The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1989/08/the-real-war-1939-1945/306374/
22 comments
I read the Chris Hedges book when it came out and it's left a lasting impression on me. I think it got rid of any academic notions of war I may have had. One part that I'll always remember was him saying the war criminals were the pundits on TV leading up to and during the Bulkan war, they held much guilt in leading the masses to the terrible outcomes. The other counter intuitive insight it gives is how wars have this strange effect on some people where they can relinquish their day-to-day worries/anxiety/failings and instead can find some kind of strange peace or even thrive in a more black/white just-survive reset of society. I should probably read it again.
> the war criminals were the pundits on TV
Mila Štula comes to mind.
I still remember watching the hysteria on Radio-Television Belgrade in disbelief that people would actually believe it. But they did. And the rest is history, as they say. Ugly, murderous, and utterly unnecessary history.
I see some signs of this in the contemporary US media landscape, and I worry the consequences might be similar.
Mila Štula comes to mind.
I still remember watching the hysteria on Radio-Television Belgrade in disbelief that people would actually believe it. But they did. And the rest is history, as they say. Ugly, murderous, and utterly unnecessary history.
I see some signs of this in the contemporary US media landscape, and I worry the consequences might be similar.
What event are you describing? A quick search doesn't reveal any English sources for Mila Štula.
translated from https://www.espreso.co.rs/vesti/hronika/197603/umrla-mila-st...
Mila Štula is mostly remembered by the public as one of the leading media poets of the Milošević regime on Serbian Radio and Television from the beginning of the 90s of the last century. She became famous for her famous comments in the daily Dnevnik in which she disqualified the opposition and its leaders. Her statement that Vuk Drašković has a villa on Lake Geneva is particularly noteworthy, which has never been proven.
The other side saw her as a victim of Tuđman's regime, who became unwelcome in Zagreb after HDZ came to power, as she provoked, or asked unpleasant questions, to the first president of independent Croatia at media conferences. She was a journalist for "Danas" in Zagreb. The Croats, among other things, accused her of working for the counter-intelligence service of the JNA. This led to her moving to Belgrade in 1991.
Mila Štula is mostly remembered by the public as one of the leading media poets of the Milošević regime on Serbian Radio and Television from the beginning of the 90s of the last century. She became famous for her famous comments in the daily Dnevnik in which she disqualified the opposition and its leaders. Her statement that Vuk Drašković has a villa on Lake Geneva is particularly noteworthy, which has never been proven.
The other side saw her as a victim of Tuđman's regime, who became unwelcome in Zagreb after HDZ came to power, as she provoked, or asked unpleasant questions, to the first president of independent Croatia at media conferences. She was a journalist for "Danas" in Zagreb. The Croats, among other things, accused her of working for the counter-intelligence service of the JNA. This led to her moving to Belgrade in 1991.
I’m describing the breakup of Yugoslavia. TV pundits had a big role in demonizing everybody who might oppose the regime, be it the other political parties or the other republics/ethnicities. This paved the road to the war.
Imagine Alex Jones-level “journalism” directed by the government, blasting from the official and more-less the only widely available TV station in the country. Štula was one of the most notorious examples, but I’m not surprised she’s a relative unknown to the people who didn’t watch her with their own eyes.
The most disappointing aspect about the whole situation was that it was so transparent. It was obvious what they were doing, and yet the population at large somehow went along with it… the socialist apparatchik Milošević won elections at the time Eastern European countries were getting rid of their old communist/socialist power structures. Not that he was the only problem, far from it, but to this day I believe that reformists like Ante Marković would have had a fighting chance if not for Milošević.
And then, when there were no answers to economic problems, it was easy to put blame on others: your neighbors and far-away foreign powers alike. Do that in a powder keg that is the Balkans, where so much blood was spilled in the past and everybody remembers it, and the consequences are predictable.
I think that people who lived in democracies their whole lives underestimate how dangerous the malicious journalism and misinformation can be when enough people start believing it.
Imagine Alex Jones-level “journalism” directed by the government, blasting from the official and more-less the only widely available TV station in the country. Štula was one of the most notorious examples, but I’m not surprised she’s a relative unknown to the people who didn’t watch her with their own eyes.
The most disappointing aspect about the whole situation was that it was so transparent. It was obvious what they were doing, and yet the population at large somehow went along with it… the socialist apparatchik Milošević won elections at the time Eastern European countries were getting rid of their old communist/socialist power structures. Not that he was the only problem, far from it, but to this day I believe that reformists like Ante Marković would have had a fighting chance if not for Milošević.
And then, when there were no answers to economic problems, it was easy to put blame on others: your neighbors and far-away foreign powers alike. Do that in a powder keg that is the Balkans, where so much blood was spilled in the past and everybody remembers it, and the consequences are predictable.
I think that people who lived in democracies their whole lives underestimate how dangerous the malicious journalism and misinformation can be when enough people start believing it.
I've read an article long ago about war veteran that wanted to go back. They found life in society more dreadful than war. War brought them unrivaled intensity of bonds (life or death is unquestionable) and order. In society everything is muddy and mediocre.
Even without going to the extent of war, I find "primitive life" is probably still healthiest for us existentially. Maybe using proxies like sports as symbolic wars.
Even without going to the extent of war, I find "primitive life" is probably still healthiest for us existentially. Maybe using proxies like sports as symbolic wars.
I'm fairly sure that anthropological evidence shows, pretty conclusively, that early society was a good deal more violent (on account of violence inflicted by people) than what we have today. (I may well be mistaken about this, but I have a recollection of hearing something to the effect that all pre-columbian adult skeletal remains found in the Americas show evidence of violence (not that Columbus improved things, of course.))
Sounds like "Why Young Men Go to War" [0] by Sebastian Junger. He also wrote the book called War with similar themes.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9389520
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9389520
Thanks but the webpage i remember was older. Early 2000s style article and more about Vietnam era.
The Hague is full of poets, playwrites, psychiatrists and lawyers and the media was heavily used to incite hatred. Not in the way that directed violence in Rwanda for example, but it was propaganda.
Not about war, but the same author's Class: A Guide Through the American Status System, published in 1983, is insightful and very entertaining.
Incidentally, if anyone knows of a worthy successor, I'd love to read it. His observations remain remarkably accurate in most cases (his completely-off take on "Class X" notwithstanding) but there must be more to say on the topic since then.
Incidentally, if anyone knows of a worthy successor, I'd love to read it. His observations remain remarkably accurate in most cases (his completely-off take on "Class X" notwithstanding) but there must be more to say on the topic since then.
"Class" seems to have held up very well. I remember back when it was published trying to shoehorn myself into his "Class X". I had to squint really hard.
I think the core problem was his not recognizing Class X as just the usual bohemian avant-garde, and thinking that it represented some shift in the class hierarchy rather than a constant part of it. His hope for some bright future for this "classless" class was simply misplaced, because he didn't see what it actually was. Which makes the end of that otherwise fun book kind of a downer.
Bobos in Paradise by David Brooks is "what happened when the upper middle class became class X". You could argue whether it's worthy or not, but it's what we've got.
Let me also recommend an extraordinary book about the Russian women who fought in WWII:
The Unwomanly Face of War by Svetlana Alexievich
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/book-review-u...
The Unwomanly Face of War by Svetlana Alexievich
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/book-review-u...
here's fussell through internet archive https://archive.org/details/boyscrusadea00fuss
argh sorry, limited preview only.
argh sorry, limited preview only.
The willingness of societies to sanitize the realities of war is easily understood in evolutionary terms: genes that build brains that are willing to suspend disbelief and engage in violence reproduce better than genes that build brains that are not willing to do so because the former can use a credible threat of violence to exploit the latter as resources. The sad fact of the matter is that the answer to Rodney King's famous rhetorical question is that no, we can't all just get along, because we live on a finite planet with finite resources, and at the end of the day it is Darwin who runs the show, not Jesus. (Which is, ironically, a big part of the reason that belief in Jesus is so persistent and pervasive.)
We can definitely go along most of the time. Bigger wars become more and more of a losing proposition with modern (conventional) weapons, and the complexity needed to run a prosperous society. Starting a war to grab riches (as it was in ancient times) usually does not work, and definitely does not work on larger scale.
The only relatively reasonable case for starting a war today is a war for independence, for liberation from someone else's strangling control. It does not always lead to prosperity as a result though; look at Eritrea, for instance.
The only relatively reasonable case for starting a war today is a war for independence, for liberation from someone else's strangling control. It does not always lead to prosperity as a result though; look at Eritrea, for instance.
> Bigger wars become more and more of a losing proposition
You've missed the point. Yes, a war is generally a losing proposition nowadays. But a credible threat of war often is not.
Even more to the point, wars were often winning propositions in our ancestral environment, and so we are more likely to be descended from people who were willing to wage them in the past. That is a very difficult legacy to overcome.
You've missed the point. Yes, a war is generally a losing proposition nowadays. But a credible threat of war often is not.
Even more to the point, wars were often winning propositions in our ancestral environment, and so we are more likely to be descended from people who were willing to wage them in the past. That is a very difficult legacy to overcome.
> we live on a finite planet with finite resources, and at the end of the day it is Darwin who runs the show, not Jesus.
natural selection/Darwinism isn’t any sort of genius. from one angle, you outsmart it every time you use a condom. from another angle, if Darwinism leads to such an apparently contradictory behavior — one which popped into being suddenly, after millions of years without — how certain can we really be about the outcomes this mechanism will produce into the future?
natural selection/Darwinism isn’t any sort of genius. from one angle, you outsmart it every time you use a condom. from another angle, if Darwinism leads to such an apparently contradictory behavior — one which popped into being suddenly, after millions of years without — how certain can we really be about the outcomes this mechanism will produce into the future?
> you outsmart it every time you use a condom
Not really. All you're doing is moving the needle a tiny bit so that in the next generation there will be fewer people inclined to use condoms.
> if Darwinism leads to such an apparently contradictory behavior
What contradictory behavior are you referring to? The ability to suspend disbelief is useful to survival in all kinds of situations, especially in our ancestral environment. Where is the contradiction?
Not really. All you're doing is moving the needle a tiny bit so that in the next generation there will be fewer people inclined to use condoms.
