# Why are people so obsessed with WW2?



## Cottencandytrill

There are tons of games, books, conspiracy theories, movies, etc concerning world war two.I never was into the world wars and stuff but why are a lot of people so obsessed with WW2 though?


----------



## HareBrain

Brief answer -- for the same reason people are obsessed with Game of Thrones: politics, personalities, battle strategy, etc. But it was 100 times as complex as GOT, and it was real, and it helped define the world we all live in now.


----------



## Toby Frost

A few random thoughts:

- It's one of the very few wars that can easily be boiled down to good vs evil, even at the time it was fought.

- It's pretty recent and was massive in scale and horror, showing people at their absolute worst. It also demonstrates the clash between totally different and incompatible ideologies, as opposed to border wars, religious sects, etc. As such it has a nightmarish, exaggerated quality.

- A lot of things from it have entered our pop culture in an exaggerated form. The beliefs that: Nazi soldiers were invincible, all fighter pilots had huge moustaches, Britain and Germany were full of mad scientists, secret policemen all wear raincoats with the collars up, Russians are badly-equipped but furious, Germans have facial scars and so on are basically derived from WW2. Most of them are wild exaggerations or just plain wrong, but they have entered the popular consciousness.

- Vast, pointless death toll: more particularly, industrialised death, not just in the Holocaust but in the use of technology formerly seen as a force for good (planes, vehicles, etc). 

- The atom bomb, the beginning of the atomic era, and the first suggestion that mankind might wipe itself out.

I'm sure there are others.


----------



## BAYLOR

It's called the last good war. It brought about the  end of the old world ushered in the current age we now live in.


----------



## The Big Peat

From the British perspective, WW2 plays a huge part in the national self-image.

It was both Britain's last act as a major world power and Britain's finest moment, both in terms of achievement and ethical rectitude. Or at least close enough to that people can claim it thus.

Therefore there is an equally huge level of interest, which perpetuates itself as people cater to the interested, which in turns gives people an easy way of learning about it and becoming interested in turn.


----------



## Alexa

I'll just add survivors are still among us. Not many, but enough to keep memory alive.


----------



## Overread

A few further thoughts:

1) Both during and post WW2 there was a vast amount of propaganda produced through the media to help win the war on the home front. A huge block of this came from the USA who had to "sell" the war to its own people to fully justify going half way round the world to fight in what was, at the onset, a purely "European" matter. 
I think that this built itself into something more than just propaganda and inspired a generation of film makers and writers who inspired another and another and branched out from there. 

2) As said its a war that can be boiled down to Good VS Evil in a very generalist sense very easily. Whilst no one admits that all Nazis/Germans of the day were evil; its easy to portray the upper ranks as such and that their control filters down to those under their rule. 
It's also recent enough and well known enough that the average person doesn't need much if any introduction to the core concepts. For films/books/games this means that a vast amount of world building and info-dumping doesn't need to be done. For the same reason that every pretty pointy eared fantasy character is typically an elf and every half-sized human is a dwarf etc... Tropes within fiction are popular not just because one work inspires the next; but because they become general concepts that are easier to convey to the readers. 
Whilst it was a "European War" at the start; by the end it touched pretty much every corner of the world - go anywhere and say Nazi and most people will know what you mean to a general level. 

3) Nazis are like zombies and aliens and evil robots. This is to say that you can use them as an evil protagonist without expecting much counter-argument or hostilities arising as a result thereof. They are as such a safe hate-target. Even though  such media can be restricted if you try to distribute it within Germany.

4) Mythology. The Nazi propaganda machine has managed, in modern times, to spark conspiracy theories. Aliens; mythological artifcats; secret weapons; spies etc... There is a rich collection of things built up around them which is part based on fact and part on just stories. Hidden bunkers; secret experiments; alien design aircraft etc... All things that spark imagination and provide a rich ground to build fantasy off.


----------



## Foxbat

Harebrain's comments nails it for me.


----------



## Brian G Turner

There are lots of reasons, not least the fact it was a truly "world war", and the extreme horrors of both mechanized warfare, extermination programs, as well as the unprecedented destruction of European cities. Of course, as above, there's also the fact that it determined our modern world.

However, I suspect the biggest reason is that it occurred within living memory. Many of us grew up with relatives who would recount - or refuse to recount - their experiences of it. In other words, we could still touch or be touched by the experience of WWII, even indirectly, whether we want to or not.


----------



## Cat's Cradle

All of the above, but also (and I don't think this has been said, specifically) - there is an awful lot of film footage of the war (and photographs, too). It seems even more real because we can see moving pictures of people/places/events/weapons/aftermath. I saw _The World at War _documentaries when I was 13 or 14 ... you're never the same after seeing that series.

There's a huge fascination in the States for the American Civil War (I'd guess even more than for WW2). If there had been motion picture footage of _that_ event, it could possibly have been the single most popular source for new novels/films/academic research, etc. in the US. (Yes, this hypothesis is possibly tailored of whole cloth.) But it was the first American war that used photography widely, and it makes the event so much more real and immediate, because of that. Just a few thoughts, CC


----------



## Foxbat

From a personal view, I had an uncle who served both on HMS Nelson and then later HMS Belfast (now a museum ship). But I think it was another of my uncles that really brought home how the war affected people. My uncle Frank was an alcoholic and I remember when I was a youngster, I would see him drunkenly staggering about the town in broad daylight whilst other townsfolk screwed up their noses and went about their business. To me, he was a family embarrassment and I did my best to avoid him. The strangest thing was that he was always dressed really smartly. I remember he was always clean-shaven,  in slacks and navy blue blazer. 

I never understood him until my dad sat me down and explained that Frank had been in the Merchant Navy. Twice, the ships he served on had been torpedoed and twice, he survived by clinging on to wreckage in the Atlantic until rescued. Drink, for him, was the only way he could blot out the memories of all his lost friends. 

I understood a lot better after that, got to know him more and found that he was actually a really nice guy. Sadly, he died not long after finally defeating his alcoholism. That's what the war did to a member of my family and there will be millions of families all over the world who still, as Brian says, have a living memory of the impact of this conflict. Frank and Pat (my uncle on the Belfast) are why I have an interest in that period (my dad was too young, although he did try and sneak into the RAF).


----------



## The Big Peat

While the proximity of the event helps, I'd add that it wasn't that long ago that there were a decent number from WW1 and that's never held the same fascination. The Korean War will never be as "popular" as Vietnam, even in countries that fought in Korea and not in Vietnam. Hell, the Russian War in Afghanistan gets more focus here than the Korean War. Or Aden, or Malaysia, etc.etc.


----------



## Caledfwlch

As Brian said, if your British, you grew up seeing signs of that War, all over.
I was born in 1978, yet, as a kid, I would ride my bike to a place called Tan y Bwlch, across a river, the other side of the Harbour, which involved riding passed an ominous  ww2 concrete machine gun bunker, sited to open fire on any German vessels attempting to land via the Irish Sea.

Also, my Mamgu (my maternal grandmother) used to wake up at least once a night screaming with nightmares of what she saw manning Ack Ack guns in the Royal Artillery, both in the UK and in France after D-Day.
Most people my age had Veterans like that in their family, many like me had multiple ones.
My Paternal Grandfather was an early Commando, I think first in one of the early Independent Companies, then after reorganisation, he became a Royal Marine Commando in 42 Commando. He wouldn't talk much, but he definately took part in raids around Europe, in France and other places, and (it used to really freak my grandmother out) he refused to throw away his Sykes-Fairburn Knife, because he felt doing so was in some weird way disrespectful to the spirits of the German troops he killed with it, just chucking it away.
My Grandmother was a member of the Auxiliary Fire Service, and had the misfortune to be on duty first in London during the Blitz, and then later in Pontypridd when it was heavily bombed.

So, its kind of a big thing over here. The image of the UK and the Crown Dominions standing alone against Evil, whilst other Nations such as the US went around and ignored or appeased the murderous Nazis and their atrocities is one that endures and hugely affected the National Psyche.


----------



## Amelia Faulkner

Toby Frost said:


> Russians are badly-equipped but furious



This isn't true?!


----------



## Foxbat

Caledfwlch said:


> As Brian said, if your British, you grew up seeing signs of that War, all over.
> I was born in 1978, yet, as a kid, I would ride my bike to a place called Tan y Bwlch, across a river, the other side of the Harbour, which involved riding passed an ominous  ww2 concrete machine gun bunker, sited to open fire on any German vessels attempting to land via the Irish Sea.



There are still a few old concrete blocks (obstacles to prevent sea-based invasion) dotted around the shoreline in my area even now. They're suffering a bit from time and erosion but they're still there. I think perhaps the prolonged existence of evidence testifying to the close proximity of both the war and how close we came to being defeated in the early years of the conflict may explain why Korea never had the same effect...ie....it is thousands of miles away and our very existence wasn't directly threatened had we lost that war.


----------



## Edward M. Grant

Alexa said:


> I'll just add survivors are still among us. Not many, but enough to keep memory alive.



Yeah, that's one of the big things. Not just survivors, but relatives of those survivors. My mother and her sisters were strafed by an ME110 during the Battle of Britain (fortunately the Germans missed, and the local AA crew didn't). My grandfather died in somewhat mysterious circumstances in the RAF. One uncle's ship was sunk and he took six months to get home, by which point everyone thought he was dead and were quite shocked when he just walked in the front door unannounced one day. Another uncle was one of the first Westerners in Hiroshima at the end of the war, as part of a medical team. My mother's friend's husband killed a German soldier at close range during the desert war and never got over it.

So it's been part of my life all my life.

There were a couple of Korea veterans in the shooting club I used to go to when I was at school (in part because it counted as a sport so meant I didn't have to play rugby any more!), but that war affected far less people. Just about everyone in Britain from my generation had relatives who were involved in WWII.

Edit: and, yeah, as kids we used to play in the remains of the old AA bunker in a field between our house and our school.

Edit2: come to think of it, one of my school teachers was in WWI, where he got blown up and shot. But he's the only WWI veteran I ever met.


