The Real War 1939-1945 (1989) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#31

Post by hef19898 » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 6:41 PM UTC

eduction wrote: post #28

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…

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.

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#32

Post by krrrh » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 6:45 PM UTC

yibberish wrote: post #14

ARandomerDude wrote: post #5

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…

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) onl…

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.

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#33

Post by gerikson » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 6:49 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #30

gerikson wrote: post #25

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"…

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 st…

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.

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#34

Post by yamtaddle » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 6:55 PM UTC

eduction wrote: post #28

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…

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.

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#35

Post by hef19898 » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 6:56 PM UTC

gerikson wrote: post #33

hef19898 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

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 i…

I missed the believe part being explicitly mentioned, thabks for pointing it out. So I agree with Fussel then.

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#36

Post by dougmwne » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 6:59 PM UTC

gerikson wrote: post #25

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"…

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.

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#37

Post by yamtaddle » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 7:02 PM UTC

gerikson wrote: post #33

hef19898 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

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 i…

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.

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#38

Post by yamtaddle » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 7:04 PM UTC

tlear wrote: post #21

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.

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#39

Post by iancmceachern » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 7:11 PM UTC

ARandomerDude wrote: post #5

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 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.

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#40

Post by eduction » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 7:11 PM UTC

yamtaddle wrote: post #34

eduction wrote: post #28

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…

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…

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.