> if Darwinism leads to such an apparently contradictory behavior
What contradictory behavior are you referring to? The ability to suspend disbelief is useful to survival in all kinds of situations, especially in our ancestral environment. Where is the contradiction?
> All you're doing is moving the needle a tiny bit so that in the next generation there will be fewer people inclined to use condoms.
so you claim, yet condoms have been around for generations now and my perception is that their use has only increased over generations. am i mistaken in this?
> What contradictory behavior are you referring to?
i said "apparently contradictory": on first look it appears to be contradictory, whether it objectively is or not. better would have been for me to use "unexpected", best would have been "unpredictable": because evolution produces so many random effects along the way.
> we can't all just get along, because we live on a finite planet with finite resources, and at the end of the day it is Darwin who runs the show
Darwinism suggests here that solving for limited resources will someday be required for an organism to be successful. it doesn't care how that's solved for: how can you be so confident that the emerging solution won't be coupled with "all [of this organism] just getting along?" for example, an unending arms race over physical superiority may be disastrous against resource use, and a more successful strategy might be some level of cooperation that avoids that arms race. if today's humans are a Darwinian product consider that they differ from parts of the past both along increased large-scale cooperation (e.g. cities) and less individual-against-individual violence (e.g. violent crime). that already looks a lot more like us "just getting along" than many stages of the past.
how long will this be stable? where lies the next local optima? can anyone really know?
so you claim, yet condoms have been around for generations now and my perception is that their use has only increased over generations. am i mistaken in this?
> What contradictory behavior are you referring to?
i said "apparently contradictory": on first look it appears to be contradictory, whether it objectively is or not. better would have been for me to use "unexpected", best would have been "unpredictable": because evolution produces so many random effects along the way.
> we can't all just get along, because we live on a finite planet with finite resources, and at the end of the day it is Darwin who runs the show
Darwinism suggests here that solving for limited resources will someday be required for an organism to be successful. it doesn't care how that's solved for: how can you be so confident that the emerging solution won't be coupled with "all [of this organism] just getting along?" for example, an unending arms race over physical superiority may be disastrous against resource use, and a more successful strategy might be some level of cooperation that avoids that arms race. if today's humans are a Darwinian product consider that they differ from parts of the past both along increased large-scale cooperation (e.g. cities) and less individual-against-individual violence (e.g. violent crime). that already looks a lot more like us "just getting along" than many stages of the past.
how long will this be stable? where lies the next local optima? can anyone really know?
> so you claim, yet condoms have been around for generations now and my perception is that their use has only increased over generations. am i mistaken in this?
Condoms only go back a few hundred years, and that happens to coincide with a period of time where evolutionary pressure on humans was generally low because of the economic prosperity brought about by the industrial revolution. So all kinds of alleles have been able to survive in the last few hundred years that would have had a much harder time before.
Condoms are hard to analyze because they offer not only birth control but also protection from sexually transmitted diseases. Their effects are also temporary, so someone who uses a condom can still reproduce.
> Darwinism suggests here that solving for limited resources will someday be required for an organism to be successful.
You have to remember that evolution advances the reproductive fitness of genes, not organisms. This is most dramatically illustrated by hive insects where the vast majority of the individuals are sterile. Humans are ridiculously complicated compared to any other life form. But one of the things that is observed across all human societies across all human history is the segregation of human populations into in-groups and out-groups. This can take different forms: tribalism, castes, social classes, nation-states... but human populations that embraced all other humans as part of "us" are nearly unheard of. I don't know of any examples. And it's pretty easy to understand why: any such group would be easily conquered when it came into contact with a more militarily aggressive group, and so genes for aggression will tend to dominate genes for getting along with everyone.
You are correct that "solving for limited resources" will eventually be required, but that can just as easily take the form of killing off a lot of people as it can wisely planning for the future. Evolution doesn't care about our sensibilities. Evolution doesn't actually "care" about anything, except in the sense that water "cares" about flowing downhill. Genes build brains that care about things, but the genes themselves don't care.
Condoms only go back a few hundred years, and that happens to coincide with a period of time where evolutionary pressure on humans was generally low because of the economic prosperity brought about by the industrial revolution. So all kinds of alleles have been able to survive in the last few hundred years that would have had a much harder time before.
Condoms are hard to analyze because they offer not only birth control but also protection from sexually transmitted diseases. Their effects are also temporary, so someone who uses a condom can still reproduce.
> Darwinism suggests here that solving for limited resources will someday be required for an organism to be successful.
You have to remember that evolution advances the reproductive fitness of genes, not organisms. This is most dramatically illustrated by hive insects where the vast majority of the individuals are sterile. Humans are ridiculously complicated compared to any other life form. But one of the things that is observed across all human societies across all human history is the segregation of human populations into in-groups and out-groups. This can take different forms: tribalism, castes, social classes, nation-states... but human populations that embraced all other humans as part of "us" are nearly unheard of. I don't know of any examples. And it's pretty easy to understand why: any such group would be easily conquered when it came into contact with a more militarily aggressive group, and so genes for aggression will tend to dominate genes for getting along with everyone.
You are correct that "solving for limited resources" will eventually be required, but that can just as easily take the form of killing off a lot of people as it can wisely planning for the future. Evolution doesn't care about our sensibilities. Evolution doesn't actually "care" about anything, except in the sense that water "cares" about flowing downhill. Genes build brains that care about things, but the genes themselves don't care.
It's easier to just eat your competition's babies. That's the adaptation that evolved when scientists ran the limited-resources experiment with insects.
I didn't fight in WW2 obviously, but I did fight in a war. For me, the reticence to describe every detail to people who weren't there boils down to this: I don't want my wife, my children, or my neighbors to be burdened with thinking of something so horrible. I want them to be happy and safe, that's why I went. No need to bring it to their doorstep if I don't have to.
I suspect many during and after WW2 felt this way.
I suspect many during and after WW2 felt this way.
I haven't, my grandfather did. He was at Pearl Harbor, many battles in the Pacific (he was a submariner), in the end he was part of the occupation of Japan and earned many medals including the purple heart for almost dying in a sub accident.
Only as an adult have I come to realize the gift he gave me.
When I was a child, I spent a ton of time with him, he had a big hand in raising me. The picture he painted for the young me formed the foundation of my world view. He chose to share with us the Japanese cooking he learned while living there, he taught us how to use chop sticks, one of my most prized possessions is a silk he brought back and gave me in his will. He never once spoke negatively about any group of people, especially those who were "enemies", he stood up for anyone who was being treated negatively and wouldn't stand for it. He harbored no ill will, and therefore didn't put it in me.
It's only as an adult through research into his service that i have realized the full gravity of what he did during this service and the fact that he was a truly happy, blissful, and forgiving man after all that.
I can say to you, having been one of the recipients of the kindness and forgiveness you are showing in your own life now, and sharing in this comment - thank you. This is how the world moves on.
Only as an adult have I come to realize the gift he gave me.
When I was a child, I spent a ton of time with him, he had a big hand in raising me. The picture he painted for the young me formed the foundation of my world view. He chose to share with us the Japanese cooking he learned while living there, he taught us how to use chop sticks, one of my most prized possessions is a silk he brought back and gave me in his will. He never once spoke negatively about any group of people, especially those who were "enemies", he stood up for anyone who was being treated negatively and wouldn't stand for it. He harbored no ill will, and therefore didn't put it in me.
It's only as an adult through research into his service that i have realized the full gravity of what he did during this service and the fact that he was a truly happy, blissful, and forgiving man after all that.
I can say to you, having been one of the recipients of the kindness and forgiveness you are showing in your own life now, and sharing in this comment - thank you. This is how the world moves on.
I had two relatives who fought in WWII. The contrast between them is interesting. One was in an engineering unit and was a classic REMF. He had tons of stories about the war. Usually about how he and his buddies would get drunk and wreck jeeps and somehow escape any disciplinary action for it. He was present at many of the famous Pacific islands like Okinawa. But always after the main fight was over. Asked him once if he was ever shot at and he had to think. He thought it was only once. He was a loud blowhard in many ways and not always pleasant to be around.
Had another relative who was a Marine. Was present at many of the worst battles. Including Iwo Jima. I never heard his stories. He never talked about them. My mom pressured him into talking one day. She regretted that for the rest of her life because the stories were so traumatic and it left him in tears. He was a gentle man. Became a Methodist minister after the war. I never once heard him raise his voice in anger. One of the kindest men I've ever known.
This is a sample size of only two. So I'm not assuming combat, or the lack of, shaped these men into what they would later become. But it's a little interesting to me.
Since I myself am older, I have some relatives who go way back. My grandmother was once visited by her great-uncle when she was 6. He was a veteran of the Mexican War and the Civil War (on the Confederate side). He also wouldn't talk about combat. But he did tell this one story where he and some buddies snuck out of camp. Somewhere in northern Mexico. Found a bar and flirted a little with girls. Then the girls suddenly rushed the men out of the bar and hid them in a barn. Mexican soldiers heard there were Americans in town. The Americans hid under a bale of hay and were narrowly missed by a Mexican soldier who shoved a pitchfork into it. That great-uncle loved that story and would tell it often. Laughing every time.
Had another relative who was a Marine. Was present at many of the worst battles. Including Iwo Jima. I never heard his stories. He never talked about them. My mom pressured him into talking one day. She regretted that for the rest of her life because the stories were so traumatic and it left him in tears. He was a gentle man. Became a Methodist minister after the war. I never once heard him raise his voice in anger. One of the kindest men I've ever known.
This is a sample size of only two. So I'm not assuming combat, or the lack of, shaped these men into what they would later become. But it's a little interesting to me.
Since I myself am older, I have some relatives who go way back. My grandmother was once visited by her great-uncle when she was 6. He was a veteran of the Mexican War and the Civil War (on the Confederate side). He also wouldn't talk about combat. But he did tell this one story where he and some buddies snuck out of camp. Somewhere in northern Mexico. Found a bar and flirted a little with girls. Then the girls suddenly rushed the men out of the bar and hid them in a barn. Mexican soldiers heard there were Americans in town. The Americans hid under a bale of hay and were narrowly missed by a Mexican soldier who shoved a pitchfork into it. That great-uncle loved that story and would tell it often. Laughing every time.
My uncle (elder brother of my dad) died on Oder River offence. Two weeks before end of the war. 20 years old guy, sigh. And I also lost all my grandfathers there. Memories in our family are quite fresh.