----------



## Foxbat

A slight change here of time period here but I think one of the most moving moments I ever witnessed on TV was when Harry Patch talked about his confrontation with a German soldier in WW1. He was sick of all the killing and deliberately shot to wound his opponent. He was the last British surviving soldier from World War 1 until his death in 2009. 
Harry Patch - Wikipedia


----------



## BAYLOR

I had two uncles who fought in the Battle of Bulge. They never talked about it, never wanted to.


----------



## nixie

My granda born in 1895, joined the navy when the first war broke out was still in reserves when WWIi started, he didn't have to re-enlist as he was working down the mine but he did.
I used to love listen to my granny's stories on the evacuation with her younger children. She made them fun.

It's only as I got older, i realised the hell she must have gone through at that time.
9 living children, her husband and eldest son in the armed forces. Her 3 oldest daughters scattered over the UK doing their bit for the war. Every knock on door must have been a nightmare.


----------



## DelActivisto

Cat's Cradle said:


> There's a huge fascination in the States for the American Civil War (I'd guess even more than for WW2). If there had been motion picture footage of _that_ event, it could possibly have been the single most popular source for new novels/films/academic research, etc. in the US. (Yes, this hypothesis is possibly tailored of whole cloth.) But it was the first American war that used photography widely, and it makes the event so much more real and immediate, because of that. Just a few thoughts, CC



Yeah, and yet for some reason we still argue about whether or not it was actually about slavery.


----------



## Edward M. Grant

DelActivisto said:


> Yeah, and yet for some reason we still argue about whether or not it was actually about slavery.



Probably because, at the time, it was for some people and not for others. Just as there were many reasons for people fighting in WWII.


----------



## DelActivisto

Edward M. Grant said:


> Probably because, at the time, it was for some people and not for others. Just as there were many reasons for people fighting in WWII.



Yeah, in any war, there are people who wind up fighting and realistically - they have no real idea why they're fighting.


----------



## Caledfwlch

IIRC Harry Patch only spoke about his experiences in WW1 in the last couple of years of his life, he had always refused to speak about it.

Earlier this year, at the Passchendaele Memorial event in Ieper, one of the projections onto the Cloth Hall was of Harry Patch speaking.
I was really pleased to see Uniformed members of the Irish Defence Forces speaking and attending, as for many, many years of course, Eire refused to have anything to do with Remembrance Day etc, despite the many thousands of Irishmen who died.

This clip has him at around 22:00


----------



## Caledfwlch

12/13 years Ago, I lived in the grounds of a Chateaux with accomodation blocks, in a village called Ebblinghem, near Saint Omer, in what is now Hauts-de-France, but back then was Nord Pas de Calais.
School Groups from the UK would stay in the dorms, and we would accompany them on tours of the Battlefields, graveyards, museums etc, in both the Somme, and around Ieper.

I used to watch the Last Post at the Menin Gate in Ieper at least once a week, and it was amazing, seeing the teenagers, who would be all giggly, and messing around all day suddenly go quiet, just before, as the crowd gather and they realised something important was going to happen. I saw many a big teenage lad get "something in their eye"

Once, there was an amazing scene, some Hipster Home Counties type was stood there, loudly declaiming to his friends "oh yes, you see, this event is to commemorate the dead of all wars, regardless of size.
This tiny elderly Flemish Woman went absolutely crazy, she marched over, looked up at him and said "No!!! This is our way of saying thanks to the brave British and Irish Soldiers who came here to little Flanders and protect us, and fight for our freedom!! this has nothing to do with any other war, we are a friendly, welcoming people, but if you are going to disrespect this event by making such stupid claims, please leave!"
And people started clapping her, was one of those wonderful little moments. The Flemish even now, when there is nobody left alive from that time period are still tremendously thankful. In France, Commonwealth graves are often vandalised by hooligans daubing swastikas etc, in Flanders, if someone was caught doing that, they would probably be lynched!


----------



## Randy M.

Sorry if I'm repeating something I missed mention of ...

Along with WWII being a rare and reasonable instance of good vs. evil in the real world, it was one of the few times when people of several countries banded together with countrymen to fight a common enemy. Yes, there were profiteers and people pushing their own agendas, but the prospective consequences of losing this war were horrifying for many.

In the U.S., once we were attacked it became essentially the people's war. This wasn't about economics (not that that wasn't involved, just that in the public mindset it wasn't an issue) or abstract philosophies in conflict (though there was that), it was about fighting back against those who had attacked us when we hadn't provoked them. For the U.S., it was probably the one time when the majority of our country saw something the same way: You don't allow anyone to hit you without hitting back. And the more we learned about the Germans and the Japanese and how they treated prisoners and how they treated the people they conquered, the more that feeling of good vs. evil grew, the greater grew a sense of teamwork across the country. For several years people sacrificed their luxuries and comfort to aid the war effort; that's not something many people now would be willing to do, I don't think. As a consequence, those people felt good about themselves and their country: For all the terrible things that happened in the war, many people stateside who lived through it found it one of the most exciting and satisfying times of their lives because they felt the country was working toward a common goal.

Note too, WWII may not have been the start of the struggle for equal rights in the U.S. for women and for African-Americans, but it probably pushed that forward by at least a decade. Women working in the factories were dissatisfied when they were forced back into the homes, and while it took time to boil over, that was an underpinning of the upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s. And I wonder if the movement against segregation would have been as potent in the 1950s if WWII hadn't left the U.S. both wealthier than it had been and with a supreme confidence that it could achieve any good it set its mind to. (Flip side of that was, of course, Vietnam.)


Randy M.


----------



## sknox

The biggest world-wide cataclysm in all human experience, and the OP wonders what people are on about. Sorry, but I'm sort of stunned why anyone would wonder this. Good replies on the thread.

My modest contribution is a memory of a history lecture. The professor took the time in what was all of U.S. history crammed into ten weeks, to devote one entire lecture to the effects of WWII. Not the war itself, just what happened because of it. It went well beyond the obvious stuff like the Cold War, development of atomic weapons, or the Baby Boom. He talked about for how long veteran benefits would be paid out (long after the combatants had passed away), the change in social relations for women and for blacks, the creation of the U.N., the CIA, and a host of other organizations born of that conflict. It ended empires. I'm a medievalist, but the lecture resonated deeply with me. 

So, yeah, people continue to be fascinated.


----------



## KGeo777

The major media and its related apparatus has kept it in the spotlight. 
For them it was a "good" war and they 
used it for various propaganda purposes-and still do. This is the main reason (though when I was a kid there was a lot of WW 2 model kits--the German tanks were the most popular items-no one wanted the Allied tanks). 

Anyone who wants to rise above the propaganda slant of Western media should check out the Goebbels' supervised Munchhausen film from 1943-especially if you had been told, as I was, that Germany was brainwashed and living under a thought control dictatorship. That film puts to rest a few propaganda claims (plus it is an amazing and bizarre fantasy film).

HG Wells' The Fate of Man is also a good read to get a grasp on European attitudes about warmongering.

Germany's December 1941 Declaration of War Against the US is also a shocking read-to hear Hitler speaking without the western media filter.


* "The crazy thing is not what Adolf wants, but the way he sees it & starts out to get it. I know he’s a clown, but by God, I like the boy! He has all the blind, bull-headed qualities of force & persistence which cause tribes & nations to pull out of hopeless impasses & muddle through seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Common sense ought to show people that no utter ass could wield the power he wields. It is not merely the flighty who are with him—he is supported by thousands of intelligent, scholarly, & patriotic Germans who fully recognise his comic aspect & grotesque extravagances, yet who nevertheless see in him an amorphous force constituting the least of all available evils."  HP Lovecraft, 1933*


----------



## Toby Frost

KGeo777 said:


> no utter ass could wield the power he wields



The ban on current politics prevents me from suggesting an example of an ass wielding great power! 

So, there you are, god-king of central Europe. You've just picked a fight with the world's biggest empire, having miscalculated that they'd just roll over and let you kick them to death. In fact, they seem to be rearming and organising themselves pretty quickly, and their men are turning out to be just as tough and determined as yours. Worse, they're getting a lot of help from a huge nation overseas, which is also turning against you. What to do now? Divide and conquer, perhaps? No, invade another vast nation that hates you, in breach of a treaty, opening up a second front and guaranteeing your doom! I don't know if that's insane, stupid, suicidal or some amazing combination of all three.


----------



## Caledfwlch

The UK has had its own issues with race/racism, not just with the highly visible Ethnic Minorities, such as Africans, Asians, but as a Welshman, my fellow Celts, have also faced discrimination, though, like the US, things are much better now, but in modern history, our racial problems have never been anywhere near as extreme as in the US, so it remains truly shocking to most Brits, to watch a WW2 film or TV show, and see black servicemen, fighting for a Nation that has not only never given them a single thing, but only ever taken off them, being treated so poorly. My Mamgu was as I said, in the Royal Artillery, and she spent a few months on ack ack guns in the City of Hull, in Yorkshire's East Riding, and, one morning going to get breakfast at a cafe, she and her friends witnessed the aftermath of a Lynching during the night, white GI's went crazy in some bar, and hung several Black GI's from lamposts in the street. That was one of the things she used to get nightmares about, the first time she told me, she was in tears, and, she was a tough old chick who used to blow Nazi planes out of the sky, so I very rarely ever saw her cry. 

In WW2, were US Generals and politicians genuinely of the belief that Black/Ethnic American's were incapable of being soldiers, and would run away etc?
I know there were plenty of damned fools in the British Officer Corps, with exactly the same sort of stupid beliefs, but regardless of them, The British Army had, and had had for something well over 100 years+ Regiments raised and recruited throughout the Empire, not just the Crown Dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa & technically Eire, until the Republic was formally established in 1949) but the Colonies and "possessions" too, such as India, Burma, the West Indies islands etc.
When you start examining the inscriptions listing the WW1 dead on the walls of the Menin Gate in Ieper, the Regiment names soon start jumping out, and always surprised the kids I was with as the British Schools History Curriculum didn't exactly have much in it really. The Kingston Rifles, the Bengali Lancers, the Ghurkas etc, etc.


