WW2 Revisionist History (1 Viewer)

[1879fanatic]

Keep in mind guys that the doctrine of propaganda and psych warfare go right to the "us versus them" mentality. There is no better way to wage war then when is is all of us against all of you. We (allies) were fighting (please do'nt include Italy; wannabes) two very homogenous societies with stand firm, holier than thou mentalities as a national psyche(Not that that's bad) It was very easy to use rascism to polarize and incense our populations at the time, since it was these two "races" that were intent on our destruction. Then begs the question in wartime; Is rascism bad? Mike

 

[UKReb]

Endless debate, endless arguments, interesting thread... Nobody's going to win it, that's for sure, because nobody owns the truth or can even pretend to know it. Ultimately all I know is that I know nothing. It's just like sand: I can not hold it in my hands.
I agree with Harry, things are not black and white, even when you look back at WWII it's like that, though today we Westerners can easily pick a side... The Axis had to be beaten, but that does not mean we can not acknowledge that the Allies were men, not angels.

Sorry cannot agree with this.

As I have already posted whatever lapses in inhuman actions against civilians undertaken by the Allies they all pale into insignificance when compared with the sheer brutality meted out to millions and millions of innocents and POW's by the Axis forces before, during and in the case of the Communists after the war.

What's up with you guys?-in the above case things are indeed black and white or are all the recorded military facts now deemed as myth because we won the war and forever more must hang our heads in shame because we dropped fire bombs on Dresden and the A-bomb on innocent Japanese farmers. Get real guys for heaven's sake.

I teach -part-time- 19th century military history at a military college and the young cadets come from all over Europe and the Commonwealth countries. The course work inevitably touches on the 20th century up to and including WWI and WWII but the majority of them have been indoctrinated at their educational roots by revisionists and pacifiers to such an extent that they firmly believe the Allies were just as bad as the Axis and I may add in particular the Americans, with current world affairs they also believe that the US is still the bad guy. It's the devil of a job to convince them otherwise even when presenting them with fact and not fiction.

Now if that doesn't concern you, it should and I can assure you revisionist history without the balance of all the historical facts is da*n dangerous for our youth today and for tomorrow.
Reb

 

[theBaron]

Sorry cannot agree with this.

As I have already posted whatever lapses in inhuman actions against civilians undertaken by the Allies they all pale into insignificance when compared with the sheer brutality meted out to millions and millions of innocents and POW's by the Axis forces before, during and in the case of the Communists after the war.

What's up with you guys?-in the above case things are indeed black and white or are all the recorded military facts now deemed as myth because we won the war and forever more must hang our heads in shame because we dropped fire bombs on Dresden and the A-bomb on innocent Japanese farmers. Get real guys for heaven's sake.

I teach -part-time- 19th century military history at a military college and the young cadets come from all over Europe and the Commonwealth countries. The course work inevitably touches on the 20th century up to and including WWI and WWII but the majority of them have been indoctrinated at their educational roots by revisionists and pacifiers to such an extent that they firmly believe the Allies were just as bad as the Axis and I may add in particular the Americans, with current world affairs they also believe that the US is still the bad guy. It's the devil of a job to convince them otherwise even when presenting them with fact and not fiction.

Now if that doesn't concern you, it should and I can assure you revisionist history without the balance of all the historical facts is da*n dangerous for our youth today and for tomorrow.
Reb

Very well-said. It seems to be a malaise of the West.

 

[Spitfrnd]

And what is wrong with Gypsies?
...whatever Wikipedia says, in the American vernacular, revisionist means going against traditional historiography, usually with an eye towards deconstructing the established views, rather than correcting/clarifying this or that point.

Prost!
Bradley

Well I think it is a side note to the main discussion here but the Wikipedia definition is absurd on that point. The purpose of an historian is to research, document and record events which have occurred at some earlier point in time in as accurate, consistent and coherent manner as possible. Since it has its origins in research and observation, by its terms it is organic and subject to “revision” as appropriate based on the discovery and verification of new facts and analysis. As Brad notes, this is not revisionist history, it is simply history, properly practiced.

Now the rub is that while history is based on a rigorous analysis of verified data, it is not a science and its conclusions and frequently, even its facts, cannot be tested by experiment. This is why I think the practice of an historian actually stops at the point of data collection and reporting and that making conclusions about how a given result would be affected by a given change in events, however well supported, is a separate discipline entirely. Mixing the two does has no benefit to me and only lends to false assumptions about the merits of those conclusions. Thus when an academic proposes to judge or reach a conclusion about the appropriateness of the conduct of persons or societies from prior periods, they may be acting as a philosopher, a polemist, a moralist, an ethicist or whatever but they are certainly not acting as an historian.