> I don't want my wife, my children, or my neighbors to be burdened with thinking of something so horrible.
Interesting. Until very recently, as far as I could know, my mother's life began at 16. She refused to talk about anything from her childhood.
I don't know if, like you, she didn't want to traumatize us or simply didn't want to think about it at all. But now, in her late 80s, she'll sometimes absent-mindedly relate some story from her childhood. They are all kid stories, but the perspective in them can be hair raising. (She was a child in an occupied country during WWII in the pacific; then immediately as the war ended the country became a different war zone, so she only knew living in that kind of environment until she left the country to go to university).
Recently I've been thinking of this because of the Ukraine war. I have seen at close range the impact of a generation of kids (like my mother in law, and others in her village) who grew up in postwar Germany with essentially no adult men around. That whole generation is pretty screwed up, and their kids (my generation) also reflect that impact. While my personal opinion is that Germany is not doing anywhere near enough to help Ukraine, I think they should be preparing a for a huge postwar assistance, not just money for rebuilding, but psychological / therapy based on their experience to try to reduce the effects of wartime trauma on Ukraine.
Interesting. Until very recently, as far as I could know, my mother's life began at 16. She refused to talk about anything from her childhood.
I don't know if, like you, she didn't want to traumatize us or simply didn't want to think about it at all. But now, in her late 80s, she'll sometimes absent-mindedly relate some story from her childhood. They are all kid stories, but the perspective in them can be hair raising. (She was a child in an occupied country during WWII in the pacific; then immediately as the war ended the country became a different war zone, so she only knew living in that kind of environment until she left the country to go to university).
Recently I've been thinking of this because of the Ukraine war. I have seen at close range the impact of a generation of kids (like my mother in law, and others in her village) who grew up in postwar Germany with essentially no adult men around. That whole generation is pretty screwed up, and their kids (my generation) also reflect that impact. While my personal opinion is that Germany is not doing anywhere near enough to help Ukraine, I think they should be preparing a for a huge postwar assistance, not just money for rebuilding, but psychological / therapy based on their experience to try to reduce the effects of wartime trauma on Ukraine.
"I think they should be preparing a for a huge postwar assistance, not just money for rebuilding, but psychological / therapy based on their experience to try to reduce the effects of wartime trauma on Ukraine. "
We take lots of refugees. I would argue this is already a very effective way of preventing further traumatizing.
But as far as I am aware, those who come do not easily get offered psychatric help, even if they already are traumatized.
But the psychatric sector is pretty much operating on its limits anyway.
We take lots of refugees. I would argue this is already a very effective way of preventing further traumatizing.
But as far as I am aware, those who come do not easily get offered psychatric help, even if they already are traumatized.
But the psychatric sector is pretty much operating on its limits anyway.
Being a refugee is traumatic on its own. But Germany has a lot of lessons (including what not to do) that it could be providing for good.
I don't think that Germany has many lessons: our hindsight about the first decades after the war time is completely dominated by the the topic of denazification, in all its twists and details, that everything else just happened without anybody really taking note.
I can tell you it’s still a big issue in the Dörfer which were likely less subject to the denazification process. Our parents’ generation (those who were kids in the 30s & 40s) are mostly gone but those born in the 50s-70s are still around and many in therapy which was not common before. That is the pool to learn from.
There is sadly no shortage of countries with large populations who suffered in war. But Germany is a large, wealthy country which is a good example of what Ukraine will face in postwar reconstruction. And yes, Germany still owes an old debt to Ukraine (instigation of war) as well as a contemporary one (holding off Russia with limited German assistance).
There is sadly no shortage of countries with large populations who suffered in war. But Germany is a large, wealthy country which is a good example of what Ukraine will face in postwar reconstruction. And yes, Germany still owes an old debt to Ukraine (instigation of war) as well as a contemporary one (holding off Russia with limited German assistance).
The psychiatric sector should be quadrupled. More so in some countries. It’s flabbergasting to me that people don’t see it as - not just a moral imperative - but also an obvious economic one.
Who’s going to pay for it? Health insurers are still trying to avoid it.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/11/29/5672649...
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/07/7304045...
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/11/29/5672649...
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/07/7304045...
That’s like saying “who will pay for clean power” or “who will pay for firefighters?” or. “Who can afford to pay for safer building codes?”
In the long term we all benefit.
In the long term we all benefit.
Yes, but someone has to be willing to pay for it. I'm not wrong.
In a national/publicly funded national health system, that system (i.e., taxpayers) should fund it, because better mental health in the population will improve the economic performance of the nation, increasing tax receipts etc...
That is, if they can get over that calvinist/puritan mental health == weakness/stigma thing, which seems to be slowly happening.
That is, if they can get over that calvinist/puritan mental health == weakness/stigma thing, which seems to be slowly happening.
I agree that it should be funded. I’m just pointing out that even places like Canada don’t fund it
> While my personal opinion is that Germany is not doing anywhere near enough to help Ukraine, I think they should be preparing a for a huge postwar assistance
Germany already hosts around one million refugees from Ukraine. The exact numer is difficult to say, since the EU has provided all Ukrainian refugees visa-free entry. Which is unprecedented. Most of them are women and children. The winter is coming.
Providing them psychological help is important, but the sheer number of people from Ukraine (not speaking German) makes this very challenging. The Germans themselves also have the problem of finding psychological help, since the number of people needing it has been rising because of the pandemic, the war, the economic instability, etc.
Germany already hosts around one million refugees from Ukraine. The exact numer is difficult to say, since the EU has provided all Ukrainian refugees visa-free entry. Which is unprecedented. Most of them are women and children. The winter is coming.
Providing them psychological help is important, but the sheer number of people from Ukraine (not speaking German) makes this very challenging. The Germans themselves also have the problem of finding psychological help, since the number of people needing it has been rising because of the pandemic, the war, the economic instability, etc.
> While my personal opinion is that Germany is not doing anywhere near enough to help Ukraine, I think they should be preparing a for a huge postwar assistance, not just money for rebuilding, but psychological / therapy based on their experience to try to reduce the effects of wartime trauma on Ukraine.
Well, perhaps they should, but I'm not sure they can. My parents never mentioned any help regarding postwar trauma being available in Germany. Perhaps mental health issues weren't recognized as such then, perhaps they had other priorities. The first few years after the war "were difficult".
Well, perhaps they should, but I'm not sure they can. My parents never mentioned any help regarding postwar trauma being available in Germany. Perhaps mental health issues weren't recognized as such then, perhaps they had other priorities. The first few years after the war "were difficult".
> My parents never mentioned any help regarding postwar trauma being available in Germany.
Yes, but it is now the 21st century.
Yes, but it is now the 21st century.
Alternate perspective: I was in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't talk about it because theres not much to say. I was either standing or sitting some place on guard duty, wired up on an insane amount of caffeine and nicotine, trying not to go insane for the 12 hour shifts. The only thing that punctuated the boredom was the daily mortar attack alarms lol
I'm happy to talk to people about my experiences in Afghanistan, but yeah, I only have a few minutes worth of "war stories" to tell.
One of the things that most non-veterans don't grasp is just how mundane day-to-day military life can be, even in a combat zone, like how people without a security clearance can't imagine how mundane most SECRET material really is. I find it hard to explain, but life is both different in quirky ways (various restrictions on freedoms, being judged professionally by your height/weight and 2-mile running time, random attacks by mortar fire, etc.) and dominated by many of the same experiences and concerns of civilian life (time spent just acquiring and eating food, dealing with traffic and bureaucracy, being frustrated by your assigned Windows machine on the enterprise network, etc.).
One of my personal takeaways from my time in Afghanistan is just how widely variable everyone's "combat" experience can be. I flew helicopters, so I saw the whole range of living conditions on a daily basis: everything from the smallest observation posts where squads lived in filth and got attacked routinely by well-aimed direct fire, to the large airbases like Bagram where people worked 9-5 in a cubicle and had many amenities that were even nicer than what was back home at Fort Bragg. And where you ended up on that spectrum seemed quite arbitrary and luck-of-the-draw. Some otherwise interchangeable helicopter units just flew VIPs back and forth between Bagram and Kabul while others flew SEAL teams on very-high-risk raids every night. So when someone says they did a tour in Afghanistan (even if they earned a Bronze Star or a Combat Action Badge), that doesn't mean much to me, in itself. Edited to add: I think the variance among people who "served in WWII" is orders-of-magnitude greater. There were just so many millions of people in uniform in so many diverse places.
One of the things that most non-veterans don't grasp is just how mundane day-to-day military life can be, even in a combat zone, like how people without a security clearance can't imagine how mundane most SECRET material really is. I find it hard to explain, but life is both different in quirky ways (various restrictions on freedoms, being judged professionally by your height/weight and 2-mile running time, random attacks by mortar fire, etc.) and dominated by many of the same experiences and concerns of civilian life (time spent just acquiring and eating food, dealing with traffic and bureaucracy, being frustrated by your assigned Windows machine on the enterprise network, etc.).
One of my personal takeaways from my time in Afghanistan is just how widely variable everyone's "combat" experience can be. I flew helicopters, so I saw the whole range of living conditions on a daily basis: everything from the smallest observation posts where squads lived in filth and got attacked routinely by well-aimed direct fire, to the large airbases like Bagram where people worked 9-5 in a cubicle and had many amenities that were even nicer than what was back home at Fort Bragg. And where you ended up on that spectrum seemed quite arbitrary and luck-of-the-draw. Some otherwise interchangeable helicopter units just flew VIPs back and forth between Bagram and Kabul while others flew SEAL teams on very-high-risk raids every night. So when someone says they did a tour in Afghanistan (even if they earned a Bronze Star or a Combat Action Badge), that doesn't mean much to me, in itself. Edited to add: I think the variance among people who "served in WWII" is orders-of-magnitude greater. There were just so many millions of people in uniform in so many diverse places.
I heard a similar story from a relative of me: He was in the Waffen SS and fought the war basically behind a typewriter in a depot.
In WWII, "combat troops" made up only 20% of US military personnel, with the rest running support, logistics, etc. For the Germans it was closer to 60% for infantry and 50% for panzer divisions.