----------



## Caledfwlch

Toby Frost said:


> The ban on current politics prevents me from suggesting an example of an ass wielding great power!
> 
> So, there you are, god-king of central Europe. You've just picked a fight with the world's biggest empire, having miscalculated that they'd just roll over and let you kick them to death. In fact, they seem to be rearming and organising themselves pretty quickly, and their men are turning out to be just as tough and determined as yours. Worse, they're getting a lot of help from a huge nation overseas, which is also turning against you. What to do now? Divide and conquer, perhaps? No, invade another vast nation that hates you, in breach of a treaty, opening up a second front and guaranteeing your doom! I don't know if that's insane, stupid, suicidal or some amazing combination of all three.



I think you are slightly mistaken here - War with the British Empire was the absolute LAST thing Herr Hitler wanted!! He hoped Great Britain would either not risk War for Poland, or that he could appease her in some way and keep her out, his fondest dream was that Britain would join him in his "Crusade"

Out of your final choices, I would go for "amazing combination of all three" 
It's still shocking to this day, that the Russians most feared and respected senior officer - "General Winter" came as an utter shock to Berlin and the Wehrmacht. Not least because, prior to breaking the treaty and launching Barbarossa, plenty of German Officers where sent over to work with the Red Army, teaching them skills, and how to fight during winter and so on - IIRC, German Technicians and Scientists even developed cold weather uniforms, coats and so on for Russian Troops, and developed tech and techniques to stop fuel in tanks and vehicles from freezing, to drive in snow, yet when General Winter came storming in, the Wehrmacht had no cold weather gear for the men or the vehicles, it's truly astonishing.


----------



## Toby Frost

I don't think he wanted war with Britain, he just wanted all its stuff. His view seems to have been that he could just keep taking what he wanted without repercussions. As you say, the (deluded) aim was that Britain would eventually join Germany as a client state. I expect Hitler would sooner or later have tried to take direct control of the UK, either militarily or through a puppet government. The overall impression on both fronts (and also with Japan) is of colossal arrogance born out of racism and early victories against badly-prepared enemies.


----------



## KGeo777

Stated reasons for WW 2 was to preserve the British Empire and liberate Poland. Neither happened.
The Soviets got Poland. The BE fell apart.

The Western media never mentioned how Estonia fared under the Soviets (the teenage girl who blew up a Soviet monument  sounds like it is worthy of a movie--but Hollywood has always had a soft spot for Communism, Holodomor? Who cares!).
Another bit of historical oversight was how Patton felt about  it. I knew he didnt like communism-that much was revealed, but no idea until recently he felt it was a bigger problem than national socialism.

Another area left out was the "America First" movement. Charles Lindbergh, Walt Disney, John Kennedy--totally unaware how these people felt about war with Germany (or for that matter, Japan's energy supply being cut off by the US in summer 1941).


----------



## Amelia Faulkner

Caledfwlch said:


> My Mamgu was as I said, in the Royal Artillery, and she spent a few months on ack ack guns in the City of Hull, in Yorkshire's East Riding, and, one morning going to get breakfast at a cafe, she and her friends witnessed the aftermath of a Lynching during the night, white GI's went crazy in some bar, and hung several Black GI's from lamposts in the street. That was one of the things she used to get nightmares about, the first time she told me, she was in tears, and, she was a tough old chick who used to blow Nazi planes out of the sky, so I very rarely ever saw her cry.



I remember stories like this, too. Apparently white GI's, used to segregation, would utterly lose their sh*t that black GI's were served in pubs here and weren't expected to squat in a shithole out back. Not that we weren't racist, but holy sh*t this was a whole new level of bonkers.


----------



## Edward M. Grant

KGeo777 said:


> Stated reasons for WW 2 was to preserve the British Empire and liberate Poland. Neither happened.
> The Soviets got Poland. The BE fell apart.



Yes. WWII was a disaster for Britain and Eastern Europe. The only real question is whether it would have been more of a disaster if they hadn't fought it.

My guess is that it probably would have been worse that way for Britain, and we'd have lost the Empire either way. By the eve of WWII, Britain was a burned-out, fading power more interested in growing the welfare state than growing the Empire, and rapidly losing its desire to cling on to what it had.

For Eastern Europe, it was basically a choice between being ruled by Hitler or being ruled by Stalin. Neither was a good option.


----------



## Edward M. Grant

Amelia Faulkner said:


> I remember stories like this, too. Apparently white GI's, used to segregation, would utterly lose their sh*t that black GI's were served in pubs here and weren't expected to squat in a shithole out back.



Yes, my father always disliked Americans, and their treatment of black GIs in Britain was one of the main reasons he gave. He was also in Libya for a few years in the army after the war, and complained about the way the American GIs there treated the Arabs.

I did wonder what would happen if he met my American girlfriend, but she dumped me before that could happen .


----------



## Caledfwlch

Amelia Faulkner said:


> I remember stories like this, too. Apparently white GI's, used to segregation, would utterly lose their sh*t that black GI's were served in pubs here and weren't expected to squat in a shithole out back. Not that we weren't racist, but holy sh*t this was a whole new level of bonkers.



It would be an interesting subject for a documentary or non fiction work to explore - did seeing both visibly Ethnic US Service people, as well as British Service people helping to protect the UK from such a military and existential threat as Nazi Germany have any impact on attitudes amongst at least some people in Britain towards race?

Many people are so unaware or ignorant about the history of this Island, that they appear to believe the West Indians, Africans, Indians, Pakistani's etc all arrived en-masse in the late 40's/early 50's. When I was living in Yorkshire, an English Democrat came canvassing to the door, peddling the usual anti immigration rubbish. He didn't like it, when I pointed out there have been Black guys living in Britain for longer than there have been English people  Plenty of Black Soldiers were in the Legions and Auxiliary Cohorts under the Imperial Eagle of Rome. And it seems incredibly unlikely that some didn't take Britons for Wives, and stayed.

I always thought it a shame that in Bernard Cornwall's Warlord Chronicles, he made the Moorish character Sagramor somebody who either met Arthur in Armorica and joined his War Band, or who found his way across to Britannia - it would have been really cool to instead have him the descendent of a Legionary who took a Briton Wife, or who settled with a Wife who had followed him to Europe from Africa.


----------



## Caledfwlch

Edward M. Grant said:


> Yes. WWII was a disaster for Britain and Eastern Europe. The only real question is whether it would have been more of a disaster if they hadn't fought it.
> 
> My guess is that it probably would have been worse that way for Britain, and we'd have lost the Empire either way. By the eve of WWII, Britain was a burned-out, fading power more interested in growing the welfare state than growing the Empire, and rapidly losing its desire to cling on to what it had.
> 
> For Eastern Europe, it was basically a choice between being ruled by Hitler or being ruled by Stalin. Neither was a good option.



One major reason that ensured, and was intended to ensure that the British Empire was finished, and that Britain was no longer a Global Power (though that second bit failed) was the crippling War Debt the United States inflicted upon the UK.

It is not an accident, that 1945 saw the begin of the British Empire collapsing, and the Star of the United States rising, as it became the economic and global dominating Imperial Power and Empire it remains.
They had to do it, otherwise, the Citizens of the Empire and the Crown Dominions would likely have continued buying British, not American.

Never understood why a lot of Americans seem to get aghast or upset at the suggestion they are an Imperial Power, no different to the British Empire, the French Empire, 1st or 2nd, the Roman Empire etc.
The US is a powerful Nation State that dominates global trade and military power, it has client/tributary States and most importantly of all, it has actual Colonies, places it rules or "owns" often with an indigenous population who's wishes do not matter, it has taken, and attempted to take other Nations by aggressive military force, in order to gain itself colonies, and annex other places.
Just because it is a Republic does not stop it being an Imperial Empire - the 2 French Empires were both Republics that were ruled by a Monarch, an Emperor, and the Roman Empire itself was often a Republic.


----------



## Edward M. Grant

Before WWII, being racist in Britain was kind of pointless, because most people outside London would never see someone who wasn't white. Even as a kid, I only remember seeing one non-white person in my town, and he was another kid at my school who was probably from Pakistan: I don't know for sure, because I never bothered asking.... to us, he was just another kid.

Whether it was true or just his memory of his experience, my father used to say that no-one ever treated black GIs any differently to anyone else during the war. If my aunt was still alive, I'd ask her if she dated any, because she had a bit of a reputation with the soldiers .


----------



## Edward M. Grant

Caledfwlch said:


> One major reason that ensured, and was intended to ensure that the British Empire was finished, and that Britain was no longer a Global Power (though that second bit failed) was the crippling War Debt the United States inflicted upon the UK.



That too. But Britain had lost the will to maintain an Empire by the 30s, and America was beginning to overtake it as the source of new technologies and industries. It was really just a question of how long it would be before the people living in the Empire demanded a divorce, so they could hook up with America instead. The British government wasn't going to conscript an army for years to fight to hold on to India or Rhodesia against popular opposition.

Just look at the political change during WWII, where the voters threw Churchill out before the war was even over, and voted in a Labour government whose entire policy was more welfare and more nationalization. That's not the behaviour of an energetic, expansionist nation, but an inward-looking and fading one.


----------



## KGeo777

Edward M. Grant said:


> Y
> 
> For Eastern Europe, it was basically a choice between being ruled by Hitler or being ruled by Stalin. Neither was a good option.



Not Stalin alone-the bolsheviks too. They were murdering people before Stalin came to power then the Western media blamed it all on him--- Alexander Solschenitsyn confirmed the Bolshevik role (Hergé did TinTin cartoons on the effects of collectivization) .

The murder rates under the Soviets is something like 10 million --50 million into the 80s--which is astounding--and at the very least because the western compassionate media had no interest in the story.

Munchhausen was interesting, not just because of the cavalier attitude towards nudity, or the not-so veiled criticism of Hitler, but the black people in it. I had been told Hitler hated other races but this was not shown in this German movie. They had Africans in Germany. Shocker!  Only later did I read that Jesse Owens said Hitler treated him fine, it was FDR and Truman who were not respectful. 
I think the era of media control is reaching its end thanks to the internet and unfiltered access to historical documents.
Not to mention, globalist art and literature just isn't as compelling as the old fashioned kind where there is some homogeneous heritage element involved.


