Was It ‘The Good War’? - Page 3

Helena · 04-07-2008, 08:02 AM

Good post, dear doctor.

caffeine · 04-07-2008, 11:18 AM

Quote:

On some points, Cohen is on sold ground. There are things worth fighting for: God and country, family and freedom.

God and country both seem like stupid reasons to kill or die to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akkaid

Hitler had stated several times in his memoirs that conflict between US and Germany was inevitable. He had plans for rockets and planes that could strike US territory long before the US was in the war.

When did he say war was inevitable with America? Was it after the war had begun, and Germany was already at war with Britain, another country he'd rather have co-existed peacefully with (Germanic stock, and all); and while America was favouring the Allies through the lend/lease act?

I've always hated this 'we'd all be speaking German' nonsense as well. In Vichy France they spoke French; in Quisling's Norway, they spoke Norwegian and in 70s Czechoslovakia they spoke Czech and Slovak. I'm sure if Britain had been conquered by the Nazis, some homegrown fascist like Mosley would be placed in charge, and he'd oppress us all in English.

Defensor · 04-07-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caffeine

When did he say war was inevitable with America? Was it after the war had begun, and Germany was already at war with Britain, another country he'd rather have co-existed peacefully with (Germanic stock, and all); and while America was favouring the Allies through the lend/lease act?

I've always hated this 'we'd all be speaking German' nonsense as well. In Vichy France they spoke French; in Quisling's Norway, they spoke Norwegian and in 70s Czechoslovakia they spoke Czech and Slovak. I'm sure if Britain had been conquered by the Nazis, some homegrown fascist like Mosley would be placed in charge, and he'd oppress us all in English.

Common sense for a change. That all-speaking-German cliché is ridiculous.

wyly · 04-07-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles

I think it's much easier for a country to look at a war as an example of what TO do, instead of what NOT to do when the war never touched that country.

It's one thing to send a million men overseas to fight, come home to the same home they left, pensions, VA hospitals and families just the way they left them.

For anyone where the war actually was, joining the fight left your familiy destitute, hungry and in constant fear of death. If you were captured your family would not get a letter, they would be homeless and either turn to prostitution and crime or die in a work camp. Every single occupied European fighters lived with this. If I die my family starves. If I am caught, everyone I love will be arrested and put in prison to be tortured or worked to death. Even if we win but I'm wounded, I can no longer support us and the government will not be able to either. We will freeze and starve for the rest of our short lives. Noone will help us becasue there are millions just like us rotting in the street. And every day this war goes on thousands of my own people are being horribly maimed and butchered and there is simply not enough food and medicine to care for any of them.

Nothing against an Aussie or a Candian who risked his life and limbs in a foreign war. But comparing it to the experience of a Pole or a Dutchman. There should be a different word for war at home and war abroad.

Would I gamble my life for my country? Sure. No problem. Would I gamble my kids life? Knowing if I'm caught he'll suffer and die..... nope. That takes balls I don't have.

I've being telling Canadian, Americans and to a lesser extent Brits for years they really don't know what war is about.....they wouldn't be so quick to rush off to war had they pleasure of experiencing an occupation, seeing war up close and personal....

my family lived in Nazi occupied Europe, my father didn't want to leave his family to fight but did....my uncle was imprisoned, my father spent 5 years hiding from Nazi labour raids which were often a fatal one way trip, neighbours terrorized and executed at random, starvation....my mother still traumatized 50+ yrs later...

Guyker · 04-07-2008, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defensor

This is a lot of long-winded nonsense about what exactly? The United States government deliberately goaded the Empire of Japan into attacking Americans in order to force us into war. It's a very simple concept called treason.

The British and the French lecturing other countries on the evils of imperialism? Don't make me laugh, please.

Are we reading the same thing? The document you presented refers to a treaty between the Axis powers, and to hostile posturing from those countries towards the US. That is usually correctly assessed as hostile intentions. What goading?

And I have no idea what you are referring to in the last paragraph of your post. The only mention I made of France and England was to remind you that we had been allies in the previous world war, which may and did predispose us to sympathize with those nations.

