Hatred makes strange bedfellows: Ahmadinejad and David Duke

The myth of glory.

 

A significant portion of the non-Holocaust Polish casualties were inflicted by the Soviets...Katyn Forest & such. Not to mention the forced deportation of tens of thousands of civilians & POWs to Siberia.

 

I would think that a significant number (though a much smaller percentage) of non-Holocaust French casualties were caused by British or American actions also. My point was not to cast blame but to point out that the people of those countries suffered much more from the war than the US of A. People like to make fun of the French and Polish for getting rolled over, but the US has not experineced anything similar in the modern era. The closest thing would be the Civil War, but at that point in time there were no machine guns and tanks.

But your point is well taken and I probably should have made it clear. Similarly, I should say that in terms of total military casualties, the US surpasses both France and Poland in absolute numbers, but falls significantly behind in terms of total loses at a percentage of the total population.

 

It's always fascinated me that the majority of Americans were isolationist, and despite our friends in Europe being under the Nazi's vicious regime, seeing newsreels at the movies constantly showing much of what was going on (thanks in part to those "Hollywood liberals" trying to get support from the public, with FDR's active encouragement) and our friends the British desperately fighting them off, with the issue looking grave, most Americans wanted no part of it... until Pearl Harbor. Yet we commonly hear about how we "saved Europe." Yes, we had a big part in it, but it was with reluctance, a reluctance that took the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor to end.




D&D. Howdy.

 

I was referring to casualties in the initial Russian invasion/occupation, not those caused by the subsequent Russian "liberation" (non-assistance to the Warsaw Uprising, levelling cities occupied by the Nazis, etc...). I was just making the obvious point - in response to your response to Hayes - that the Soviets were not good guys either. Theirs was a war of conquest, much like the Nazis, from the get-go - Katyn Massacre , mass deportations & executions, all that good stuff. Not until the Nazis turned on them did it become the Great Patriotic War for the Motherland or whatever they call it.

I understand what you're saying, though. Hell, Poland pretty much on it's own lasted as long against Germany *and* Russia as France (with help from the British, etc...) did against Germany alone.

 

And don't forget that Stalin made a deal with Hitler to split Poland, and that's exactly what happened. Only later did Hitler, on his own, of course, make the mad decision to invade the USSR.



D&D. Don't Split!

 

Right, and the Soviets proceeded to do things like this (which they tried to blame on the Nazis for 50 years).

My girl's grandmother & her family (and pretty much her entire village) were rounded up, stuck on cattle cars, and sent to Siberia to work on a coal mine. The great-grandfather was a vet, thus was educated, and so was deemed a "Threat to the People" and the family had to go. Before she died last year she gave her diary to the gf, who's been transcribing it & adding family pictures, maps & whatnot (and will hopefully translate it one of these days, unless my Polish improves significantly). Fascinating stories, so unbelievably sad.

Here's her great-grandmother's funeral in Siberia:



Her grandmother's the 6th from the right, she was 14 in when she was deported in '39. This pic's from about 6 months after they got there.

 

If the only thing you are implying is that the bin ladens and bush's have had business together, then why is it an odd coincidence? That just shows the lie to your statement. That a family in the oil business has relations with a huge Saudi conglomerate is not an odd coincidence unless you're a conspiracy nut. You're doing a terrible job at being sly with your position.

That's no myth, Hoss. There is nothing wrong with giving great praise, honor, and distinction to the Allies for taking on and thumping Germany and Japan in WWII. Nor with giving great praise, honor, and distinction to the US for our role in that conflict.

glo·ry /ˈglɔri, ˈgloʊri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[glawr-ee, glohr-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -ries, adjective, verb, -ried, -ry·ing, interjection
–noun 1. very great praise, honor, or distinction bestowed by common consent;

I think a linkage between Iraq and praise for WWII is spurious at best, but please do tell.

True. Makes me think about people who are the most fanatical against interventions. OTOH I think concentrating on the pre-war ideology short changes the feelings of the citizen soldiers who went to Europe and the South Pacific to fight the twin evils of Japan and Germany.

 

Find a single soldier who saw combat in that war who says what they did was glorious and I might agree to examine your position.

I think I made it clear in an earlier post.

 

I don't think it would be a problem to find a single soldier who thinks the US involvement in WWII should be praised and honored. My grandfather was and I damn sure know he did. I've also read untold accounts of the conflict a statement such as your's is silly. Is there glory - honor, action to be praised in wartime? Absolutely. To contend otherwise is ridiculous IMO. Should war be glorified as in 'it's a great time?' No, of course not. Is pointing out that we liberated France saying war is a great time? Not at all. That's just dumb.

