can look like outside what the Nazis did.
There was of course a major element of racism in the hatred American soldiers had for Japanese soldiers, but it was only part of it. The Japanese did themselves zero favors in their conduct toward.... pretty much everyone, and were barbaric even in their handling of captured or wounded enemies (not to even mention how they behaved towards conquered civilian populations, which in their own form of nearly nazi-like racial disdain, they often looked upon as little better than animals). All the racism aside, the Americans also had an enormous multitude of good reasons for hating them so much.. The Empire even treated its own soldiers viciously and inhumanely in just about every way, which certainly didn't help those soldiers' attitudes towards all others..
Edit: think I found a link to the podcast that doesn’t require you to login https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/warfare/id1526490428?i...
The give away is how the save Ryan squad seem to have agency and do like cool self-govern manouvers, like the storming of the 80mm AA gun hill, etc. More like a teenage boy fantasy. Band of Brothers is another good example of cool agency.
The opening assualt on the beach is some sort of low point for things to get better and under the protagonists' control.
A true to history version would be soldiers getting shrapnel wounds from indirect fire and being shot at by soldiers they can't see. Then they redo it somewhere else becouse someone said so.
No offense intended, but did you really watch Saving Private Ryan? Both of those things you mention occurred within the first 60 seconds of the start of the beach scene.
The point I am trying to make is that the opening is the 'low point' and then it becomes an action movie with the heroes in control.
To be quite candid, I did not appreciate the brutality of WW2 until I spent a few months a decade ago researching the progression of events from 1939 to 1945. I say this as someone who had a fairly decent exposure to WW2 (Gramps was a B29 bomber pilot). Even now, every time I do a little digging or reading about a certain WW2 event/battle/massacre, I am still left shocked by the absolute brutality that occurred on a large scale. Conflicts since WW2 have not approached the same level of killing intensity, thank god. Perhaps nuclear weapons are indeed proving to be the ultimate moderator of human conquest ambition.
Sorry for rambling a bit: Back to your quote about it being a hero action movie - in my opinion WW2 kinda was an action movie with many stories of heros who sacrificed themselves or risked their lives directly to save their buddies - on all sides. The reason we hear so many of these stories from that time period is due to the massive number of engagements and opportunities presented near daily for men to attempt extraordinary maneuvers (e.g. flank attacking an overwhelming force who has their squad pinned down).
Some of the stories you hear from WW2 are absolutely over the top insane (risky). You will never hear nearly as many "hero" stories these days in my opinion due to all professional militaries employing similar risk-mitigation strategies to avoid unnecessary losses. Times were different back then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Quiet_on_the_Western_Front...
At least I got the same feeling of senselessness and morbid callousness from the leadership while watching it.
Watching the remake made it clear that soldiers were literally seen as fodder on all sides and nobody in charge cared how many died.
> Then they redo it somewhere else becouse someone said so.
Yes. You follow orders when in the military. Freedom of movement is one of the things you give up when you join. Or are drafted.
> The give away is how the save Ryan squad seem to have agency
They had orders direct from General Marshall (Army Chief of Staff at the time) to go get Ryan. That gave them a ton of agency.
You may need a VPN to use the BBC's iPlayer.
Wikipedia still has problems identifying that flag https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raising_a_flag_ove...
0: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsIk0qF0R1j4nZd_D0GWK...