So how does that fit here? I think it is appropriate and necessary to always make your assumptions about history (or anything else for my taste) subject to reconsideration based on new facts, so long as what you are using for correction is the facts and not the conclusions based on the facts. As has been amply noted here, the rightness of a decision can really only be judged in the total context of the events of the time. Since we have yet to discover time travel and complete mind reading, we really can only make our own judgments based on the facts we have available about those events. Thus to me, the true danger of “revisionist history” as practiced by many who claim the label, is that their conclusions are accepted as more valid than the conclusions that any thinking person could reach given the information provided.

 

[VIRIATO]

Sorry cannot agree with this.

As I have already posted whatever lapses in inhuman actions against civilians undertaken by the Allies they all pale into insignificance when compared with the sheer brutality meted out to millions and millions of innocents and POW's by the Axis forces before, during and in the case of the Communists after the war.

What's up with you guys?-in the above case things are indeed black and white or are all the recorded military facts now deemed as myth because we won the war and forever more must hang our heads in shame because we dropped fire bombs on Dresden and the A-bomb on innocent Japanese farmers. Get real guys for heaven's sake.

I teach -part-time- 19th century military history at a military college and the young cadets come from all over Europe and the Commonwealth countries. The course work inevitably touches on the 20th century up to and including WWI and WWII but the majority of them have been indoctrinated at their educational roots by revisionists and pacifiers to such an extent that they firmly believe the Allies were just as bad as the Axis and I may add in particular the Americans, with current world affairs they also believe that the US is still the bad guy. It's the devil of a job to convince them otherwise even when presenting them with fact and not fiction.

Now if that doesn't concern you, it should and I can assure you revisionist history without the balance of all the historical facts is da*n dangerous for our youth today and for tomorrow.
Reb

Hi,
I would agree that whatever the Allies did wrong it only paled in comparison with what the Axis did. I would also agree that the newer generations have it wrong when they ( or at least a part of them ) wrongly think that the Allies were as bad as the Axis, which is quite ridiculous really. And I would also agree fully with your last paragraph: History must be based on facts, not just wild theories.
But I would add that even if you endlessly discuss the need for the A-Bombs or the Dresden bombing, for instance, and so set those acts apart, you can still find things the Allies should not have done or at least not that worthy of their undoubted moral superiority, superiority which I don't question at all.
Examples:
-The Soviets, at the end of the war, were mostly intent on GAINING spheres of influence/sattelite states either in Eastern Europe or in Asia;
-The Western Allies GAVE them Eastern Europe, including Berlin, which was not pretty ( just ask those that were given away ) but was probably their only chance: it was Cold War by that time;
-On the field, the Soviets raped, murdered and looted Germany, given them by the Western Allies;
-On the field, all Allied troops had incidents of SHOOTING PRISONERS, though not comparable with what the Axis regimes did;
-The INTERNMENT of Japanese immigrants but mostly of Americans of Japanese ascent was probably unfair.
To me the worst part, the one that relatively marred the Allies moral superiority and the idealism with which so many people regard WWII, was the start of the Cold War at the final stages, and all the «chess game» played with the Soviets at that time...the countries and populations being mere pawns ( I give you Poland, you give me Greece )... And the fact that the Soviet regime was little better than the Nazis really, and even initially forged a pact with Nazi Germany. And most of all the fact that the Soviets were, after all, of all people ( I mean regimes ), the ones that defeated Nazi Germany ( Stalingrad was the real turning point, the Eastern front really was the one that doomed Hitler ).
We can also not forget that there were opposers in Nazi Germany, people surely with a lot more courage than me or most of us, who risked and lost their lives to hide a Jew, to try and topple Hitler ( Rommel, Stauffenberg, etc. ). And even in Japan, there were people that just wanted peace. They were surely minorities amidst the flock of sheep every crowd is, but they existed nonetheless.
Now this is why I say that nothing is black and white, even in WWII, and believe that any excessively idealistic view of those events can not stand the facts. Which is quite different from the students you quote...
Hope we have found some common ground.

Regards,
Paulo

 

[theBaron]

Wikipedia is a tough call; you really have to be careful when you read articles there, because anyone can join and create a user account (I have, for example). I think they're better at vetting articles now, but there were some scandals in the past regarding articles about current American politicians.

That same goes for any source, though, too. There's been a natural progression: In illiterate societies, when writing was developed, it seemed like magic, because it let a person or even an era pass information along to another, with greater accuracy, on average, than the spoken word. Then, as electronic media were developed, they took on that same aura. With the Internet, and virtually instantaneous communication, that effect is increased further. You really need to think skeptically and analytically.