So if you were drafted, even as a German you had a nearly 50% chance to be assigned a position where you weren't expected to see combat. And on top of that there's the combat troops defending targets that weren't attacked by the enemy.
But with some bad luck you might have ended up fighting at Stalingrad. War isn't fair, on so many levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth-to-tail_ratio
So if you were drafted, even as a German you had a nearly 50% chance to be assigned a position where you weren't expected to see combat. And on top of that there's the combat troops defending targets that weren't attacked by the enemy.
But with some bad luck you might have ended up fighting at Stalingrad. War isn't fair, on so many levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth-to-tail_ratio
My grandfather was a partisan in Belarus during WWII. He told a few real battle/fight stories. But those stories can fill like 1% of the time. He rarely talked about the 99% he spent surviving in forests and swamps. And when he talked it was mostly about skills like sleeping in a forest when it was -30…
Whenever I asked my dad about his time in Vietnam, he said something similar, but less comfortable (sleeping in a hot humid bungalow with no AC and lots of rats). I wished I dug a bit deeper.
Because war is so horrible, there's no reason why people who don't fight or unwillingly participate in them shouldn't be able to know just how horrible it can be. Implicitly rose-tinting awful realities by keeping silent about their nature is rarely a good thing for future generations. If anything, the world needs more people who have been in wars to make explicitly clear just how many grotesque reasons there are for avoiding them if at all possible.
The difference being that there was a legitimate and urgent fear of a foreign power invading our shores, as there were actively doing to other democracies at the time. I'm straining to think of one American adversary of the last 70 years that we fought half a world away that had any conceivable possibility of showing up at our doorstep. I can think of many, many wars we have fought, just not a single one that has made us safer at home.
The US was not in any significant danger of being directly invaded during WWII. It would have been an incredibly costly logistical nightmare for the would-be invaders, very unlikely to succeed.
US worries were legitimate (atrocities perpetrated against civilians, future control of Europe/Asia, the international economic order and security of global trade networks, etc.) but “urgent” invasion wasn’t one of them.
US worries were legitimate (atrocities perpetrated against civilians, future control of Europe/Asia, the international economic order and security of global trade networks, etc.) but “urgent” invasion wasn’t one of them.
The mainland you mean, not the U.S. as a whole - since part of Alaska was invaded and seized. One of the reasons that's not well-known is that I believe it was kept secret during the war as it was a tad embarrassing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_campaign
It wasn’t a very successful invasion. They held a couple of islands for two months at the cost of 4000 of their 8000 men.
It wasn’t a very successful invasion. They held a couple of islands for two months at the cost of 4000 of their 8000 men.
However it's worth noting that the invasion caused at least tens of thousands of deaths and probably hundreds of thousands of deaths in North America - because the US and Canada built the Alaska highway to counter the Japanese; and that project spread illnesses to such as TB to native people who had never encountered them before; with a staggering deathtoll amongst them. Also not reported during the war.
Atrocities perpetrated against civilians wasn't a concern. It got retconned into our national consciousness, and sending refugees back demonstrates that thoroughly. The rest of what you say is right though.
From what I can tell people in the US were not happy about cities in Britain getting bombed, France being conquered, etc.
Disclaimer: I am not an expert in contemporary American understanding of WWII.
Disclaimer: I am not an expert in contemporary American understanding of WWII.
Oh, that’s fair and you’re right, they did care about those kinds of atrocities.
Edit because I’m exhausted and not being mindful about finishing thoughts, I didn’t mean this to be fighting words so much as clarifying words: they cared about mass attacks on civilians in some cases but not others. Bombings of allied cities was absolutely a concern. Mass murder or German and mostly eastern European Jews wasn’t such a concern. There wasn’t any such reaction to sending Jewish refugees back to be murdered.
The whole concept of actually caring about nazi atrocities on the scale they they committed them, to the victims they were committed against, was a retroactive set of moral concerns. And that’s unsurprising given that the US was the primary inspiration for those atrocities.
Edit because I’m exhausted and not being mindful about finishing thoughts, I didn’t mean this to be fighting words so much as clarifying words: they cared about mass attacks on civilians in some cases but not others. Bombings of allied cities was absolutely a concern. Mass murder or German and mostly eastern European Jews wasn’t such a concern. There wasn’t any such reaction to sending Jewish refugees back to be murdered.
The whole concept of actually caring about nazi atrocities on the scale they they committed them, to the victims they were committed against, was a retroactive set of moral concerns. And that’s unsurprising given that the US was the primary inspiration for those atrocities.
The fear was that Germany could occupy a South American country and use that to launch attacks on the U.S. this never happens obviously, but one could imagine it if the wars in Europe and Russia had gone differently.
[deleted]
Pearl Harbor was US.
The Philippines was US.
We were literally invaded.
They also bombed the West Coast.
The Philippines was US.
We were literally invaded.
They also bombed the West Coast.
US Navy ships in the territory of Hawaii were bombed but the island was not “invaded”.
You are right that the Philippines was invaded, and was at the time a US territory. But it was at that point under a government intended to transition it to independence. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare–Hawes–Cutting_Act
From what I can tell (this was decades before my birth and I have not extensively studied it, so I probably have an oversimplified impression) for mainland Americans, the Philippines was not really considered to be part of the country in the same way as, say, Illinois or Texas, and Filipinos were not considered to be Americans in the same way. (e.g. after WWII the Congress voted to strip benefits from Filipino veterans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescission_Act_of_1946) I’m sure the US wanted to maintain some navy and trade presence there though.
The Japanese also occupied the Aleutian islands of Kiska and Attu (part of Alaska territory). But it’s hard to imagine that people 3000 miles away in, say, Oregon were worried that the Japanese would be imminently launching an amphibious assault from there.
You are right that the Philippines was invaded, and was at the time a US territory. But it was at that point under a government intended to transition it to independence. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare–Hawes–Cutting_Act
From what I can tell (this was decades before my birth and I have not extensively studied it, so I probably have an oversimplified impression) for mainland Americans, the Philippines was not really considered to be part of the country in the same way as, say, Illinois or Texas, and Filipinos were not considered to be Americans in the same way. (e.g. after WWII the Congress voted to strip benefits from Filipino veterans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescission_Act_of_1946) I’m sure the US wanted to maintain some navy and trade presence there though.
The Japanese also occupied the Aleutian islands of Kiska and Attu (part of Alaska territory). But it’s hard to imagine that people 3000 miles away in, say, Oregon were worried that the Japanese would be imminently launching an amphibious assault from there.
People were literally killed by bombs in Oregon: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1945-japanese-balloon...
Remember, our discussion in this thread is the purported “legitimate and urgent fear of a foreign power invading [America’s] shores”.
(a) This balloon bombing was covered up and essentially nobody about it at the time, so clearly not something people were urgently worried about.
(b) This militarily irrelevant bombing of a handful of random civilians is hardly an “invasion”.
(a) This balloon bombing was covered up and essentially nobody about it at the time, so clearly not something people were urgently worried about.
(b) This militarily irrelevant bombing of a handful of random civilians is hardly an “invasion”.
> They also bombed the West Coast.
Two bombs, and it was basically a non-event. The intent was to start massive forest fires, but they failed.
They also shelled the West coast, and all they did was damage a baseball backstop at Fort Stevens and tear up the beach a bit.
Two bombs, and it was basically a non-event. The intent was to start massive forest fires, but they failed.
They also shelled the West coast, and all they did was damage a baseball backstop at Fort Stevens and tear up the beach a bit.
Hawaii and the Philippines were only territories.
The mainland US was not in any danger.
What I mean by this is that the average US citizen was completely safe (well, until drafts)
The mainland US was not in any danger.
What I mean by this is that the average US citizen was completely safe (well, until drafts)
Bulls. Hawaii was in clear and direct danger.
I presume the famous American educashun kicked in and geographically spoiled the slogan of bad bad America.
I presume the famous American educashun kicked in and geographically spoiled the slogan of bad bad America.
Alternate take (although yours can also be correct): people who haven’t been in a conflict have no frame of reference.
How do you explain that war is long periods of excruciating boredom punctuated by moments of heart pounding panic? Not well if you weren’t there.
How do you explain that war is long periods of excruciating boredom punctuated by moments of heart pounding panic? Not well if you weren’t there.
talking about it does not quite bring it to their doorstep; but it surely takes you back there; it's understandable to not want to go back.
your choice to shoulder this burden for all, is well your choice. but be advised that this choice may have unintended consequences in a longer term. consequences of your choice to witholding bad things "for them".
I don't belive you're doing this (bearing the horrible things) only to shield your relatives from your past. it is important you recognize that it's something you do for yourself, you are the main person who doesn't want to remember whatever horrible events you had to experience; don't pin this choice on them.
your choice to shoulder this burden for all, is well your choice. but be advised that this choice may have unintended consequences in a longer term. consequences of your choice to witholding bad things "for them".
I don't belive you're doing this (bearing the horrible things) only to shield your relatives from your past. it is important you recognize that it's something you do for yourself, you are the main person who doesn't want to remember whatever horrible events you had to experience; don't pin this choice on them.
He didn’t say anything about not revisiting those events personally or with other vets, he said by with “people who weren’t there”. Give a guy a break for choosing to not sit his kids down to hear all the gory details.
Perhaps if we were all a little more exposed to the horrors of war we wouldn't so eagerly vote for war-hungry leaders over and over and over.
I'm not telling him to go scare his kids. I'm pointing out some possible self-deceit.
"I did it for them!".. sure, why not? but my point is that first and foremost he's making those choices for himself; which is pefrectly fine. what's not fine (IMO) is to pretend such choices aren't selfish.
"I did it for them!".. sure, why not? but my point is that first and foremost he's making those choices for himself; which is pefrectly fine. what's not fine (IMO) is to pretend such choices aren't selfish.
These things aren’t binary. They aren’t simply this or that. Both can be true or neither or some combination.
Your claim of selfishness seems to be unwarranted (and perhaps a little mean spirited), how can you possibly tell?
Your claim of selfishness seems to be unwarranted (and perhaps a little mean spirited), how can you possibly tell?
> And they knew that the single greatest weapon of the war, the atomic bomb excepted, was the German 88-mm flat-trajectory gun, which brought down thousands of bombers and tens of thousands of soldiers.