----------



## Edward M. Grant

KGeo777 said:


> The murder rates under the Soviets is something like 10 million --50 million into the 80s--which is astounding--and at the very least because the western compassionate media had no interest in the story.



More to the point, the Western media covered up the story, because so many were Communist sympathizers. It's also worth noting that many in the West supported Hitler until he turned against Stalin. In their view, National Socialism was great until it decided to destroy Communism.

In some cases, that even went to the extent of trying to prevent or slow down the shipment of supplies that would help their own country in the war against Germany.



> Only later did I read that Jesse Owens said Hitler treated him fine, it was FDR and Truman who were not respectful.



I've no idea whether that one's true, but I read an interesting book recently which talked about the Nazis basing many of their racial laws on the laws in American south at that time. Except the Nazi laws weren't as strict, because they thought the American laws went too far (the 'one drop rule' and all that).


----------



## Toby Frost

Edward M. Grant said:


> More to the point, the Western media covered up the story, because so many were Communist sympathizers.



That was pretty common knowledge among people who knew history when I grew up (and weren't anti-West).


----------



## KGeo777

I knew about communist sympathizers but not why communism was criticized. The standard media position here in North America was that Communists were pro-worker, anti-religious, and that was why they were disliked-end of story.


----------



## DelActivisto

KGeo777 said:


> I knew about communist sympathizers but not why communism was criticized. The standard media position here in North America was that Communists were pro-worker, anti-religious, and that was why they were disliked-end of story.



Generally generally fail to understand the nuances. People cast Karl Marx as basically inspired by Satan, which is unfair. Karl Marx's vision would probably result in a fairly stable type of society, although probably by nature not a very rich one. The problem was the transition state. We never had any communist states, we had communist _transition_ states, and they became corrupted immediately. Marx clearly had too high of an opinion of government officials. I think therefore it's important to point out that Marxism didn't cost people their lives, unethical implementation cost people their lives.


----------



## Edward M. Grant

KGeo777 said:


> I knew about communist sympathizers but not why communism was criticized. The standard media position here in North America was that Communists were pro-worker, anti-religious, and that was why they were disliked-end of story.



The amazing part was the rapid transition from Nazi Ally to Uncle Joe Stalin to The Evil Communist Horde. That must have been remarkable to see. Particularly for those who'd risked their lives to deliver supplies to the USSR in WWII.

I wonder whether it was an inspiration for Orwell's _1984_, where allies would become enemies overnight and everyone would 'forget' they ever were allies?


----------



## KGeo777

DelActivisto said:


> I think therefore it's important to point out that Marxism didn't cost people their lives, unethical implementation cost people their lives.




There's a quote attributed to him that he thought the family unit was at war with itself--which sounds rather nuts. Hopefully it's not accurate, or maybe it was Groucho who said it.



Communism looks to me like a system where in an ideology of alleged equality (which has to come through disruption and crisis), betas take control of a society and sideline alphas-and that from a biological POV seems like an unnatural thing to do, and no surprise it would collapse since under the system merit is not the basis for why people get appointed to positions of power--loyalty to the ideology is. 

Also, under communism it would seem the worst crime is unlawful thought, while in the so-called fascist world view, physical behavior that is perceived as a threat to the health of the society is.  
I would be sympathetic to communism if was concerned about ecology, but from what I read it is no better than capitalism in that area and perhaps even worse in some ways. I also think the main patrons of communism are not sincere in their adherence to equality or justice. The Bolsheviks demonstrated this, as did their wealthy media sympathizers in the West by concealing the negatives.


----------



## Venusian Broon

Edward M. Grant said:


> The amazing part was the rapid transition from Nazi Ally to Uncle Joe Stalin to The Evil Communist Horde. That must have been remarkable to see. Particularly for those who'd risked their lives to deliver supplies to the USSR in WWII.
> 
> I wonder whether it was an inspiration for Orwell's _1984_, where allies would become enemies overnight and everyone would 'forget' they ever were allies?



Not really in the grand scheme of things. My enemy's enemy is my friend. Nazi Germany was much more of a threat to Britain than the USSR, so it was expedite to arrange an alliance. (Also taking a leaf out of Adolf's book anyway, with his use of lightning quick and inventive non-aggression packs).

And such quick changes are all throughout European history if you look for them. Usually in Britain's case it was to stop anyone being too powerful on continental Europe - look at our behaviour in the war of the Spanish succession, as soon as it looked like the Habsburgs, our allies at the time, would get the Spanish and Austrian domains, Britain backtracked and went with the enemy, France, to get a deal.

And such a policy actually worked if you think about it. However it just let the US and the USSR to come in and eclipse the old European empires.

It should be noted there had been friction between the UK and Russia since the end of the Napoleonic wars and resulted in a number of disastrous and wasteful wars - look at the 1st Afghanistan War in 1839, the Crimea war, or even Britain's alliance with Japan that effectively stopped Russian allies from helping Russia in 1904. In fact one of Churchill's 'Gallipoli'-type operations he dreamt up was an invasion of Northern Sweden so that the UK could supply and help the Finnish against the Russians in 1940. Thankfully that did not occur. Reverting the USSR back to rival and potential enemy was just going back to the norm.


----------



## The Judge

Just a reminder that we don't talk politics or social issues here on Chrons. 

This thread is about a perceived obsession about WWII, so let's get back to that.  We'll allow a certain latitude to include other general WWII matters or historical issues which shed a light on WWII, but please don't stray beyond those limits.


----------



## svalbard

I cannot add much to what has already been said. WWII was the defining moment of the last century. It was a moment in history when for once we can say the good guys won( even if some of those good guys were questionable). Also we have living testimony to this day and as an Irishman even I have have a connection.

My Great-Grandfather fought for the British in WWI and then for the Treaty side in the Irish Civil War. Later in WWII he was a merchant seaman in the North Sea. And very proud of this he was too. 

My Grandfather served in the Irish Free State army during the Emergency(this is what the Irish Government of the time called WWII). He was part of a unit that found the body of a Luftwaffee pilot that crashed in the Beara Peninsula and gave the pilot a full military funeral. Thousands of Irishmen joined the British Army to fight the NAZI threat but for decades this was not recognised or if it was then it was spoken of in hushed whispers by family members. Such was our diificult relationship with Britain. Mental when you think of it now.

On a personal familial level. My Great-Grand Daddy drew two pensions in his later years from the both the British Army and the Irish Defence Forces but at a cost. My Mum remembers him constantly waking screaming from his sleep and his wounds in later life caused him great pain. Never knew the man but have always wished I met him. I did know my Grand-Dad and he told me the story of the buried pilot in the Beara Peninsula(which I researched afterwards). He despised Hitler, Stalin and Churchill.

I could understand the first two, but was puzzeled about Churchill. Gallipoli was his response and he left it there


----------



## Cottencandytrill

What does the abbreviation GI mean?


----------



## KGeo777

Cottencandytrill said:


> What does the abbreviation GI mean?



Soldier, at least in the US.

On a related note--in a 1960s  Harry Palmer film (Funeral in Berlin), Michael Caine mentions he has a portable Batman suit. This makes one think he means Batman as in Robin, but the assumption is he meant the military meaning of Batman-soldier assigned as personal valet.

And yet, in the next Harry Palmer film, Billion Dollar Brain, a picture of Batman and Robin is seen on his office wall. 

Sorry for the digression.


----------



## sknox

GI = Government Issue, a reference to what you got the first day at boot camp. Came to refer to the soldiers themselves, as noted above.


----------



## Foxbat

Just to add another fascinating fact to the above G.I. explanation, I believe Jeep (another WW2 staple)  is actually a phonetic extrapolation of G.P. (as in General Purpose vehicle).  Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## DelActivisto

Foxbat said:


> Just to add another fascinating fact to the above G.I. explanation, I believe Jeep (another WW2 staple)  is actually a phonetic extrapolation of G.P. (as in General Purpose vehicle).  Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.



Geeps?


----------



## Brian G Turner

I thought GI just meant General Infantryman.


----------



## Pyan

Foxbat said:


> Just to add another fascinating fact to the above G.I. explanation, I believe Jeep (another WW2 staple)  is actually a phonetic extrapolation of G.P. (as in General Purpose vehicle).  Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.



Lots of discussion about that one, though: perhaps we should be calling it a Peep...

How the Jeep got its name


----------



## Caledfwlch

Edward M. Grant said:


> That too. But Britain had lost the will to maintain an Empire by the 30s, and America was beginning to overtake it as the source of new technologies and industries. It was really just a question of how long it would be before the people living in the Empire demanded a divorce, so they could hook up with America instead. The British government wasn't going to conscript an army for years to fight to hold on to India or Rhodesia against popular opposition.
> 
> Just look at the political change during WWII, where the voters threw Churchill out before the war was even over, and voted in a Labour government whose entire policy was more welfare and more nationalization. That's not the behaviour of an energetic, expansionist nation, but an inward-looking and fading one.



I suspect that was the behaviour of the Working Class ensuring that this time, unlike after WW1, the promises made for change would be upheld. Plus, the people knew Churchill far too well - nobody with even a tiny bit of sanity left wanted a vile person like him ruling a peace time UK. As people often say, in WW2, we were fighting bastards, led by bastards, so we needed our own *******, and that was Winston.  and you don't elect a ******* to run your nation in peace time.

I think the biggest difference to the world now, if the UK was not saddled with debts intended to sink it as a Power by the US, would be a world at least a little more stable and peaceful. A UK not knowing its in finance difficulties till well into the 21st century, may have dismantled the Empire in a more orderly fashion and left behind it more stable countries and institutions.


----------



## Susan Boulton

Just a note; the UK did not finally pay off its War time loan to the US until 2006! 

This is interesting reading. Anglo-American loan - Wikipedia


----------



## Caledfwlch

Foxbat said:


> Just to add another fascinating fact to the above G.I. explanation, I believe Jeep (another WW2 staple)  is actually a phonetic extrapolation of G.P. (as in General Purpose vehicle).  Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.



I believe that is correct - I was watching an episode of Combat Dealers on Quest, where they were refurbishing a WW2 US Army Jeep, and explained the name.

