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

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#101

Post by eduction » Sat, Oct 15, 2022, 4:36 AM UTC

notacoward wrote: post #83

eduction wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Has it occurred to you that Soviet and Chinese primary sources are less readily available? Far less, almost to the point of impossibility. It's not like those governments were forthcoming about anything for decades afterward. Also what, exactly, would adding those change about his essential point regarding the horrors of war and how they're portrayed? Did Chinese or Soviet bodies blow up differently? Immediacy and au…

I know (and can see from this thread) that emotions run high around anything touching on the ex USSR but I don’t think the current war in Ukraine is at all germane to this article from 1989 about ww2 (or to the content of my posts on HN about it).

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#102

Post by jacobolus » Sat, Oct 15, 2022, 4:41 AM UTC

eyelidlessness wrote: post #81

jacobolus wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US was not in any significant danger of being directly invaded during WWII. It would have been an incredibly costly logistical nightmare for the would-be invaders, very unlikely to succeed. US worries were legitimate (atrocities perpetrated against civilians, future control of Europe/Asia, the international economic order and security of global trade networks, etc.) but “urgent” invasion wasn’t one of them.

Atrocities perpetrated against civilians wasn't a concern. It got retconned into our national consciousness, and sending refugees back demonstrates that thoroughly. The rest of what you say is right though.

From what I can tell people in the US were not happy about cities in Britain getting bombed, France being conquered, etc.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in contemporary American understanding of WWII.

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#103

Post by eyelidlessness » Sat, Oct 15, 2022, 4:45 AM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #102

eyelidlessness wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Atrocities perpetrated against civilians wasn't a concern. It got retconned into our national consciousness, and sending refugees back demonstrates that thoroughly. The rest of what you say is right though.

From what I can tell people in the US were not happy about cities in Britain getting bombed, France being conquered, etc. Disclaimer: I am not an expert in contemporary American understanding of WWII.

Oh, that’s fair and you’re right, they did care about those kinds of atrocities.

Edit because I’m exhausted and not being mindful about finishing thoughts, I didn’t mean this to be fighting words so much as clarifying words: they cared about mass attacks on civilians in some cases but not others. Bombings of allied cities was absolutely a concern. Mass murder or German and mostly eastern European Jews wasn’t such a concern. There wasn’t any such reaction to sending Jewish refugees back to be murdered.

The whole concept of actually caring about nazi atrocities on the scale they they committed them, to the victims they were committed against, was a retroactive set of moral concerns. And that’s unsurprising given that the US was the primary inspiration for those atrocities.

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#104

Post by eduction » Sat, Oct 15, 2022, 4:53 AM UTC

yamtaddle wrote: post #43

eduction wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

My point is pretty simple: It was not an American war, America was not a major party to the horrors of the war (except as a perpetrator of nuclear attacks on civilians), and an article purporting to describe the real visceral combat traumas of world war 2 would include descriptions from forces of countries that lost millions in the war. The piece only makes sense, and is only interesting, in the context of a fantasy world in which US forces played a much more decisive and heroic role than they did. It’s jingoism.

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#105

Post by eduction » Sat, Oct 15, 2022, 5:06 AM UTC

Edman274 wrote: post #94

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 purpose of the article was to detail the ways that the true visceral horror of world war two was sanitized or censored for public consumption. The contributions of individual nations in the Allied victory was immaterial for the purpose of that article. The title, "The Real War" is drawing a contrast with an imagined "fake" war, where men die with dignity, in important, courageous and heroic circumstances, for hig…

> it's saying "the real war had people piss their pants in fear and die before seeing any combat in a B-29 that was unfit to fly".

Using this as an example of the horrors of combat in ww2 just further underlines my point because it’s so incredibly mild compared to the combat on the Eastern Front or against the Japanese in China. Most US service members, as grateful as I am to them, were far luckier than almost all other soldiers in ww2 — better equipped, coming in stronger numbers, and with much better odds of survival. The story the author wants to tell is fundamentally not an American forces story (but talking about Soviet suffering wouldn’t sell in 1989 or even today).

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#106

Post by pram » Sat, Oct 15, 2022, 6:14 AM UTC

eyelidlessness wrote: post #91

pram wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I really regret personally starting the war now, thanks.

Yo, you laughed about how bored you were because it was so uneventful. It was uneventful for you . I’m not blaming you for the wars, but I do think some perspective on how they affected others is warranted.

I’m frankly shocked you can’t comprehend that there could be a difference between my personal experience and overall opinion and perspective of the war.

Yes it was an absolutely pointless monumental disaster with incredible suffering. No shit.

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#107

Post by tux2bsd » Sat, Oct 15, 2022, 6:20 AM UTC

shswkna wrote: post #100

This article is about how the USA as a country lacks the political and cultural maturity about war, compared to for example Europe (and other countries where war was fought on its territory). Countries that advocate a war or conflict, should fight this out on their own territory. This would solve a lot of problems in the world and would make up for the developmental deficit.

That would do the world a whole lot of good. (I haven't read the article and am choosing to believe your summation.)

US participation in WWII was clearly vital and pivotal. Korea and Vietnam were unfortunate necessities - anyone that believes otherwise is naive and has no idea of the true horror communism always brings. The Cold War was ultimately the very long tail of WWII...

After those times there wasn't any need for the US to be an aggressor in other lands.

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#108

Post by RalfWausE » Sat, Oct 15, 2022, 6:21 AM UTC

warner25 wrote: post #46

pram wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternate perspective: I was in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't talk about it because theres not much to say. I was either standing or sitting some place on guard duty, wired up on an insane amount of caffeine and nicotine, trying not to go insane for the 12 hour shifts. The only thing that punctuated the boredom was the daily mortar attack alarms lol

I'm happy to talk to people about my experiences in Afghanistan, but yeah, I only have a few minutes worth of "war stories" to tell. One of the things that most non-veterans don't grasp is just how mundane day-to-day military life can be, even in a combat zone, like how people without a security clearance can't imagine how mundane most SECRET material really is. I find it hard to explain, but life is both different i…

I heard a similar story from a relative of me: He was in the Waffen SS and fought the war basically behind a typewriter in a depot.

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#109

Post by gryson » Sat, Oct 15, 2022, 6:22 AM UTC

teddyh wrote: post #78

I suspect that even well-meaning articles like this does society a disservice when it characterizes war as horrifying. People are not afraid of horror; people believe they can handle it. People watch horror movies. Calling war horrifying is still, in a way, glamorizing war. But even though war, the reality of war, does contain horror, war is not, I believe, on the whole, horrifying. It is instead (I suspect) boring .…

The author is addressing front line combatants, not the people in the far more common support roles.

Re: The Real War 1939-1945 (1989)

#110

Post by eyelidlessness » Sat, Oct 15, 2022, 6:23 AM UTC

pram wrote: post #106

eyelidlessness wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yo, you laughed about how bored you were because it was so uneventful. It was uneventful for you . I’m not blaming you for the wars, but I do think some perspective on how they affected others is warranted.

I’m frankly shocked you can’t comprehend that there could be a difference between my personal experience and overall opinion and perspective of the war. Yes it was an absolutely pointless monumental disaster with incredible suffering. No shit.

Look. I wouldn’t have said a thing about it if you didn’t laugh about being bored by the routine suffering of others. Maybe you have more to talk about than you think?