I beg to differ. It was radar-guided anti-aircraft guns, and proximity fuzes for artillery shells. This had the effect of doubling the firepower.
Another was high-octane gasoline, which enabled much more powerful aircraft engines.
The Axis did not have these technologies.
I beg to differ. It was radar-guided anti-aircraft guns, and proximity fuzes for artillery shells. This had the effect of doubling the firepower.
Another was high-octane gasoline, which enabled much more powerful aircraft engines.
The Axis did not have these technologies.
> I beg to differ. It was radar-guided anti-aircraft guns
The 8.8cm german flak gun WAS a radar-guided AA gun.
> and proximity fuzes for artillery shells
The axis may not have had proximity fuzes, but the 8.8cm flak was so accurate that during a statistical analysis it was determined that the part of the gun that introduced the most accuracy were the timed fuzes. They switched to shells that detonated on impact and actually ended up scoring more kills than before.
The actual piece of equipment that made this thing so accurate was the fire control computer, the Kommandogerat 40.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UnrEetRYIuLoUT--ic0i...
Here is a Google Drive link to some scans I made in college of the book written by the designer. It explains all the calculations that the analog computer is doing.
The 8.8cm german flak gun WAS a radar-guided AA gun.
> and proximity fuzes for artillery shells
The axis may not have had proximity fuzes, but the 8.8cm flak was so accurate that during a statistical analysis it was determined that the part of the gun that introduced the most accuracy were the timed fuzes. They switched to shells that detonated on impact and actually ended up scoring more kills than before.
The actual piece of equipment that made this thing so accurate was the fire control computer, the Kommandogerat 40.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UnrEetRYIuLoUT--ic0i...
Here is a Google Drive link to some scans I made in college of the book written by the designer. It explains all the calculations that the analog computer is doing.
Thanks for the reference!
It seems that not that many were built:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BCrzburg_radar
It seems that not that many were built:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BCrzburg_radar
Sorry I worded my previous response poorly.
> The 8.8cm german flak gun WAS a radar-guided AA gun.
The Kommandogerat 40 was a rangefinder/computer, not a radar. It had the capability of being radar-guided, but was not necessarily radar-guided by itself.
For the Kommandogerat 40 you needed a direct line-of-sight (they were still used in overcast conditions though) but it would compensate for the velocity vector of the incoming targets, altitude, wind, and would relay fire controls to all the flak pieces in the battery. Not as nice as a radar, but it was able to be fielded in mass quantities, and I think it deserves its place as 2nd most devastating weapon of WWII. Especially since towards the end of the war, the Germans were the ones playing defense. It made the strategic bombing campaigns of the allies very painful. The RAF bomber crews had a 44% death rate. That's deaths, not casualties.
It also excelled in direct fire roles against ground targets.
> The 8.8cm german flak gun WAS a radar-guided AA gun.
The Kommandogerat 40 was a rangefinder/computer, not a radar. It had the capability of being radar-guided, but was not necessarily radar-guided by itself.
For the Kommandogerat 40 you needed a direct line-of-sight (they were still used in overcast conditions though) but it would compensate for the velocity vector of the incoming targets, altitude, wind, and would relay fire controls to all the flak pieces in the battery. Not as nice as a radar, but it was able to be fielded in mass quantities, and I think it deserves its place as 2nd most devastating weapon of WWII. Especially since towards the end of the war, the Germans were the ones playing defense. It made the strategic bombing campaigns of the allies very painful. The RAF bomber crews had a 44% death rate. That's deaths, not casualties.
It also excelled in direct fire roles against ground targets.
I read that it took 16,000 88 flak shells to bring down one bomber. I infer the success of the flak was due simply to quantity.
I've also read numerous times that the searchlights would find and "pin" a bomber so that the crews could dial in the coordinates for firing. Wouldn't need that with radar guided guns.
I well know the death rate for B-17 crews - my father flew 32 missions in 1944 in one. The casualty rate was 80% (killed, wounded, POW). He told me that the way he dealt with it was simply accept that since he was going to die, he'd do the best job he could. I have the letter he wrote his father, dryly saying he'd completed his missions and would be coming home.
The Bismarck was well equipped with anti-aircraft batteries, which failed to stop the torpedo attack by slow-moving, obsolete biplanes. The Japanese navy didn't have much success with anti-aircraft batteries, either.
Regardless, the 88 was an excellent cannon.
I've also read numerous times that the searchlights would find and "pin" a bomber so that the crews could dial in the coordinates for firing. Wouldn't need that with radar guided guns.
I well know the death rate for B-17 crews - my father flew 32 missions in 1944 in one. The casualty rate was 80% (killed, wounded, POW). He told me that the way he dealt with it was simply accept that since he was going to die, he'd do the best job he could. I have the letter he wrote his father, dryly saying he'd completed his missions and would be coming home.
The Bismarck was well equipped with anti-aircraft batteries, which failed to stop the torpedo attack by slow-moving, obsolete biplanes. The Japanese navy didn't have much success with anti-aircraft batteries, either.
Regardless, the 88 was an excellent cannon.
> I read that it took 16,000 88 flak shells to bring down one bomber. I infer the success of the flak was due simply to quantity.
I am not trying to be pedantic, just wondering out loud. 16,000 shells per bomber sounds like a lot, but I am sure you are familiar with the statistic that 250,000 small-arms rounds were fired for every insurgent killed in Afghanistan, and 25,000 rounds fired per kill in WWII. I can't find an actual hard source on the ratio of bullets per kill though. Bombers obviously cant hide behind cover, but I wonder if that 16,000 number isn't as unreasonable as it seems.
> I well know the death rate for B-17 crews - my father flew 32 missions in 1944 in one.
He sounds like an amazing man. I get queasy in light turbulence. I can't imagine the stress and horror of even a single bombing run. That's more than anyone should ever have to go through.
I am not trying to be pedantic, just wondering out loud. 16,000 shells per bomber sounds like a lot, but I am sure you are familiar with the statistic that 250,000 small-arms rounds were fired for every insurgent killed in Afghanistan, and 25,000 rounds fired per kill in WWII. I can't find an actual hard source on the ratio of bullets per kill though. Bombers obviously cant hide behind cover, but I wonder if that 16,000 number isn't as unreasonable as it seems.
> I well know the death rate for B-17 crews - my father flew 32 missions in 1944 in one.
He sounds like an amazing man. I get queasy in light turbulence. I can't imagine the stress and horror of even a single bombing run. That's more than anyone should ever have to go through.
He said many of the men cracked under the strain. Some would deal with it by drinking themselves to oblivion.
> He sounds like an amazing man.
He was, but I'm rather biased :-)
He told me once he wouldn't trade that experience for anything, and wouldn't do it again for anything. He also said that when he felt down, he'd think of the men he knew who didn't get the chance to live, and would fix his attitude.
> He sounds like an amazing man.
He was, but I'm rather biased :-)
He told me once he wouldn't trade that experience for anything, and wouldn't do it again for anything. He also said that when he felt down, he'd think of the men he knew who didn't get the chance to live, and would fix his attitude.
> 250,000 small-arms rounds were fired for every insurgent killed in Afghanistan
To be fair, only a small part of that is aimed. Much of it is "covering fire", the intent of which is to cause the enemy to hide while your guys advance. There are also soldiers who do not wish to kill, and do not aim their shots.
The larger point is that if the accuracy of the flak were doubled with radar guidance, it would have been impossible for the 8th AF to continue the mass bombing campaign. If 5% are lost on a mission (and that did happen now and then) repeatedly, then it ain't long before there isn't an Air Corps left.
To be fair, only a small part of that is aimed. Much of it is "covering fire", the intent of which is to cause the enemy to hide while your guys advance. There are also soldiers who do not wish to kill, and do not aim their shots.
The larger point is that if the accuracy of the flak were doubled with radar guidance, it would have been impossible for the 8th AF to continue the mass bombing campaign. If 5% are lost on a mission (and that did happen now and then) repeatedly, then it ain't long before there isn't an Air Corps left.
The effect of the proximity fuze on non-AA artillery was profound. The Germans certainly noticed when the fuzes were released for general use at the Battle of the Bulge.
A similar fuze was also made available for use in bombs, but I don't know if that was used in Europe. It was used in the Pacific against airfields, late in the war.
A similar fuze was also made available for use in bombs, but I don't know if that was used in Europe. It was used in the Pacific against airfields, late in the war.
> proximity fuzes
interesting, it's rarely mentioned indeed. Also I wonder if that was the reason for developping those flares scattered by planes ? or maybe that was only after the invention of guided missiles.
interesting, it's rarely mentioned indeed. Also I wonder if that was the reason for developping those flares scattered by planes ? or maybe that was only after the invention of guided missiles.
The Germans did use radar to detect, track, and guide forces to the targets. German night fighters had onboard radar for this, too.
What the Germans didn't have, however, was connecting the radar directly to the weapon.
What the Germans didn't have, however, was connecting the radar directly to the weapon.
I suspect that even well-meaning articles like this does society a disservice when it characterizes war as horrifying. People are not afraid of horror; people believe they can handle it. People watch horror movies. Calling war horrifying is still, in a way, glamorizing war. But even though war, the reality of war, does contain horror, war is not, I believe, on the whole, horrifying. It is instead (I suspect) boring. An oppressive and grinding kind of boring, and only punctuated with brief interludes of horror, which only contributes to its oppressiveness. I suspect that it is this aspect which destroys most people who wage war. I suspect that while some/many people do experience the horror of war (which indeed is quite horrible), most people in war do not experience much horror directly. It is instead the boredom; the oppressive, grinding, fearful boredom, which destroys most of them.
Of course, I’m only speculating; I’m not a sociologist or a psychologist.
Of course, I’m only speculating; I’m not a sociologist or a psychologist.
The article is not a sociological or psychological treatise, but if you put some credence at all into what is partly (but not exclusively) anecdotal evidence, it makes the case that for many (probably the majority) who find themselves in infantry combat, it is worse than they feared or imagined. If it is protracted (and a figure of ~200 days is given), essentially all the survivors are traumatized, often profoundly.
During the 82-day battle of Okinawa, I believe American lieutenants were in combat on average less than two weeks before being killed or becoming a casualty through traumatic injury (and it was worse for the Japanese troops), which cannot be passed off as long periods of boredom. The article is specifically about front-line experience, which (it is claimed, plausibly) is very different than even that of rear-echelon troops, and commingling the two does a disservice to the former.