Nobody actually seems to know why British Infantrymen used to be known as "Tommy" and "Tommy's" aka "Tommy Atkins" it was especially prevalent during WW1, and I have heard theories suggesting they had example's of correctly filled identification documents for soldiers as a guide to filling their own in, using "Tommy Atkins" but the oldest known use of Tommy / Tommy Atkins is from 1743!!!

I have always found the usually American mildly derogatory term for British people, "Limey's" to be highly amusing - you are trying to insult people by pointing out that Royal Navy Sailors used to eat Lime which kept them free from Scurvy? So, your insult is, your Sailors are full of Scurvy, whilst ours are not, thus its an insult? 

It is amusing that many of the national insults/nicknames used against the soldiers of European armies tend to be food based.
Germans - The Boche - basically meaning "German Cabbage Head" "Kraut" from Sauerkraut, which I think is also Cabbage.
British Troops, esp in the Napoleonic era would often use "Frog" for obvious reasons. "Crapaud" (French for Toad) was another common insult, I assume they found the French for actual Frogs to be too difficult to pronounce - for some random reason, the "Pas-de-Charge" drum beat was called by Redcoats, "Old Trousers" nobody seems quite sure why. "Frog" has been around as an insult since the 1300's, but until around the Napoleonic era, it actually referred to Jesuits and the Dutch.

A common French Army insult for British Troops in the 18th/19th centuries was "Les Rosbifs" literally the "Roast Beefs" because that's what British soldiers were fond of, being easy to cook on a campfire.


----------



## Caledfwlch

Edward M. Grant said:


> Before WWII, being racist in Britain was kind of pointless, because most people outside London would never see someone who wasn't white. Even as a kid, I only remember seeing one non-white person in my town, and he was another kid at my school who was probably from Pakistan: I don't know for sure, because I never bothered asking.... to us, he was just another kid.
> 
> Whether it was true or just his memory of his experience, my father used to say that no-one ever treated black GIs any differently to anyone else during the war. If my aunt was still alive, I'd ask her if she dated any, because she had a bit of a reputation with the soldiers .



Ethnic Minorities were far more widespread in the UK, outside of London, before ww2 than you imagine!

Before the British Empire banned Slavery, Black African's were common sights throughout the UK, working in the homes and businesses of the nobility, wealthy merchants and so on - they didn't just vanish, once freed, they and their descendants were still living here.
Part of the problem is that many Black people in these sorts of time periods, if they settled outside of the Trade Ports, such as London, Cardiff, they generally took White wives or husbands - there were well known or accomplished Black Britons/migrants from the 18th/19th centuries who's descendants are still around, but in appearance look white, thanks to centuries, or decades of mixed marriage.

The 19th century also saw the beginning of large scale migration by Black and Chinese people into the UK.
And Wales, had major Italian migration into it, for decades before WW2, so there have been plenty of people around of darker skin, and different ethnicities for a pretty long time.


----------



## sknox

Brian G Turner said:


> I thought GI just meant General Infantryman.


If you're a general, you ain't an infantryman.


----------



## Brian G Turner

sknox said:


> If you're a general, you ain't an infantryman.



Sorry, I meant as in "a general infantryman".


----------



## Foxbat

Caledfwlch said:


> I believe that is correct - I was watching an episode of Combat Dealers on Quest, where they were refurbishing a WW2 US Army Jeep, and explained the name.
> 
> Nobody actually seems to know why British Infantrymen used to be known as "Tommy" and "Tommy's" aka "Tommy Atkins" it was especially prevalent during WW1, and I have heard theories suggesting they had example's of correctly filled identification documents for soldiers as a guide to filling their own in, using "Tommy Atkins" but the oldest known use of Tommy / Tommy Atkins is from 1743!!!
> 
> I have always found the usually American mildly derogatory term for British people, "Limey's" to be highly amusing - you are trying to insult people by pointing out that Royal Navy Sailors used to eat Lime which kept them free from Scurvy? So, your insult is, your Sailors are full of Scurvy, whilst ours are not, thus its an insult?
> 
> It is amusing that many of the national insults/nicknames used against the soldiers of European armies tend to be food based.
> Germans - The Boche - basically meaning "German Cabbage Head" "Kraut" from Sauerkraut, which I think is also Cabbage.
> British Troops, esp in the Napoleonic era would often use "Frog" for obvious reasons. "Crapaud" (French for Toad) was another common insult, I assume they found the French for actual Frogs to be too difficult to pronounce - for some random reason, the "Pas-de-Charge" drum beat was called by Redcoats, "Old Trousers" nobody seems quite sure why. "Frog" has been around as an insult since the 1300's, but until around the Napoleonic era, it actually referred to Jesuits and the Dutch.
> 
> A common French Army insult for British Troops in the 18th/19th centuries was "Les Rosbifs" literally the "Roast Beefs" because that's what British soldiers were fond of, being easy to cook on a campfire.



In the army, every Scotsman seems to get called Jock and, according to my English friends, those of us north of the border talk Jockinese.


----------



## Venusian Broon

Foxbat said:


> In the army, every Scotsman seems to get called Jock and, according to my English friends, those of us north of the border talk Jockinese.



Except in Cockney parts of London, where we are Sweatys


----------



## Caledfwlch

Foxbat said:


> In the army, every Scotsman seems to get called Jock and, according to my English friends, those of us north of the border talk Jockinese.



I used to get offended by "Taff" and "Taffy" for me and my fellow Cymro's, mostly because I assumed it were something to do with the River Taff in Cardiff, something I had never even seen, I wasn't even South Walian, never mind Cardiff or the Valleys, but it turns out it's actually like many of the "english" version of place names etc in Wales, its the mis pronounciation of the Welsh, in this case, Dafydd > Taffy/Taff,


----------



## Foxbat

Caledfwlch said:


> I used to get offended by "Taff" and "Taffy" for me and my fellow Cymro's, mostly because I assumed it were something to do with the River Taff in Cardiff, something I had never even seen, I wasn't even South Walian, never mind Cardiff or the Valleys, but it turns out it's actually like many of the "english" version of place names etc in Wales, its the mis pronounciation of the Welsh, in this case, Dafydd > Taffy/Taff,


The misunderstanding or mispronounciation of words has probably been the cause of many a war


----------



## Caledfwlch

Foxbat said:


> The misunderstanding or mispronounciation of words has probably been the cause of many a war



Aye, people never look before they leap, and don't do any research. 

I once read a wonderfully funny text. The author, was really excited about his discovery - he said that the Arthurian myths were supposed to originate in Wales, as does the Mabinogion, a collection of Welsh Myths. Both Arthuriana and the Mabinogion mention a character called Vortigern, the dude who's new castle kept falling down, until Merlin tells him 2 dragons, one white, one red are in a cave beneath fighting. It has always been suggested that Vortigern was some sort of High King, or powerful bad dude in the dark ages.

His discovery? The Welsh Alphabet does not have a V, therefore there couldn't be an early Welsh/Late Briton called Vortigern, so maybe the myths or some of them actually originated in England, and that maybe some of the Mabinogion tales were also "borrowed" from old english/saxon stories.

Had he done some very basic research, he would have discovered that the British Language is still around, it evolved into Welsh, Cornish and Breton. The thing is, Cornish and Breton Alphabets DO have a V. They have a V because the British Language had a V..... 

I think that same Author was the one who insisted that various events within Arthuriana which are supposed to have taken place in what is now Southern Scotland/Northern England actually took place in North Wales. Like for example, there are things that mention "The Wall" in the Yr Hen Ogledd. meaning Hadrians Wall. He seems to have focused on the word Ogledd (mutation of Gogledd, meaning North) But to have used that, meant whoever recorded those stories in the dark ages, Learned Monks, scholars etc, knew what they were talking/writing about. If they meant the events took place in North Wales, they would have written Gogledd Cymru.

The phrase "Yr Hen Ogledd" was created/originated by the old Welsh specifically to identify where they were talking about. It translates as "The Old North" and it specifically means Southern Scotland/Northern England. Because when recording or speaking about myths, stories, or History, whether genuine real history or the sort of pseudo history that was written back then, such as Historia regum Britanniae by Geoffrey of Monmouth (A History of the Kings of Britain which appears to mix fact with myth) Some of the events described took place before the Germanic Tribes such as the Saxons had annexed the whole of what is now England. So, we have The North and the Old North, the Old North being composed of kingdoms such as Rheged, Elmet, and Manau Gododdin. Not to mention one of the last places in England, to lose its British/old Welsh identity, that identity recorded in the modern Counties name, as the Britons, pushed West, leaving parts of the Old North geographically isolated from other Britons, their identity began evolving, and Britons started referring to each other instead as Brothers or in British "Cymbrogi" which itself evolved into Cymru, the modern Welsh, and Cumbria. (Wales/Welsh are corruptions of a Germanic word meaning "Foreigners"

Gwynedd was founded by Cunedda ap Edern, a Prince of Manau Gododdin In Modern Welsh, the Welsh name for the area that housed the Gododdin's capital is identical to the British name for the place 1600+ years ago, "Caer Edyn" aka Edinburgh.
So Hen Ogledd / the Old North specifically means northern england/southern scotland 

All the guy had to do was some basic research - he wasn't Welsh, had likely never been to Wales, but decided he knew better than the people who wrote down the stories etc. was hilarious!


----------



## Amelia Faulkner

Caledfwlch said:


> All the guy had to do was some basic research - he wasn't Welsh, had likely never been to Wales, but decided he knew better than the people who wrote down the stories etc. was hilarious!



He sounds like a plum.

In Jeep news, I own a Jeep, and when you buy one you get sent this Jeep... coffee table book is the best way I could describe it. But within its glossy Jeep-filled pages is the fact that even Jeep don't know the origin of their own name, and they ascribe to the General Purpose vehicle theory of GeeP as most likely.


----------



## Foxbat

Amelia Faulkner said:


> He sounds like a plum.
> 
> In Jeep news, I own a Jeep, and when you buy one you get sent this Jeep... coffee table book is the best way I could describe it. But within its glossy Jeep-filled pages is the fact that even Jeep don't know the origin of their own name, and they ascribe to the General Purpose vehicle theory of GeeP as most likely.