Was it Barnum who said, "No one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American public"? I wouldn't agree that people are stupid, but it can be easy to fool a lot of people, at times.

Prost!
Bradley

 

[Capitolron]

Chris

I just now actually sat down and read through all of the post on this thread. I dont think you and I can have a conversation on this subject - so we must agree to disagree.

For very personal reason - I have no respect or love of the Japanese empire from the past. This does not cloud my respect for the people of today in Japan - they are a fine people.

However, you can start with the our fine Americans who were killed in a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor to the POW Camps of the South Pacific to the Millions who were slaughtered by the Japs in the years preceeding Dec 7th , 1941 - and find that the opinions of Louis and myself are shared by many.

It is not right for you to interpret my words (and others) to make that our opinion of the evil empire of Japan is representative of todays political culture. That was a poor line of discussion with in this debate on this thread.

I make no apologies of wanting the entire Island of Japan to blown into a million pieces and sink beneath the waves of the Pacific Ocean back in 1945.
Probally was a good thing it didn't happen - but, I would have pressed for a harsh response towards Japan at the close of the War.

Chris - you are passionate on the subject and I can appreciate that. However, no one has the total 100% right opinion on these matters. Like Rob's opinion of the Germans in WWII - al of us have different opinions all these subjects and we should work to respect each person - because you dont know how that opinion was formed or why.

Chris - I think you are great guy and look forward to talking with more on Toy Soldiers in the future.

Ron

 

[panda1gen]

This is clearly the right room for an argument.

I think the first post was well said and I agree with it. We should not rewrite history, however I also agree with many other postings - we should certainly critically evaluate it and it should be taught to all kids.

After only 50-60 years since WW2, I can now go to the whole of Europe and feel relatively welcome, even, although somewhat carefully, at times discuss the war or aspects of it. People never forget, but they may forgive or learn to live in peace and by political means - Europe, as one small zone, is relatively peaceful.

I think that it is important that our kids learn some of the important lessons of the last war though - here is my stab at a few:

Autocratic regimes in any country are to be feared (look at what is happening and has happened in both the UK and US over the past few years - 1m people demonstrated in London about 'do not go to war in my name' - yet we did).

You do not fight or win a war without accepting great loss and hardship, plus being willing to DESTROY the enemy's will and means to fight. If this means an A bomb....

Wars such as WW1 and WW2 were essentially coalition wars of attrition and were fundamentally fought over resources, particularly but not exclusively oil. Lessons to be learned? If an A bomb shortened that war.....

If you invade, aggressively, against another power without good reason (greed, lust for power, territory, bigotry do not count as good reason), expect to treated as evil by someone, including many who might otherwise support you.

If you do conquer the land, look to political means to win the people, or you will eventually lose.

Criminal Acts are the same in any language, although beware victor's justice unless there is due process of law.

There are probably many more.....the kids need to be taught the facts, plus how to look at them critically, not just accept a sanitised version.

 

[damian]

Er sorry but what movie are we discussing here again?

 

[VIRIATO]

Er sorry but what movie are we discussing here again?

Good point Damian. I don't really remember, what I remember is that I brought my computer home tonight just because of this thread. It's this passion of mine for History, passions are always chaotic. Well, it does beat discussing the weather or something like that. But it is also addictive, and can be divisive if we don't exercise enough restraint/respect/feet on the ground.


Paulo

 

[OzDigger]

Good point Damian. I don't really remember, what I remember is that I brought my computer home tonight just because of this thread. It's this passion of mine for History, passions are always chaotic. Well, it does beat discussing the weather or something like that. But it is also addictive, and can be divisive if we don't exercise enough restraint/respect/feet on the ground.

Paulo

Paulo, you may as well discuss the weather because most of the guys you have been debating with are so well entrenched in their beliefs that they won't change either

 

[UKReb]

Paulo, you may as well discuss the weather because most of the guys you have been debating with are so well entrenched in their beliefs that they won't change either

End of thread

 

[OzDigger]

End of thread

Just call me Oz the thread killer

 

[VIRIATO]

Trench war...what a mess and a waste of lives ( WWI western front for sure ).