I feel fairly confident in saying that watching a horror movie is nothing like any of it.
During the 82-day battle of Okinawa, I believe American lieutenants were in combat on average less than two weeks before being killed or becoming a casualty through traumatic injury (and it was worse for the Japanese troops), which cannot be passed off as long periods of boredom. The article is specifically about front-line experience, which (it is claimed, plausibly) is very different than even that of rear-echelon troops, and commingling the two does a disservice to the former.
I feel fairly confident in saying that watching a horror movie is nothing like any of it.
The author is addressing front line combatants, not the people in the far more common support roles.
This is where I have found studying the Eastern front of the war to be incredibly informative. The U.S. quickly ceased to propagandize the Eastern front because they did not want to valorize the Soviets as the cold War matured. What this has left in the West is a much more sober literature regarding that part of the conflict.
What is most clear from that is what a disaster for humanity WWII was. It's much harder to romanticize it in the face of that kind of unguilded brutality.
Similarly, the experiences of underground fighters and the partisans paint a picture of unredeemable cruelty. When the slightest mistep will cause your compatriots to bury you in a shallow grave, the bullet in the back of your head branding you a traitor forever whether you deserved it or not, it's hard to sell the idea that valor is rewarded with proportional glory. The mess of war is indiscriminant.
What is most clear from that is what a disaster for humanity WWII was. It's much harder to romanticize it in the face of that kind of unguilded brutality.
Similarly, the experiences of underground fighters and the partisans paint a picture of unredeemable cruelty. When the slightest mistep will cause your compatriots to bury you in a shallow grave, the bullet in the back of your head branding you a traitor forever whether you deserved it or not, it's hard to sell the idea that valor is rewarded with proportional glory. The mess of war is indiscriminant.
This meditation on World War II and memory is probably my favorite essay ever:
"Losing the War" by Lee Sandlin
https://www.leesandlin.com/articles/LosingTheWar.htm
Sandlin refers to Fussell's writings on the war too. It's long, but every time I look it up I end up re-reading all of it.
"Losing the War" by Lee Sandlin
https://www.leesandlin.com/articles/LosingTheWar.htm
Sandlin refers to Fussell's writings on the war too. It's long, but every time I look it up I end up re-reading all of it.
If anyone is interested in Vietnam "The Things They Carried" by Tim O'Brien is excellent.
Old soldiers rarely want to talk about what they've experienced. My father was horrified by my proposal to interview him on video about his WWII career.
And when they ask us
And they're certainly going to ask us
The reason why we didn't win the Croix de Guerre
Oh we'll never tell them
No we'll never tell them.
There was a front, but damned if we knew where.
[WWI soldier's song, based on a popular song of the time]
And when they ask us
And they're certainly going to ask us
The reason why we didn't win the Croix de Guerre
Oh we'll never tell them
No we'll never tell them.
There was a front, but damned if we knew where.
[WWI soldier's song, based on a popular song of the time]
My grandfather was a WWII B-29 pilot. For a very long time he didn't talk in much detail about the horrors. It was only in his later years before he passed did he talk openly about some of the real nasty aspects. One time I asked him what the most unpleasant thing he experienced was during his time in the military. His answer was the stench of burning humans. When they started low level firebombing, his initial spot was the center-rear wave. So when he flew in to drop his stuff... the smell was horrendous.
I suspect he shared that with us younger folks to illustrate that war is not glamorous, even if you win. Yes they won, but it was a disgustingly ugly affair for all parties involved.
I'm glad he shared that, because I have a very healthy aversion to unnecessary conflict, in part due to a few stories shared by him.
I suspect he shared that with us younger folks to illustrate that war is not glamorous, even if you win. Yes they won, but it was a disgustingly ugly affair for all parties involved.
I'm glad he shared that, because I have a very healthy aversion to unnecessary conflict, in part due to a few stories shared by him.
I wish more of our politicians and pundits had the enlightenment and empathy that comes from such an experience. So many rude, riled-up chickenhawks these days.
I read something a while ago, a veteran who said something to the effect of: "all war would end immediately if the perpetrators had to smell it."
I think he had liberated a concentration camp. I wish I had remembered it better.
I think that this informed a lot of the fury towards the ordinary German population, that they could allow something like that to happen, or that they would ever just get used to it and go on with their lives. I'm probably conflating that with a scene from Band of Brothers, or some other written work.
I think he had liberated a concentration camp. I wish I had remembered it better.
I think that this informed a lot of the fury towards the ordinary German population, that they could allow something like that to happen, or that they would ever just get used to it and go on with their lives. I'm probably conflating that with a scene from Band of Brothers, or some other written work.
I think Fussel had a point in 1989, but after that there's been plenty of depictions of war that have been less sanitized. "The Pacific" comes to mind in TV, and "Fury" in movies, even if it's very formulaic.
Memoirs can be raw too:
- https://gerikson.com/blog/books/read/Helmet-For-My-Pillow.ht...
- https://gerikson.com/blog/books/read/With-the-Old-Breed.html
And even before 1989 novels like Waugh's "Sword of Honour" trilogy problematized WW2.
Memoirs can be raw too:
- https://gerikson.com/blog/books/read/Helmet-For-My-Pillow.ht...
- https://gerikson.com/blog/books/read/With-the-Old-Breed.html
And even before 1989 novels like Waugh's "Sword of Honour" trilogy problematized WW2.
That was also my thought. That the world has gotten a whole lot less sanitized since 1989 if an article so brutal could fail to change my impression of war very much at all. I had already internalized that every heroic portrayal was bullshit and that it was all a big great murderfest.
The most striking thing about war is that most people only need the slightest of nudges to start blowing each other to bits. We are a thin crust on bottomless savagery.
The most striking thing about war is that most people only need the slightest of nudges to start blowing each other to bits. We are a thin crust on bottomless savagery.
Saving Private Ryan seems very relevant (most relevant?) as well - it's about two decades older than the ones you mentioned. The beach attack sequence is incredibly brutal, like near everyone in some landing boats getting machinegunned or drowning in seconds. There are missing limbs and bodies cut in half as well.
After skimming the article, I can't shake the feeling that the author fell for Wehrmacht propaganda when it comes to equipment. The Wehrmacht lacked auto and semi automatic infantry weapons, the main rifle was bolt action . SMGs were not half as widespread as propaganda reel made it look and having the first true general purpose MG is not a war winner in itself. The only German tank from 42/43 onwards, when the US started to see combat angainst the Nazis, that could outgun Western allied tanks was the Tiger (great gun, but no longer up to date on armor), Panther (mostly used on the Eastern Front, inreliable and with weak side armor) and the Tiger II (available in homeopathic doses). The occassions where Tigers were encountered in France are far less numerous than believed, also because a barely on-par Panzer 4 kind of looks like a Tiger I. The bulk of the Wehrmacht was on foot, horse drawn, barely above WW1 infantey force. The highly mechanized army fielding invincible super tanks and vehicles is a propaganda myth.
And everything beyond heavy weapons, like boots, load bearing equipment, trucks, rubber, food, sweets, you name it, the Western allies were lightyears aheaf of the Nazis. And since those things hint at highly effecient supply chains, the Allies also out performed the Nazis on spare parts and medical supplies.
EDIT: That the author was a WW2 vet doesn't mean he couldn't fall for some scewed view of the enmies capabilities, because of course you can. Not war related, but the things that go well are taken for granted while the things not going well, in reality or just perception, stand out.
And everything beyond heavy weapons, like boots, load bearing equipment, trucks, rubber, food, sweets, you name it, the Western allies were lightyears aheaf of the Nazis. And since those things hint at highly effecient supply chains, the Allies also out performed the Nazis on spare parts and medical supplies.
EDIT: That the author was a WW2 vet doesn't mean he couldn't fall for some scewed view of the enmies capabilities, because of course you can. Not war related, but the things that go well are taken for granted while the things not going well, in reality or just perception, stand out.
Fussell references the belief among GIs that the Germans had better kit. It's one thing to objectively assess this after the fact, it's quite another to get hit by an 88mm in Normandy and not see the Hurricane obliterate it.
The Wehrmacht fought tenaciously in Western Europe using second-rate troops compared to the Eastern front where the real struggle was. Defending is easier than attacking, and the defenders were inching closer and closer to their homeland. This counts for a lot in warfare.
The Wehrmacht fought tenaciously in Western Europe using second-rate troops compared to the Eastern front where the real struggle was. Defending is easier than attacking, and the defenders were inching closer and closer to their homeland. This counts for a lot in warfare.
Right. The big panzers were terrible to encounter if they ever managed to get to the front line, but they rarely did, and there they broke down quickly and were often abandoned. They were also more vulnerable than they looked. On the Russian front the tankers learned to pop the turrets off by radio-controlling their fire and hitting the turret at roughly the same time with 3 or four smaller tanks or guns. The sheer vibration would pop the turret off since the Germans had never designed for that much vibration. The Russians never did tell the Americans or Brits about this technique, however; interestingly.
Re that vibration: steel is the most elastic substance we know of. The Germans were relying on gravity to keep the heavy turrets on the tank, and that works if they're hit by only one shell at a time.
I missed the believe part being explicitly mentioned, thabks for pointing it out. So I agree with Fussel then.
You can see the effect of this perception today—the MG42, the 88 gun, and a couple of prominent Nazi tank models are still top-of-mind when one thinks of what the real terrors, the real killers on the ground were, the things you'd have been horrified to encounter, if one has absorbed a decent amount of pop- and actual-history of the war. I don't know of any allied equivalent in the Anglosphere short of The Bomb (which the author of the piece calls out for the same reason!), which makes sense even if our stuff was actually better, as "our boys" weren't facing our own weapons.
[deleted]
We also had gas and oil in abundance, which the Axis were always short on.
I watch https://www.youtube.com/user/funker530 for this reason. It is not a gore channel. Their intent is to document what actual combat is like. I have never served and likely never will given my age. My only rational is to stay informed. One of my enduring memories of childhood is the nightly casualty reports on the news and pictures of body bags from Vietnam. The US military is incredibly professional now compared to the 60's which is good. The downside is that our Gov't is quick to use them without thinking about the long term consequences.
The author was a veteran of WW2.