If they don't know, what chance do the rest of us have of figuring it out?


----------



## The Ace

Re the Soviet Union.

Didn't Churchill himself say that if Hitler had invaded Hell, he would've approached Satan ?

Churchill (and his government) never pretended to _like _Stalin, but expediency and a common enemy made them allies.


----------



## Dave

Foxbat said:


> If they don't know, what chance do the rest of us have of figuring it out?


Many companies don't know their own histories and have shredded all their records. The more enlightened employ a historian or an archivist, or both. 

As for the OP question, I really can't say why. Most of the living population no longer have personal experience of it. Maybe it is due to the sheer number of WW2 films produced, both as propaganda during the war, and then as a backdrop for action/adventure right through the 60's and 70's and up to today.  They are still regularly shown on TV. This year saw the blockbuster _Dunkirk_ released, but I can only think of _M*A*S*H_ about Korea. Quite a number of more recent films about Vietnam though. Colour film was just beginning to be generally used during WW2.

As someone else mentioned, (sorry can't remember who) in the UK, you can still see evidence of WW2 in a walk in any town, or along any beach - tank traps, pillboxes, underground bunkers, missing rows of houses replaced with flats, garden railings cut off and removed, disused airfields, stretcher railings, bomb craters. Unexploded WW2 bombs and mines are still regularly discovered. We don't have the equivalent for WW1, though there are Napoleonic defences if you look for them in the South.


----------



## Foxbat

The Ace said:


> Churchill (and his government) never pretended to _like _Stalin, but expediency and a common enemy made them allies.


It goes further than dislike, in late 1939 the UK and French Governments drew up plans to send in troops and equipment to aid Finland in its fight with the USSR. It's quite conceivable that if the aid was accepted and the peace proposal rejected by Finland, we could have been fighting a war on two fronts, and if Hitler had still invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, it could have become really complicated and we may well have lost in the long run. 
Franco-British plans for intervention in the Winter War - Wikipedia


----------



## Caledfwlch

It's little known to most ordinary people, without a specific interest in the period, that Finland was an ally of Germany during WW2, though they only against the Russians, Finland never afaik committed an act of aggression against the Western Allies.

You can't really blame them - When your being invaded by a giant evil Empire, and your people are facing the sort of life they would have under the Russians you take help from where ever it comes.

People who don't know much about Finland, always get amazed when I show them photo's like this, from the 21st century.

(The Modern Finnish Air Force on Parade)




 

 

Of course, in the case of the Finnish Air Force (FAF) it has absolutely nothing to do with the Nazi's, or Nazism in general. IIRC the intent and configuration the Swastika is in, as an FAF Symbol is in the traditional "good luck" usage.

In 1918, Finland had a Civil War, after declaring Independence from Russia, following the Russian Revolution, the Russians of course backed the pro Russia side, the Swedish Crown decided to not get involved, but many Swedish Private Citizens, Business Owners, and Nobility gave what help they could, some of them receiving fines for going "counter" to official Swedish policy.

Swedish Count Eric Von Rosen donated a couple of Biplanes to the White Governments proto FAF - the first he donated had his personal good luck symbol painted upon it... a Blue Swastika, and it became a symbol of the Finish Air Force.

This was 1918 - The First World War was not even over yet, the Swastika, in any configuration had not become connected to/intertwined with National Socialism, fascism and Racism


----------



## Caledfwlch

Foxbat said:


> It goes further than dislike, in late 1939 the UK and French Governments drew up plans to send in troops and equipment to aid Finland in its fight with the USSR. It's quite conceivable that if the aid was accepted and the peace proposal rejected by Finland, we could have been fighting a war on two fronts, and if Hitler had still invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, it could have become really complicated and we may well have lost in the long run.
> Franco-British plans for intervention in the Winter War - Wikipedia



I wonder just how radically history could have been changed by that decision.
I think at the time of Barbarossa, Finland had it's very own General Winter as a secret weapon, so the Wehrmacht would not have been at it's best had it gone for Anglo French forces in Finland. Though saying that, as I understand it, a large part of the AF Plan was to invade Northern Sweden, despite the UK and France not being at war with it, and Sweden had committed no acts of War against them - the plan was conceived in order to seize Sweden's Iron Mines, thus denying Germany a big chunk of its Iron supply. So it's possible that an Anglo French Force would effectively have been fighting on 3 front / 3 enemies, being at war with the Armies of Germany, Russia and Sweden.

I suspect the Swedes, Norwegians and Danes knew that allowing a British Force passage through it's territory might blow up in its face, it wasn't the first time the UK had been "naughty" in Scandinavia.

In 1807, during the Napoleonic Wars, the UK attempted to bully Denmark into either giving it's Merchant Fleet to the Royal Navy, or at least sail it to Scotland, for example, and leave it berthed there, under British Protection, as Napoleon was desparate to get his hands upon it, being short of ships. Denmark said no, and in response, the Royal Navy landed a British Army force in Denmark, which marched to, and besieged Copenhagen, bombarding the beautiful city, and disguised Sailors or Soldiers got in, and set the Merchant Fleet on fire. 
So of course, Denmark declared War on Britain, entering on Napoleons side, but I don't think after the Invasion and Siege, Danish troops ever saw, never mind come close enough to a Redcoat to shoot him - without the Fleet, Denmark was of no use to Boney.


----------



## Foxbat

Caledfwlch said:


> I suspect the Swedes, Norwegians and Danes knew that allowing a British Force passage through it's territory might blow up in its face, it wasn't the first time the UK had been "naughty" in Scandinavia.


And the irony being that whilst Churchill still considered occupying Norway (and Narvik in particular) anyway, Hitler beat him to the punch - so Norway and Denmark found themselves in a no-win situation. 

Mind you, Churchill wasn't averse to making ruthless decisions of this nature - just look at the destruction of the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir in July 1940.


----------



## Caledfwlch

Oh Churchill was utterly ruthless, and frankly, he was not a very nice chap at all. It's just that in 1940, Great Britain was under threat from an enemy led by utter Bastards, and so we needed our own ******* to lead us - Churchill fitted the bill.

This is the guy, who in either the 20's or 30's was so incensed that in the British Mandate of Mesopotamia (Iraq these days) many of the villagers, peasants etc were not paying their taxes, that he was demanding the RAF make an example of a couple of villages by dropping mustard gas on them.
This was also the guy, who in a quiet phone call or Memo to Eamon Da Valera in Dublin said that if he even had the slightest hint that Eire had given any help at all the Germany, even if it was just turning a blind eye to a Uboat travelling though Irish waters, then the RAF would carpet bomb Eire back into the stone age. Seriously unpleasant dude, and I have little doubt that he would follow though with his threats.


----------



## BAYLOR

Caledfwlch said:


> It's little known to most ordinary people, without a specific interest in the period, that Finland was an ally of Germany during WW2, though they only against the Russians, Finland never afaik committed an act of aggression against the Western Allies.
> 
> You can't really blame them - When your being invaded by a giant evil Empire, and your people are facing the sort of life they would have under the Russians you take help from where ever it comes.
> 
> People who don't know much about Finland, always get amazed when I show them photo's like this, from the 21st century.
> 
> (The Modern Finnish Air Force on Parade)
> 
> View attachment 40906 View attachment 40907
> 
> Of course, in the case of the Finnish Air Force (FAF) it has absolutely nothing to do with the Nazi's, or Nazism in general. IIRC the intent and configuration the Swastika is in, as an FAF Symbol is in the traditional "good luck" usage.
> 
> In 1918, Finland had a Civil War, after declaring Independence from Russia, following the Russian Revolution, the Russians of course backed the pro Russia side, the Swedish Crown decided to not get involved, but many Swedish Private Citizens, Business Owners, and Nobility gave what help they could, some of them receiving fines for going "counter" to official Swedish policy.
> 
> Swedish Count Eric Von Rosen donated a couple of Biplanes to the White Governments proto FAF - the first he donated had his personal good luck symbol painted upon it... a Blue Swastika, and it became a symbol of the Finish Air Force.
> 
> This was 1918 - The First World War was not even over yet, the Swastika, in any configuration had not become connected to/intertwined with National Socialism, fascism and Racism



Im not sure if Im right about this  but,  It represents the Sun ?  Also the symbol or one very similar  to it can be found in Hinduism too.


----------



## nixie

The swastika was a religious symbol in southern Asia and a symbol of good luck in Europe. There are  two versions I'm aware of clockwise and counter clockwise. The Germans used the counter clockwise version.
I remember this from Dennis Wheatley's The Devil Rides Out, Dr Richealu hypnotized Simon and one of the protections he used on him was the swastika. When Rex  questioned this he explained the right handed version was one of the most powerful defences against dark forces.


----------



## HareBrain

From the wikipedia page here.



> The name _swastika_ comes from Sanskrit (Devanagari: स्वस्तिक), and denotes a "conducive to well being or auspicious".[10][7] In Hinduism, the clockwise symbol is called _swastika_ symbolizing surya (sun) and prosperity, while the counterclockwise symbol is called _sauvastika_ symbolizing night or tantric aspects of Kali.[7]





nixie said:


> The Germans used the counter clockwise version.



Actually they used the clockwise one, at least as defined above (the arms lead in a clockwise direction).


----------



## Dave

Surely, the origin of the symbol is less important than the motives behind people who would use it today, many who would not be even aware of the origin. However, I feel that this has little, if anything, to do with why people today are still obsessed with WW2. If this thread is going to constantly stray into modern politics, religion and current affairs then it is highly likely to be closed. Except that symbolism and symbolic anthropology is relevant here (or how those symbols can be interpreted to better understand a particular society.) The Second World War was a very symbolic event, and the images of the technology, insignia, fashions, music, films, radio, and books of that period continue to evoke our collective unconscious. What I don't understand is the reason why that collective unconscious associated with the Second World War is so warm and fuzzy to so many people. It was a frightening time for those that experienced it, with homes, employment and relationships wrecked or torn away; real cruelty and trauma experienced; and rapid social and technological change.