Incidentally, why would "blowback" only apply to US conduct and foreign policy? If you are pretending Axis intentions were totally benign, why was Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor mounted in a context of attacks against other targets at the same time? Or is that just more long winded nonsense?

Dr.Knuckles · 04-07-2008, 08:27 PM

In my gandpas time, glorification of WW1 was one of the things that got people so excited about fighting WW2. Now that we all generally accept that WW1 was a useless abomination that accomplished nothing and butchered millions for no reason... we use the glorification of WW2 to motivate ourselves into fighting strangers.

SLowly we're going to start seeing WW2 the way it was. As we've done with WW1. It wont be recognisable, and our kids will think it pathetic that any of us saw glory or sense in it.

wyly · 04-08-2008, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles

In my gandpas time, glorification of WW1 was one of the things that got people so excited about fighting WW2. Now that we all generally accept that WW1 was a useless abomination that accomplished nothing and butchered millions for no reason... we use the glorification of WW2 to motivate ourselves into fighting strangers.

SLowly we're going to start seeing WW2 the way it was. As we've done with WW1. It wont be recognisable, and our kids will think it pathetic that any of us saw glory or sense in it.

ww1 pure imperialism by both sides, no justification for it......but how was ww2 to be avoided, nazi's seemed determined to have a war, and for people in occupied countries it was welcome...I can't imagine what it would have been like growing up in a Nazi dominated europe....

Dr.Knuckles · 04-08-2008, 01:15 AM

You can't have WW2 without WW1. Germany's surrender and entrenched economic ruin at Versaille are the direct cause of WW2. Even the holocaust comes about when Germany realises it will lose. No war, no halocaust.

And again. The Uk has an EMpire acorss the globe - all the result of violence and occupation. The US has brutal invasions in the Pacific and South America (where did Japan attack? Hawaii, Philipines... both of these were military occupations) and slavery in all but name with blacks unable to vote, work, own property etc. Soviet Union perhaps the only place on Earth almost as bad as Nazi Europe.

Name one thing Germany did that every other player didn't do proudly and regularly before 1940.

Invading and occupying neighbors was mroe than common in that time by everybody. Nobody even considered it wrong. The US was proud to take the Philipines by bombing the shit out of the local freedom fighters. It was all the rage.

Nazi treatment of Jews sets them apart? Think about blacks in the US in the 1930's.

wyly · 04-08-2008, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles

You can't have WW2 without WW1. Germany's surrender and entrenched economic ruin at Versaille are the direct cause of WW2. Even the holocaust comes about when Germany realises it will lose. No war, no halocaust.

And again. The Uk has an EMpire acorss the globe - all the result of violence and occupation. The US has brutal invasions in the Pacific and South America (where did Japan attack? Hawaii, Philipines... both of these were military occupations) and slavery in all but name with blacks unable to vote, work, own property etc. Soviet Union perhaps the only place on Earth almost as bad as Nazi Europe.

Name one thing Germany did that every other player didn't do proudly and regularly before 1940.

Invading and occupying neighbors was mroe than common in that time by everybody. Nobody even considered it wrong. The US was proud to take the Philipines by bombing the shit out of the local freedom fighters. It was all the rage.

Nazi treatment of Jews sets them apart? Think about blacks in the US in the 1930's.

well if you want to use a domino theory on what war caused which other war then you can take the cause off ww2 all the way back to Cardinal Richelieu and his policy of establishing a Rhine Frontier 1602-61

I see your point on imperialism of the world back then, you're correct that was the way it was, American invasion of Philippines and British invasion of South Africa were no different than Nazi invasions in Europe or Japans invasion of China........still the thought of growing up in Naziland doesn't appeal to me.....

I don't agree with your comparison of american blacks and Jews, there is no comparison, discrimination is not the equal of extermination.....

Helena · 04-08-2008, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caffeine

I've always hated this 'we'd all be speaking German' nonsense as well. In Vichy France they spoke French; in Quisling's Norway, they spoke Norwegian and in 70s Czechoslovakia they spoke Czech and Slovak. I'm sure if Britain had been conquered by the Nazis, some homegrown fascist like Mosley would be placed in charge, and he'd oppress us all in English.

I've always gathered it's a metaphor. Or a metonymy, perhaps.