In 1989 he was 65.
He died in 2012, aged 88.
A bit off on his age in 1989; he was actually 75. Otherwise he would have been pretty young to have served in WW2.
Not having fought in a war (yet?) I won't dare to speak about the core message here (it's well worth reading), but I sometimes wonder about dissemination of this knowledge. The fragments about Hitler and Goebbels shielding themselves from gory reality on the ground are interesting in this context. This shows well how the leadership operates on the level of its own fantasies, and moves the "chess pieces" while clueless about what they're really doing.
The current difficulty in Russia with actually mobilizing many parts of society gives one a glimmer of hope: they have a handle mainly on marginalized and poor village dwellers. Maybe the modern living standards and communications landscape does ultimately make people more resistant to being mobilized for dumb wars, even if for 100% selfish reasons and (sadly) without necessarily getting rid of imperialistic nationalism. This one of the crucial reasons defending untampered speech is important, and why communist China has the information policies it has. (To be sure, draft evasion was very much a widespread thing even in republican Rome.)
I sometimes think that middle 20th century was such a horrible time in many respects (not to deny earlier and later brutality) because they did have many technological means of communication, coordination and mass broadcast already--but to the degree it was usable only by the central elite. Thus they could enforce social conformity and mass projects, often wars, with relatively little difficulty. Compare how war journalist work is described in the article.
The current difficulty in Russia with actually mobilizing many parts of society gives one a glimmer of hope: they have a handle mainly on marginalized and poor village dwellers. Maybe the modern living standards and communications landscape does ultimately make people more resistant to being mobilized for dumb wars, even if for 100% selfish reasons and (sadly) without necessarily getting rid of imperialistic nationalism. This one of the crucial reasons defending untampered speech is important, and why communist China has the information policies it has. (To be sure, draft evasion was very much a widespread thing even in republican Rome.)
I sometimes think that middle 20th century was such a horrible time in many respects (not to deny earlier and later brutality) because they did have many technological means of communication, coordination and mass broadcast already--but to the degree it was usable only by the central elite. Thus they could enforce social conformity and mass projects, often wars, with relatively little difficulty. Compare how war journalist work is described in the article.
>fragments about Hitler and Goebbels shielding themselves from gory reality on the ground are interesting in this context. This shows well how the leadership operates on the level of its own fantasies, and moves the "chess pieces" while clueless about what they're really doing.
For Goebbels, as a cripple who never fought in any war, maybe so, but not for Hitler, at least as far as combat violence was concerned. The man was a repeatedly wounded veteran of the first world war who had served right in the worst of front line duty, and knew exactly how brutal the carnage could be for every one of the millions of soldiers he later ordered out to battle through his generals. Cluelessness might apply to his ordering of the holocaust, because a thing like that pretty much had no precedent in human history, but not quite so much for his war-making.
Curiously, while, as far as anyone knows, Hitler himself never witnessed one of the mass killings his death camps were performing daily, Himmler did want to see what it was truly like, and nearly fainted at his first sight of all those regular people being gassed at once. Didn't stop him from continuing to approve the whole monstrous thing though...
For Goebbels, as a cripple who never fought in any war, maybe so, but not for Hitler, at least as far as combat violence was concerned. The man was a repeatedly wounded veteran of the first world war who had served right in the worst of front line duty, and knew exactly how brutal the carnage could be for every one of the millions of soldiers he later ordered out to battle through his generals. Cluelessness might apply to his ordering of the holocaust, because a thing like that pretty much had no precedent in human history, but not quite so much for his war-making.
Curiously, while, as far as anyone knows, Hitler himself never witnessed one of the mass killings his death camps were performing daily, Himmler did want to see what it was truly like, and nearly fainted at his first sight of all those regular people being gassed at once. Didn't stop him from continuing to approve the whole monstrous thing though...
> The current difficulty in Russia with actually mobilizing many parts of society gives one a glimmer of hope: they have a handle mainly on marginalized and poor village dwellers. Maybe the modern living standards and communications landscape does ultimately make people more resistant to being mobilized for dumb wars, even if for 100% selfish reasons and (sadly) without necessarily getting rid of imperialistic nationalism. This one of the crucial reasons defending untampered speech is important, and why communist China has the information policies it has. (To be sure, draft evasion was very much a widespread thing even in republican Rome.)
Despite the wartime propaganda efforts, Fussell notes in this piece that one of the things King George VI may have been ignorant of was that all his jails and prison-camps were full to bursting with deserters and draft-dodgers, as D-Day approached.
Despite the wartime propaganda efforts, Fussell notes in this piece that one of the things King George VI may have been ignorant of was that all his jails and prison-camps were full to bursting with deserters and draft-dodgers, as D-Day approached.
Of the 4 U.S. Boomer presidents: Clinton used an educational deferment & Rhodes scholarship to dodge the draft, then enrolled in ROTC when the law was changed, then pulled out of ROTC once his draft number was high enough that he wouldn't be drafted anyway. Bush enlisted in the Air National Guard, which was never called up for Vietnam. Obama was a child. Trump had "bone spurs".
There's a long, recent history of draft dodgers doing well in high places.
There's a long, recent history of draft dodgers doing well in high places.
A side comment. Paul Fussell mentioned the origin of the GI slang “FUBAR.”
One thing I disliked early in my career were the many tutorials and demos that named the first object Foo and the next object Bar. I doubt any of these tutorial authors served in WW2 or in any war. It seemed to me similar to suburban raised children mimicking Gangster Rap. It feels fake and phony to me. War is horrific and evil. Writing a tutorial is the complete opposite. I guess I am the dude who yells at kids to get off my lawn.
One thing I disliked early in my career were the many tutorials and demos that named the first object Foo and the next object Bar. I doubt any of these tutorial authors served in WW2 or in any war. It seemed to me similar to suburban raised children mimicking Gangster Rap. It feels fake and phony to me. War is horrific and evil. Writing a tutorial is the complete opposite. I guess I am the dude who yells at kids to get off my lawn.
Usage of foo/bar/baz as metasyntactic variables dates to the 60s. It appears that Foo predates bar, and was possibly more related to the usage of it as a nonsense word in pre-ww2 comics. It seems unlikely that "bar" was added after foo for any reason other than FUBAR though.
The introduction seems questionable. Practically in every category that counted Americans were ahead. Artillery The God of War, number of tanks vastly outnumbering Germans and Sherman was as good as PzIV, Airpower, motorized transport. Most importantly logistics Americans had food, clothing, fuel. The way that intro is written it sounds like he is talking about Finland vs USSR ;)
I expect the perception on the frontlines was rather different than what it looks like in a spreadsheet.
I mean, that actually ends up being kinda the thesis of the article.
I mean, that actually ends up being kinda the thesis of the article.
"They knew that in its representation to the laity, what was happening to them was systematically sanitized and Norman Rockwellized, not to mention Disneyfied."
The author seems to have little understanding of how much this was true of World War 1, or probably every large scale war ever. The home audiences for news reports in World War 1 (in pretty much every country) were not allowed to know how FUBB'd things were, and it was only after the war ended and troops went back home that the word partially got out. There were governments that did not let troops go on home leave for long periods because they didn't want them talking to the civilian population.
I don't think this was something unique about World War 2.
The author seems to have little understanding of how much this was true of World War 1, or probably every large scale war ever. The home audiences for news reports in World War 1 (in pretty much every country) were not allowed to know how FUBB'd things were, and it was only after the war ended and troops went back home that the word partially got out. There were governments that did not let troops go on home leave for long periods because they didn't want them talking to the civilian population.
I don't think this was something unique about World War 2.
The author does mention this:
“IN THE POPULAR AND GENTEEL ICONOGRAPHY OF war during the bourgeois age, all the way from eighteenth and nineteenth-century history paintings to twentieth-century photographs, the bodies of the dead are intact, if inert, sometimes bloody and sprawled in awkward positions, but, except for the absence of life, plausible and acceptable simulacra of the people they once were.”
“IN THE POPULAR AND GENTEEL ICONOGRAPHY OF war during the bourgeois age, all the way from eighteenth and nineteenth-century history paintings to twentieth-century photographs, the bodies of the dead are intact, if inert, sometimes bloody and sprawled in awkward positions, but, except for the absence of life, plausible and acceptable simulacra of the people they once were.”
It is because the propaganda machine does not want you to see what the war is about. They dont want you to see bodies of desecrated children spread all over the place.
> The author seems to have little understanding of how much this was true of World War 1...
Fussell wrote _The Great War and Modern Memory_, so I'd say he was pretty well-versed on how WW1 was portrayed.
Fussell wrote _The Great War and Modern Memory_, so I'd say he was pretty well-versed on how WW1 was portrayed.
Well, in WW1 in britain they actually did an authentic frontline documentation for the home front to watch in the new cinemas.
It turned out, this was kind of bad for the morale of the civilians, who were expecting heroics and glory and were devastated by the gruel pictures of reality of war and so they never showed it again in this shape. (I try to find the video again)
It turned out, this was kind of bad for the morale of the civilians, who were expecting heroics and glory and were devastated by the gruel pictures of reality of war and so they never showed it again in this shape. (I try to find the video again)
Came here to say "why no fussel refs" and checked the author before posting.
A similar vibe to Fussel is in Farlay Mowatt's war writing, or arguably Spike Milligan's pretty bizarre but also honest autobiography of his PTSD
A similar vibe to Fussel is in Farlay Mowatt's war writing, or arguably Spike Milligan's pretty bizarre but also honest autobiography of his PTSD
This article is about how the USA as a country lacks the political and cultural maturity about war, compared to for example Europe (and other countries where war was fought on its territory).
Countries that advocate a war or conflict, should fight this out on their own territory. This would solve a lot of problems in the world and would make up for the developmental deficit.
Countries that advocate a war or conflict, should fight this out on their own territory. This would solve a lot of problems in the world and would make up for the developmental deficit.
That would do the world a whole lot of good. (I haven't read the article and am choosing to believe your summation.)
US participation in WWII was clearly vital and pivotal. Korea and Vietnam were unfortunate necessities - anyone that believes otherwise is naive and has no idea of the true horror communism always brings. The Cold War was ultimately the very long tail of WWII...
After those times there wasn't any need for the US to be an aggressor in other lands.