----------



## Montero

Both my parents lived through WW2 and none of their stories were fun - extreme food shortages, school friend killed by a stray "friendly" bullet from an allied fighter plane that fell from the sky during a dog fight. There was just getting out the way of being strafed by a Stuka - it came up a railway line machine gunning the train and the station. My father managed to throw himself into the solid, stone built waiting room just in time - lying there on the floor, seeing heavy machine gun bullets tearing up the tarmac where he'd just been standing.
However, he was very much into reading books like The Cruel Sea by Nicholas Montserrat, PoW escape stories, One of Our Submarines - true life on a submarine, watching black and white war movies and the later colour ones - mother watched them too - I grew up watching them. To him, the war was worth fighting despite the privations and dangers he'd experienced.
In terms of why WW2 is so popular - I can't help wondering whether there are two reasons.
1. The massive amount of still and movie photography available. (Previous wars were photographed but WW2 much more so.)
2. How much everyone was involved due to the bombings and attacks on civilians. It wasn't troops sent abroad and life as fairly normal back at home, it was everyone.

@Dave - for some people WW2 was the biggest challenge they'd ever had, biggest responsibility, life downhill after that. Read Nevil Shute's Requem for a Wren for example (but not if you are feeling low). Who Do You Think You Are series when they did Patrick Stewart - his father who was a postman, had been really difficult to live with, but through Who Do You Think You Are, Patrick Stewart learnt he'd been a sergeant major in the Parachute Regiment and the man trusted with restoring one of the regiments after heavy casualties. He also probably had PTSD from some of the pretty horrendous things he'd seen. But the guy had been truly challenged, and really risen to the challenge, and then after the war it was back to delivering letters.


----------



## hitmouse

WW2 was quite simply the defining event of my grandparents generation, whether in the services overseas or back at home in the UK. It involved every aspect of British society and the nation was profoundly changed afterwards. The trauma of multiple family deaths in the blitz was still with my grandmother when she died 10 years ago. My mother, who was born during that time, was bought up by other family members as a result: it undoubtedly affected her relationship with her family, and her choices in life. So, WW2 is not simply a historical period. Its effects continue to echo down the generations. It is also still living history. Up to the time of her death 5 years ago a great aunt was still pulling minute splinters of glass out of her back from a blown out window during the blitz. Another great aunt was awarded a medal a few years ago for working at Bletchley Park: the family were surprised as she had kept it a complete secret for 70 years.


----------



## Dave

I totally agree with that, but





hitmouse said:


> [WW1] was quite simply the defining event of my [great]grandparents generation, whether in the services overseas or back at home in the UK. It involved every aspect of British society and the nation was profoundly changed afterwards. The trauma of multiple family deaths in the [trenches] was still with my [great] grandmother when she died...


Women worked in men's professions for the first time and got the vote shortly afterwards. There was such a shortage of men that women either could never marry or else married below their class. Not just multiple family deaths, but the deaths of most of the men in entire villages and communities. Yet, it no longer has the same (not sure "obsession" is the right word, but that was the OP) obsession today.

I don't dispute the "why" WW2 is remembered. Not sure about the "living memory" part being relevant, as it is not those who lived through it who are still celebrating it. There are 1940's dances in cellars in the centre of London, to which the average age of those attending must be mid-twenties. The part I don't understand is the celebrating of it.


----------



## Caledfwlch

I don't think they are celebrating the War.

They are celebrating, if anything, the Spirit of the People, how all classes and walks of life pulled together, they are celebrating the communal attitude, the Blitz Spirit, of banding together to fight through adversity.

They are not celebrating people being killed, battles that were fought.

Plus, a lot of people really like the music and fashion of the era.


----------



## Dave

Celebrating is probably not the right word either. Obsession isn't, but we can agree that there is a "thing?" A thing that gives people a warm and fuzzy feeling? I think they like the music and fashion because of the association, and not in spite of it. I'm happy for someone to prove me wrong though


----------



## Overread

Dave the class point is a strong to raise for the UK; WW1 and 2 together basically was the deathnail to the old class system we had in the country up until that point. Some elements of it still remain and I suspect always will in any social structure (there's always some on top and others underneath); but the generations over which it had built up were very swiftly swept aside by the massive cross-class life loss in both wars


----------



## Randy M.

Caledfwlch said:


> I don't think they are celebrating the War.
> 
> They are celebrating, if anything, the Spirit of the People, how all classes and walks of life pulled together, they are celebrating the communal attitude, the Blitz Spirit, of banding together to fight through adversity.
> 
> They are not celebrating people being killed, battles that were fought.
> 
> Plus, a lot of people really like the music and fashion of the era.



I think you can add to that nostalgia for a "simpler" time. We often look back to times that appear good/bad, black/white. We've gone through cycles of nostalgia for the 1950s (oblivious of "separate but equal" and the Jim Crow laws, systemic sexism, etc., etc., but weren't poodle skirts and pompadours cute?) and for the 1960s (focusing on the initial optimism, the fashion and music, and brushing aside that pesky war that wasn't a war, assassinations, civil unrest, and ... um ... oh, yeah, systemic sexism).

And then, in the U.S., we add in the baby boomer generation. Oh, we were radical we were when we were young, what with our electric guitars and our wailing, croaky rock'n'rollers! And then about 1980, while we were still the number one group of consumers retailers wanted to appeal to, I started noticing music in commercials incorporating Louis Prima and Glen Miller, and it occurred to me that middle-aging baby boomers wanted some return to the comforts and safety of their childhood. So we elected Ronald Regan. And it just kept going after that.

And Overread, I agree with you about how that period kicked the legs out from under the dominant class system. That was happening in the U.S., too.


Randy M.


----------



## Caledfwlch

It's why Uncle Winston to his absolute shock found himself thrown out of Downing Street in the first election in 6 years.
Many of the promises made in WW1 were not kept, and were made with no intention of being kept.

People knew that, and they knew Winston C was exactly the sort of man to show ingratitude and not make the changes needed.
Without Labour coming to power in that election in 1945, I doubt we would have a National Health Service, a Welfare system etc.

A Sitcom show, Only Fools and Horses gave one of the best quotes regarding WW1 and promises I have ever seen - Grandad sadly remarks to Delboy and Rodney that "they promised us homes fit for heroes, they gave us heroes fit for homes"


----------



## hitmouse

I dont think my family has ever celbrated WW2 in any shape or form. It was simply something seismic that happened to them and they were never the same again.


----------



## Caledfwlch

Dave said:


> Celebrating is probably not the right word either. Obsession isn't, but we can agree that there is a "thing?" A thing that gives people a warm and fuzzy feeling? I think they like the music and fashion because of the association, and not in spite of it. I'm happy for someone to prove me wrong though



I suppose there may well be some who think like you suggest, but most of them, I suspect, it's just to do with Vintage/Retro being all cool. People don't dress like Flappers or go to see Burlesque shows for example, because they get a warm and fuzzy feeling about the Chaos and violence of the Weimar Republic in Germany (1919-1933) a place and time iirc, where Burlesque was very popular.
And people arent dressing up in various aspects of Victorian Garb, because they have warm fuzzy feelings for Moustache & Lamb Chop Wearers teaching Johnny Native his place.
Well, ok, people except for Daily Mail Readers! 

I suspect the fact that WW2 has been such a staple of movies, books and TV Shows in the UK is also a factor, in that people recognise the style, and fashions of that period more easily than others.
And I suppose, for those youngers going to Dance Hall type events, it's something that has a strong British image and Identity - they maybe feel more at home or look the part more, than they would at an evening based around early to mid fifties Rock and Roll. It's all very glamorous - The boys with their leather jackets and quiffs and Ted suits taking beautiful tanned bottle blondes with a huge gleaming rack of teeth to a retro Diner with black and white tiled floors, and a 50's jukebox, it's also a very American image. 

The other big Retro fad for years has been the 1970's, there is even a chain of Clubs called Flares, at which you can behind the bar even buy glittering purple whigs, and other fancy dress items. And goers are not glorifying or commemorating the 3 day week, the streets being filled with rats due to the millions of uncollected bin bags, and the Morgues filled with corpses due to the various Strikes, the power blackouts etc.

Sadly, I have personal knowledge of the branch of Flares in Leeds City Centre  as the ex fiance and her mates loved the place. Sob.


----------



## sknox

Obsessed is a fairly slippery word. Posts here have explained why the participants were profoundly affected, how that in turn affected the next generation. They have pointed out that the war is heavily documented, which allows people to research and investigate to a degree unknown with earlier wars. Still others have romanticized the war or have enjoyed romanticizations of it (there are, after all, millions of dramatic stories to be told). 

Out of all those reactions and more, I'd say obsession forms only a sliver. People are fascinated. People are appalled and try to understand. People are inspired and make movies and write books. People let it stand for something personal (all wars have done that). I'd guess that if you found someone who was truly obsessed with the war, that last one would be the most likely explanation as to why. 

I'm a generation-and-a-half removed from that war. It touched me in odd ways. My step-father was a sergeant but never went overseas. Sixty years later I find out my mother still receives certain benefits from being sorta-kinda a soldier's widow. She gets a tax break on her property, of all things.

My German teacher in college was born in Kiel, which was flattened in the war, being a major port. He told us of living in a ring of new housing built around the complete devastation of the old city.

But the oddest was my dissertation. In the old days (1980s), you had to get your dissertation bound yourself, at your own cost. I was flat poor, but went looking (in Boise, Idaho!) for a book binder. Found one, an old guy who still did some bookbinding when he felt like it. All his equipment was in the basement and we sat to talk about what I needed. I handed him the manuscript with its title, "The Guilds of Early Modern Augsburg."

He said, "Huh." Looked up at me and added, "I bombed Augsburg." Turned out he was a bombardier who helped pummel that city. It was such a strange, even ludicrous, confluence--the medieval historian and the WWII bombardier in Boise, Idaho coinciding over a German city.

A world war, indeed.


----------



## Foxbat

Dave said:


> Celebrating is probably not the right word either. Obsession isn't, but we can agree that there is a "thing?" A thing that gives people a warm and fuzzy feeling? I think they like the music and fashion because of the association, and not in spite of it. I'm happy for someone to prove me wrong though


My 'thing' for WW2 is simply trying to understand it and what it meant to those involved. I have always had a 'thing' for history so my points are not unbiased and, in many ways, I have the same fascination with WW1.