 

[OzDigger]

It's Alive

Die you beastly thread

 

[Harrytheheid]

Hi,
I would agree that whatever the Allies did wrong it only paled in comparison with what the Axis did. I would also agree that the newer generations have it wrong when they ( or at least a part of them ) wrongly think that the Allies were as bad as the Axis, which is quite ridiculous really. And I would also agree fully with your last paragraph: History must be based on facts, not just wild theories.
But I would add that even if you endlessly discuss the need for the A-Bombs or the Dresden bombing, for instance, and so set those acts apart, you can still find things the Allies should not have done or at least not that worthy of their undoubted moral superiority, superiority which I don't question at all.
Examples:
-The Soviets, at the end of the war, were mostly intent on GAINING spheres of influence/sattelite states either in Eastern Europe or in Asia;
-The Western Allies GAVE them Eastern Europe, including Berlin, which was not pretty ( just ask those that were given away ) but was probably their only chance: it was Cold War by that time;
-On the field, the Soviets raped, murdered and looted Germany, given them by the Western Allies;

Regards,
Paulo

Only thing the Americans did wrong in 1945 was they didn't go ahead and finish the job by dropping the bomb on Moscow while they were at it.
Patton knew who the new enemy was.

H

 

[tdubel]

Only thing the Americans did wrong in 1945 was they didn't go ahead and finish the job by dropping the bomb on Moscow while they were at it.
Patton knew who the new enemy was.

H

H,

That is for sure, Patton surely did. I believe MacArthur also had an inkling too. Talk about conspiracies, Patton dies in a Jeep accident and MacArthur is fired!

Stalin was a brutal individual too and he would have been guilty of war crimes if he had not been on the winning side.

Darn good point H.

TD

 

[Louis Badolato]

I think Tom, Harry, Rob and Oz have all made some very valid points which, when examined together, set forth some guidelines I think we can all agree with:

1. Where bombing of Civilians is done to shorten a war and ultimately save both military and Civilian lives (such as the Allied bombing campaign against Germany [as Rob said, my sympathies lie with the men of Bomber Command and the 8th Airforce, for obvious reasons, my dead uncles being among the foremost] or the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), this does not constitute a war crime. This does not, however, mean that I do not have a great deal of sympathy for the innocent civilians who died as a result of bombing by either side.

2. Where a legitimate military target is being destroyed, but civilians are also harmed by collateral damage, this is also not a war crime (especially in circumstances, such as the ferry with the heavy water mentioned by Tom, where the timing of the bombing is made to minimize civilian casualties).

3. Bombing of civilians by either military or terrorist forces just for the sake of generating terror (such as the Nazi bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War or Al Queda's actions on 9-11) are a crime against humanity and the participants should be made to face justice.

I think that if the Nations, Governments and people of the world followed these three premises, there would be a lot fewer war crimes, and a lot more survivors of the next conflict.

Chris,

What is it about my opinion in this post that so upset you? I am more than a little insulted by your post, and, while I am not as forthright as Harry about it, I really wonder what you were thinking.

As far as my allegedly wanting to stomp liberals, I can only assume you are misreading an earlier post of mine, where I said if I encountered one of the historical revisionists (arch-conservatives according to the posts that launched this thread) that said the Allies were worse than the Axis and the War was all FDR and Churchill's fault, I would like to give them a kick in the butt.

Finally, as to my use of the term "Japs", anyone who has read the threads on this forum about political correctness and about Japanese people in general will be aware that (1) I am not now, nor will ever be politically correct in my speech, but would be the first to defend any ethnicity or other minority against whom any real prejudice was being exerted, (2) I make fun of my own ethnic backgrounds (Italian [useless soldiers] and Scottish [cheap]), and (3) I have gone on the record on more than one occasion in saying that the Nisai troops (Japanese Americans fighting against the Germans) are, along with the Tuskeegee Airmen, the Red Ball Express and the 745 Tank Btn. (African Americans) among my greatest heroes, because they fought for this country, despite being treated as second class citizens. Finally, one of my closest friends in college was a Japanese American named Taito Nakagowa, and another was a Vietnamese American named Phu Troung. As you are aware my last name is Badolato. Did I mention I went to school in Texas, and the three of us stood up for each other against a lot of bigots because we were a Jap, a Gook and a Wop? So please, before passing judgment on me as a liberal bashing, civilian bombing bigot, get your facts straight.

Unlike Harry, I am not going to block your posts, because I have always enjoyed chatting with you in the past, and I think you either were misreading my posts, or just having a bad day.

 

[1879fanatic]

Louis the "wop",

Very diplomatic and well spoken-written. Our common bonds on this forum trump any real differences. We can always play WITH and AGAINST each other, someone wins, the other loses, then we set up the toys and do it all over again. Mike the "mick"

 

[Louis Badolato]

Louis the "wop",

Very diplomatic and well spoken-written. Our common bonds on this forum trump any real differences. We can always play WITH and AGAINST each other, someone wins, the other loses, then we set up the toys and do it all over again. Mike the "mick"

Hear, hear, Mike the Mick! I have a bottle of really good Irish Whiskey in the museum. Why don't we get together with Chris, have a drink, and talk toy soldiers . . .