Illusions about WW2

Remove all ads!

IIRC the japanese and the early mechanised russian formations clashed in manchuria in the late 20s and eraly to mid 30s - and the japanese pretty much got their ass whopped.
There the russians made their first experiences with mechanised warefare.

Japan didn't had an interest in repeating that and so they focused on easier prey: china and southeast-asia in general.

Besides, the pact you mention is, in germany, generally known as the Hitler-Stalin pact.

 

Ah yes it's fairly easy to get false illusions from a big mess like the WWII and a very common illusion here in Finland is that many teenagers here seem to think that Finland actually won the war/s against Russia.

Another perhaps more commonly belived legend about the winter war is the "ten Russians equals one Finn" phrase which ofcourse is completley false. Though the russian casulties were heavier it was mostley because of the poor tactics made by unskilled russian officers, and not because of the fact that Finns are better soldiers.

 

The only one responsible for the downfall of the German army in the Eastern front was IMO Hitler he was too eager and did not count the fact that Russia was too big not just another European country like Belgium or even France. Secondly i think he believed that with the exception of GB no other country including Russia could held against the fully mechanized Wermacht which was and their drawback since the temperature was so low that the gasoline froze within the fuel tanks making his army literally criple and unable to move.
And after that winter the mud was a factor that made the army to move only a few Kilometers per day. And when you have an army, who is based on speed to bring results, this is devastating

 

Every country sees the war from a different (and myopic) angle, and mivies like "Saving private Ryan" may give the impression that Americans believe that they won the war single handedly. However, educated Americans know the truth about what happened, even though they like to focus on their own contribution to the war. That makes them like every other country.

I mean, let's face it, I know Canada didn't exaclty become a major player in the war, but they certainly contributed -- My Dad was one of them -- and so I know quite a bit about Canada's contribution to the war effort. Does that mean I'm a moron who believes the Hosers single-handedly beat the Reich? Of course not, I'm just a Canadian nationalist who is proud of his country. There's nothing wrong with that.

On the Pacific side of things, I've read that Japan felt that America was muscling them out of their rightful place as a Pacific superpower, and wanted to send the Yankees back to the Western hemisphere where they belonged. They felt used and abused by the Americans, so they felt that Pearl Harbour was justified -- many still do, I'd bet.

 

Personally I feel the "we-beat-them-huns-singlehandedly" is more of a british phenomenon anyway; no pun intended but that's what I always feel when I visit britain. And that's about the only thing I have to complain about them; otherwise britain is really a great place to be.

No other country is that obsessed with it's glorious past. Queen mom openly praises Bomber Harris, a mass murderer in his own right, as an inspiring leader. When a german football team faces a british one they "blitz" like "panzers" in the SUN. And many british see the battle of britain as the turning point of WW-II. They stress the decyphering of the enigma as a british effort (the polish, french and US participation seemingly slipped their mind) and quite a lot are pretty convinced that the british troops alone drove the japanese out of Burma - isn't there a Lord Slim of Burma? - that his troops consisted to 80+% of indian infantry is the other part of the story. Just as their dependancy on US arms deliveries, crediting and soldiers from the commonwealth.

I mean the british fought well and tough, but that's not the point. They just didn't do it *alone* and their part wasn't that *decisive*. I mean, royal navy and air-force or not, there wouldn't be much glory left had Hitler decided to invade the british isles instead of russia with his full force.

Fixation? Distorsion? Illusions? Again, no pun intended, but just go to a british bookstore and have a look in the history section and you'll see what I mean. IMO britain has a self esteem problem, relying on war glory to overcome the lack of glory in real life. Or it's because they're a monarchy with all the nice and fancy uniforms. But that's certainly just my jealous view over the north sea

An old german drinking song from the 1920s.

[ June 27, 2003, 11:06: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I agree with this. In 2000 European football championship I remember that the arrested english hooligans were yelling to the Belgian cops "You are ungrateful bastards, without us you would be krauts".

 

The British Empire and the second world war is interesting, in my view. Because France and the UK were no great powers anymore after the first world war. The only great powers there were, were Germany, Japan, USA and Russia. Really great powers only USA and Russia, given demographics. I think it is and was hard to swallow for the British and the French only being medium powers in Europe, small powers on a world-wide scale. They finally made into the club of insifignicant small or medium sized European countries.

The British Empire was dead anyway, only the formal decleration of dead was missing until 1947. Now the interesting thing, the British seem to hold a grudge versus the French for not being able to fight off the Germans. Something they weren't able to assist the French with themselves in a deciding manner. The British forces on the continent were overrun as the French forces were.

So, for the British, WW2 seems to be the last reminder of the British Empire of the 19th century, which wasn't at all there anymore in the 20th century. And obviously, they weren't able do be a deciding force, like the lasting reputation of the former workshop of Europe seems to have demanded of them. But Germany has become the workshop about 1880.

On the other hand, that explains the "appeasement" politics, which weren't as "stupid" as most people think of them. They were a reality check. The UK and France were compared to highly industralizised (SP ?) and populated Germany small countries, which could not keep up in economical and military matters. That's the hard-to-swallow truth.

Than the other ironical turn. The Nazi-goverment (besides the obvious) was the worst goverment the Germans ever had as "administration". They strangulated Germany, which was actually getting weaker and weaker on the economical base, because it has lost it scientific and technical headstart. Logicially because most people with a brain were emmigrating or in a camp or just tried to survive and keeping a low-profile.

[ June 27, 2003, 21:11: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Few days ago, my English class touches the topic of "Double Speak" where people use words to alter the original meaning as a mean to minimize/glorify/justify something.

i read a book about double speak written back in 1973. i was surprised that a lot of words that we use now are in fact a form of double speak back them. Like "National Liberation Front", what a noble course, today we simply know them as "Vietcong".

We do have the power to alter history and twist current facts. i remembered a Hollywood movie (something like "waggie tail" or "to wag a tail" or "waggie doggie tail") that the government of U.S. used the power of media to create a phantom cirsis in order to shift people's attention.

That's why in college level, your lecturer expect you to be critical. You simply cannot believe everything.