US participation in WWII was clearly vital and pivotal. Korea and Vietnam were unfortunate necessities - anyone that believes otherwise is naive and has no idea of the true horror communism always brings. The Cold War was ultimately the very long tail of WWII...
After those times there wasn't any need for the US to be an aggressor in other lands.
Bizarre to write something called "the real war" that is focused on American forces, who were, by any measure, enjoying vast advantages and resources unavailable to other combatants (including being able to choose the time and place of engagement). Below is a table of WWII military casualties by nation:
World War II casualties - Wikipedia
Soviet Union 8,668,000 to 11,400,000
Germany 4,440,000 to 5,318,000
China (1937–1945) 3,000,000 to 3,750,000+
Japan 2,100,000 to 2,300,000
United States 407,300
United Kingdom including Crown Colonies 383,700
Italy (in postwar 1947 borders) 319,200[68] to 341,000The purpose of the article was to detail the ways that the true visceral horror of world war two was sanitized or censored for public consumption. The contributions of individual nations in the Allied victory was immaterial for the purpose of that article. The title, "The Real War" is drawing a contrast with an imagined "fake" war, where men die with dignity, in important, courageous and heroic circumstances, for high minded ideals, without terrifying disfigurements and mutilations. The title is not saying "the real war was fought and won mostly by Americans for democracy", it's saying "the real war had people piss their pants in fear and die before seeing any combat in a B-29 that was unfit to fly". I do not believe that you saw the title and did not understand this distinction.
[deleted]
> it's saying "the real war had people piss their pants in fear and die before seeing any combat in a B-29 that was unfit to fly".
Using this as an example of the horrors of combat in ww2 just further underlines my point because it’s so incredibly mild compared to the combat on the Eastern Front or against the Japanese in China. Most US service members, as grateful as I am to them, were far luckier than almost all other soldiers in ww2 — better equipped, coming in stronger numbers, and with much better odds of survival. The story the author wants to tell is fundamentally not an American forces story (but talking about Soviet suffering wouldn’t sell in 1989 or even today).
Using this as an example of the horrors of combat in ww2 just further underlines my point because it’s so incredibly mild compared to the combat on the Eastern Front or against the Japanese in China. Most US service members, as grateful as I am to them, were far luckier than almost all other soldiers in ww2 — better equipped, coming in stronger numbers, and with much better odds of survival. The story the author wants to tell is fundamentally not an American forces story (but talking about Soviet suffering wouldn’t sell in 1989 or even today).
There's a story [1] about russian soldiers at some points of war being assigned one rifle per two infantrymen. The idea was that one guy would get the rifle and the other one would be a "spare", waiting for the first one to die. He was also free to pick up a rifle from one of other people already dead on the ground.
BTW I suspect that the widely portrayed in media horror of being in the attack boat on D-Day was something of a common occurence for Soviet soldiers. They were routinely ordered to perform near-suicidal attacks, as Stalin's strategy was "strength in numbers". That's how he "achievied" the record number of casualities across all countries in the war.
[1] Can't find it right now, so I can't say how accurate it was, or how widespread.
BTW I suspect that the widely portrayed in media horror of being in the attack boat on D-Day was something of a common occurence for Soviet soldiers. They were routinely ordered to perform near-suicidal attacks, as Stalin's strategy was "strength in numbers". That's how he "achievied" the record number of casualities across all countries in the war.
[1] Can't find it right now, so I can't say how accurate it was, or how widespread.
Russian blood, British intel and sheer stubborness and US industry won WW2. A fact that both sides of the Iron Curtain down played and ignored throughout the Cold War.
Don't package all Soviet nations of the time into "Russians".
Especially at this time.
Absolutely true, it was all Soviet Nations.
This got flagged. I wonder why? Offended Russian imperialists?
The author's American addressing, more or less, an American audience, and does make some mention of the others—Britain is covered extensively; the German perspective a bit, plus American perspectives on the terrible things they were doing to the Germans; the horror visited upon civilians in France and Belgium by the allies, and more.
Besides, is there any requirement that such a piece be utterly comprehensive before it can be so-titled?
It's not bizarre at all.
Besides, is there any requirement that such a piece be utterly comprehensive before it can be so-titled?
It's not bizarre at all.
I think it's near impossible to tell the story of "The Real X" -- that's a pretty sensational/trollish way to title something -- but if one is going to make such a rhetorical gesture there should be a lot more to back it up than what is given here.
It's a complete American fantasy that our forces played a major role in the downfall of Germany, or that our blood sacrifice was particularly crucial to the outcome of any aspect of the war as a whole. Certainly U.S. resources like oil and materiel were critical to Allied success, not to mention the atom bomb in the defeat of Japan, and the (severely delayed) opening of a western front in France 1944 helped contain Soviet victories (in other words, impacted the Cold War), but it is pretty insulting to the 20X more USSR trooops who died and the nearly 10x more Chinese forces who perished to say that an account of the "Real War" could possibly exclude them like this.
It's a complete American fantasy that our forces played a major role in the downfall of Germany, or that our blood sacrifice was particularly crucial to the outcome of any aspect of the war as a whole. Certainly U.S. resources like oil and materiel were critical to Allied success, not to mention the atom bomb in the defeat of Japan, and the (severely delayed) opening of a western front in France 1944 helped contain Soviet victories (in other words, impacted the Cold War), but it is pretty insulting to the 20X more USSR trooops who died and the nearly 10x more Chinese forces who perished to say that an account of the "Real War" could possibly exclude them like this.
Has it occurred to you that Soviet and Chinese primary sources are less readily available? Far less, almost to the point of impossibility. It's not like those governments were forthcoming about anything for decades afterward. Also what, exactly, would adding those change about his essential point regarding the horrors of war and how they're portrayed? Did Chinese or Soviet bodies blow up differently? Immediacy and authenticity were essential to the themes he was addressing, so he used the most suitable sources available to him. What's wrong with that? Turning this into an argument about "credit" for who "won" the war seems more than a bit distasteful (especially while war is being fought over the very ground you're so quick to treat as a game board), and also beside the point.
I know (and can see from this thread) that emotions run high around anything touching on the ex USSR but I don’t think the current war in Ukraine is at all germane to this article from 1989 about ww2 (or to the content of my posts on HN about it).
It's just as germane as turning a story about the (almost universal) horrors of war into some kind of scorekeeping exercise, and nobody's showing more emotion than you. Why don't you try addressing my main point about accessibility and incremental value of primary sources, instead of picking one literally parenthetical comment to quibble about? It's the same thing you did with OP: sniping instead of engaging. Contrary to guidelines BTW. Please try to do better.
Missed this at the time. Belated thoughts:
Hmm. I didn't address the point about primary sources because it didn't seem like the main point. Right after you brought that issue up, the next sentence seemed to cast aside the importance of the issue: "Also what, exactly, would adding those [sources] change about his essential point..."
I wasn't sure the key point, and the last sentence seemed to be the most likely crux of what you were saying, but maybe I misread.
Maybe you're right about the sources, I can't claim to have looked for books or papers by ex Soviet soldiers. Although given how many Soviet soldiers there were, and given the USSR's incentives to highlight German brutality, are you sure on this score that there are not raw recollections of brutal war in USSR in ww2?
Anyway, I think a piece by the same author without such a sweeping and judgmental title ("real" is a very loaded word in this context that, as I've said, I don't think is earned here) would work just as well.
Hmm. I didn't address the point about primary sources because it didn't seem like the main point. Right after you brought that issue up, the next sentence seemed to cast aside the importance of the issue: "Also what, exactly, would adding those [sources] change about his essential point..."
I wasn't sure the key point, and the last sentence seemed to be the most likely crux of what you were saying, but maybe I misread.
Maybe you're right about the sources, I can't claim to have looked for books or papers by ex Soviet soldiers. Although given how many Soviet soldiers there were, and given the USSR's incentives to highlight German brutality, are you sure on this score that there are not raw recollections of brutal war in USSR in ww2?
Anyway, I think a piece by the same author without such a sweeping and judgmental title ("real" is a very loaded word in this context that, as I've said, I don't think is earned here) would work just as well.
[deleted]
> It's a complete American fantasy that our forces played a major role in the downfall of Germany, or that our blood sacrifice was particularly crucial to the outcome of any aspect of the war as a whole. Certainly U.S. resources like oil and materiel were critical to Allied success, not to mention the atom bomb in the defeat of Japan, and the (severely delayed) opening of a western front in France 1944 helped contain Soviet victories (in other words, impacted the Cold War), but it is pretty insulting to the 20X more USSR trooops who died and the many many Chinese forces who perished to say that an account of the "Real War" could possibly exclude them like this.
Please indicate which part of the article is claiming this.
> I think it's near impossible to tell the story of "The Real X" -- that's a pretty sensational/trollish way to title something
I think most people find such a title for a piece like this is appropriate and communicates its meaning just fine, if they're not going out of their way to find "gotchas".
Please indicate which part of the article is claiming this.
> I think it's near impossible to tell the story of "The Real X" -- that's a pretty sensational/trollish way to title something
I think most people find such a title for a piece like this is appropriate and communicates its meaning just fine, if they're not going out of their way to find "gotchas".
My point is pretty simple: It was not an American war, America was not a major party to the horrors of the war (except as a perpetrator of nuclear attacks on civilians), and an article purporting to describe the real visceral combat traumas of world war 2 would include descriptions from forces of countries that lost millions in the war. The piece only makes sense, and is only interesting, in the context of a fantasy world in which US forces played a much more decisive and heroic role than they did. It’s jingoism.
It's a fine essay, but I am coming to this long dissertation on dismemberment many years after Saving Private Ryan, which covered it better than any words could.
I can also recommend his book Poetic Meter & Poetic Form, but for different reasons.
Other books in the same vein:
- The Warriors: Reflections on Men in Battle by J Glenn Gray (Gray was a philosophy PhD and a 2nd Lieutenant in the war)
- War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges (Hedges was a war correspondent during the balkans and numerous other conflicts, this is much more interested in the psychological build up to war in common society, and its effects on society)
These books make me very pessimistic about human nature, but Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors provides a nice antidote: the total number of people killed by warfare in the 20th Century, if we followed similar patterns to our prehistoric ancestors, would have dwarfed what actually happened. We are becoming less warlike, even if its not cured.