 

Buck Turgidson is correct that the Soviets committed atrocities against the Polish which they tried to attribute to the Germans. Not that that lessens Germany's guilt for all the horrible things which were done before one bit.

But, Ottomaton, I don't think you can say "I would think that a significant number (though a much smaller percentage) of non-Holocaust French casualties were caused by British or American actions also." The British and American troops freed France. The Soviet troops, in many cases, just brought more terror to the countries they were "freeing".

From older relatives who can remember the war, I was told that people (prisoners of war and civilians alike) generally were treated well by the British and American soldiers in Germany - the Soviets, that was an entirely different story.

 

Let's not cross pollinate on threads eh?

 

Right. That people pick one out of HUNDREDS of wars as an example of a good war leads to militarism. That makes a LOT of sense. Hey everyone, out of the HUNDREDS of wars we've been in, here is ONE that most everyone agrees was a moral one. That's pretty tight logic. OTOH when you delve a little deeper and examine the reasons why it is almost universally considered 'fighting the good war' you come up with the facts that it was fought against two expansionist facist powers which had attack us. Wow. That really "glorifies" all war. Instead of saying WWII was 'fighting a good war' or that it was a 'moral war' we should just say the Nazis and Americans were really just two sides of the same coin. There is no right or wrong, no good or bad.

 

I am not claiming that the Soviets were good guys, but there is actually a pretty good reason for this. This is a very good book about the nature of the war in Russia. Of course it is originally in German but I don't know the original title.

The point about the liberated French is that in the final analysis it didn't matter whether it was an alied or German bomb that was dropped on them - in both instances they were dead. Americans weren't on the battlefield like pretty much all of Europe was.

Here is your glory. Yahoo. This was just the first set of photos I came across in looking. (Warning very graphic.)

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Watch 'All Quiet on the Western Front' and tell me about glory. Going to war is like cleaning out a stopped up toilet. Nobody wants to do it, but sometimes if you leave things alone it you will soon be living in a pile of s**t. So you appreciate the person who did the job and how unplesant it was for them. But there is no glory in unstoping the toilet. It was just something that had to be done.

Nothing personal, but I would like to talk to your grandfather before taking your word at it.

 

You apparently still don't understand the point has nothing to do with the war itself but rather how the war is repackaged and used for propaganda purposes.

 

These pictures don't prove anything other than there is horror in war. That hardly shows there is nothing to be praised or honor in it.

Sacrificing life and limb for god, your country, your cause, or your fellow man - be it the soldier you fight alongside or the people you fight for - are all actions deserving praise and there is certainly honor in such actions. You are entitled to your opinion, as low as it may be, but I find your comparison out of order.

You presume too much and it is offensive. I'm capable of properly relaying my own experiences and conversations, thank you. My father was also in the military, and also in war. There is no need for your verification of what I relay about his experience either.

 

It was nicer than saying I don't believe you. If you think you are wonderful because you just killed somebody, there is something horribly wrong inside you.

 

Oh really? Then what were your pictures about? How the war was repackaged or the war itself? Did my statement to which you originally respond somehow fall into your 'repackaged propaganda' arena? I don't think so since we did liberate France and since Western Europeans indisputable enjoyed a better outcome than Eastern Europeans under Soviet control. Come, come, Mr. Ottomaton. Get your argument straight. I recommend you get your Big Chief pad and crayons, write it out first, and then post.

Again, I point out that there is nothing wrong with saying WWII was a moral war. If it is the war by which we judge interventions then it certainly isn't a bad one to form a criteria from. We have other experiences besides WWII from which discussions evolve. I believe I heard more about Vietnam in relation to Iraq than WWII. In fact, I believe we heard more about the intervention in Serbia than we did about WWII. To suggest that referring to WWII somehow led to Iraq by generically glorifying war is just absurd. It ignores the intervening (no pun intended) conflicts and assigns a level of causation you could NEVER come close to proving.

I don't give a rat's ass what you believe, Ottomaton. I have no motive to lie and there is little problem with my assertion that soldiers do find honor and action worthy of praise in war. Of course, that also is irrelevant since you've switched your assertion away from the actual war to 'how the war is propagandized.' I saw your edit and now you just switch to outright strawmen. You need not enjoy killing to find honor or praiseworthy action in war.

 

I'm fairly sure that you read my posts. I think this is the post that started our 'conversation'. I realize that 'strawman' is a hip, new word around this BBS but when you use it to make an accusation, you should make sure and double check your facts.

Also, when you do things like call me hoss or pull out your crayon references implying my childishness, I hope when you step back and look that you realize that it only reflects poorly on you.