But what we have to remember about WW2  is that a generation was decimated in the Great War only two decades previously. What determination must it have taken for the ordinary people - still mourning and remembering their losses in WW1 to once again answer the call of their country? 

Appeasement is often criticised unfairly  because its origins lay in the fact that the horrors of the Great War were still fresh in the national memory. What was thought to be a glorious or perhaps exciting undertaking - all decorated with a bit of 'Boy's Own' derring do and home for Xmas eventually produced killing grounds  like the Somme that could be a worthy depiction of Hell. I once visited Vimy Ridge where a section of the trench complexes of both sides have been preserved and was aghast at how close they were to each other so it doesn't seem to be an exagerration when you see movies depicting soldiers shouting to each other - they were _that_ close. And these were young men! 

They were different times, of course,  where Duty was expected and people knew their place and most who fought all had their own reasons for doing so but what they achieved collectively for us as a nation was the right to say no, regardless of our social standing or gender. 

Anybody with a warm and fuzzy feeling for WW2 should remember these numbers.

Deaths totals (approx civilian and military)
UK 450700
USA 418500
USSR 24000000 (yes that's right...24 million!)
Germany 8800000
France 567600
China 20000000 (there are some researchers who think that civilian deaths in China alone could be as high as 50 million but it is unlikely ever to be proven).
Japan 3100000
Italy 457000

There are many many more (including 6 million Jews and half a million gypsys)


----------



## Caledfwlch

I have to say, I loathe the phrase "People knew their Place"! 
It is correct, sadly, but the place that People knew to be theirs, was simply where those with wealth ordered them to be.
I think a new phrase needs to be coined, as in its current form it makes it sound like the people chose to be there, treated like that, their lowly position in society etc.


----------



## Foxbat

Caledfwlch said:


> I have to say, I loathe the phrase "People knew their Place"!
> It is correct, sadly, but the place that People knew to be theirs, was simply where those with wealth ordered them to be.
> I think a new phrase needs to be coined, as in its current form it makes it sound like the people chose to be there, treated like that, their lowly position in society etc.


Totally agree with you.


----------



## Caledfwlch

Foxbat said:


> Totally agree with you.




Caledfwlch Tugs his forelock, "gawd bless 'is Majesty, where would I be without him and all them nobbles telling me my place"


----------



## Montero

@Foxbat, @Caledfwlch
Not entirely. My mother had really good grades at school, but her father made her leave at 16. We talked about it a couple of times and how she would have liked to go to University and what she would have studied. After she died, I was talking with her sister, my aunt and mentioned all of that. My aunt's reflex response "People like us didn't do that." To be fair, after a long moment she said, "But our best friend did." Then she was quiet for quite a time.
Also, let's not forget that lovely old phrase "class traitor".
It is the same sort of mental attitude as expecting women and men to behave differently purely because of their gender - and turning round and saying girls/boys don't do that to the girl/boy who is doing whatever it is.
At least there are no longer clear dress codes for "the classes". You watch a film of a public event in the 1950s, and the women and men at the front or up on the stage are all in nice hats, and the back of the crowd is head scarves and flat caps. (Mind you, the queen wears head scarves when out riding - but that is different from wearing headscarves when dressed up.....) Gives me the grue seeing the clear distinction. I am glad I am alive now and not then. But "keeping people in their place" was not entirely top down - it was complicated.
There was also a lot of social mobility - people getting more education, better jobs, moving away from their home area. Both sides of my family did it. However, one of the key things was to hide your origin or it didn't work. If you didn't speak BBC English and look the part, you didn't get the better job. It is relatively recent for BBC announcers to have regional accents and for people on the up not to alter their speech. Angela Rippon commented on how she totally laundered her voice from how she spoke as a child.
So if you just judge by appearances, the "class system" would look static, because you are not seeing people with strong accents in white collar jobs - but they were there, they'd given themselves a make-over so you didn't know.

Incidentally, mentioning clothes identifying your class. In the medieval period there were sumptuary laws laying out what rank could wear what sort of cloth and type of fur - and there was perpetual bitching about merchants dressing well above their station and how something should be done about it. Also, Anne Boleyn's great grandfather on her paternal line was a wealthy merchant - that was a family on the up.


----------



## Overread

Montero said:


> But "keeping people in their place" was not entirely top down - it was complicated.



Aye lower classes would frown upon those who would aim to push themselves upward just as much as those in the upper classes would frown upon those trying to move up. You'd not even "talk" to some classes if you were in one class. Oh you might be polite and greet them if they were lower; or you'd give them a job or such. But you wouldn't go out and "talk" to them. You just "didn't do that sort of thing". 

Indeed I think there was a lot of "you just don't do that" thinking that was engrained into the youth and became so much a part of their lives that they did "just didn't do it" without really thinking much of the why; other than it was the normal thing to do.


----------



## Vladd67

A touch of crab bucket mentality. Crab Bucket - Discworld & Terry Pratchett Wiki


----------



## Montero

@ Overread - yes.
@Vladd - blech, yes, poor crabs. They could build a pyramid and escape if they went in for teamwork.


----------



## The Ace

Caledfwlch said:


> It's little known to most ordinary people, without a specific interest in the period, that Finland was an ally of Germany during WW2, though they only against the Russians, Finland never afaik committed an act of aggression against the Western Allies.
> 
> You can't really blame them - When your being invaded by a giant evil Empire, and your people are facing the sort of life they would have under the Russians you take help from where ever it comes.
> 
> People who don't know much about Finland, always get amazed when I show them photo's like this, from the 21st century.
> 
> (The Modern Finnish Air Force on Parade)
> 
> View attachment 40906 View attachment 40907
> 
> Of course, in the case of the Finnish Air Force (FAF) it has absolutely nothing to do with the Nazi's, or Nazism in general. IIRC the intent and configuration the Swastika is in, as an FAF Symbol is in the traditional "good luck" usage.
> 
> In 1918, Finland had a Civil War, after declaring Independence from Russia, following the Russian Revolution, the Russians of course backed the pro Russia side, the Swedish Crown decided to not get involved, but many Swedish Private Citizens, Business Owners, and Nobility gave what help they could, some of them receiving fines for going "counter" to official Swedish policy.
> 
> Swedish Count Eric Von Rosen donated a couple of Biplanes to the White Governments proto FAF - the first he donated had his personal good luck symbol painted upon it... a Blue Swastika, and it became a symbol of the Finish Air Force.
> 
> This was 1918 - The First World War was not even over yet, the Swastika, in any configuration had not become connected to/intertwined with National Socialism, fascism and Racism




Actually, Britain declared war on Finland after Barbarossa (the only point in WW2 where one democracy declared war on another) - to be fair, neither side took it very seriously.


----------



## psikeyhackr

The US was not as directly affected by the war as England but I think the psychological impact may have been as great.  The weird effect was that the war pulled the US out of The Depression.  So although I doubt that many people were consciously aware of it I suspect many people at the time "felt better" because of the war than during the 1930s.

The there were the technological effects, RADAR saved Britain, Germans made jet and long range rockets, the US made the atomic bomb because they were afraid the Germans might do it first.  Not so well known, bu important, was the proximity fuse.  Invented by a Brit and then developed in the US.  It vastly increased the effectiveness of anti-aircraft fire against the Japanese.

How much of post-war history is the result of atom bombs on rockets and spying with satellites put up with rockets?  WWII largely triggered what people are calling "The Great Acceleration" be it good or bad.  Authorities in the US feared the Depression would come back after the war.  So Jeeps used in the war were dumped into the ocean so they would not depress the automobile market.











WWII delayed the implementation of television in the US, but by 1960 90% of American homes had TVs.  What did that do to consumerism?  So how much has American television affected The World?

It is all Arthur C. Clarke's fault with that Clarke Orbit.  



> (Clarke's)... early endeavors were interrupted with the coming of World War II, Clarke’s service during the conflict would present him with the opportunity to indulge his technological aptitude. From 1941 to the war’s end, *he was a technician with the Royal Air Force and among the first to use radar information to guide aircraft landings in unfavorable weather conditions*.



Never trust Brits with technology.  It is all their fault.

psik


----------



## LordOfWizards

I must say that I don't know many here in the US who are "obsessed" with WWII. But I, like Einstein, have always been more or less a pacifist. Any time I've come across those who attempted to somehow glorify the war(s) we've been in, I shy away and tend to avoid them. Like many children of the late twentieth century, I was abhorred by the use of the Atomic bombs used on Japan.

What has been brought out by this discussion is the coming together of a kind of "League of Nations" against what appeared to be a moral/common evil. I will admit to being somewhat naive in my younger days about things like the balance of power that keeps the world in a fragile kind of lesser peace. Even Oppenheimer himself (according to some cursory research I did) appeared to be remorseful after the fact given his role in the "Manhattan Project".

It is only my recollection of a report I heard where Einstein reluctantly signed the letter (requested by Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard) to president Roosevelt asking permission to persue the bomb because the Nazi party had been trying to develop it themselves.

The irony is that Germany had surrendered three months prior to August 6, 1945.
Here are 2 links that I am sourcing to verify what I believe to be the facts:
As Hiroshima Smouldered, Our Atom Bomb Scientists Suffered Remorse
J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Atomic Bomb: Triumph and Tragedy

This quote (from the second link) appears to explain what I heard about Einstein. "In August of 1939, alarmed by the recent news from Germany, Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard asked his colleague, Albert Einstein, to affix his signature to a letter addressed to President Roosevelt. The letter warned of recent German scientific advances and Germany’s sudden interest in uranium deposits in the Belgian Congo of Africa. Einstein, a German Jew who fled his homeland in 1932 for fear of Hitler’s growing influence, dutifully but reluctantly signed his name to the letter. Einstein’s imprimatur on the letter was Szilard’s best hope of affixing Roosevelt’s attention on the growing feasibility of an atomic bomb. Einstein and many other European scientists were, from personal experience, justifiably terrified at the prospect of Hitler’s Germany acquiring such a weapon, and the Germans had first-class scientific talent available to tackle such a challenge."

In my opinion, no human being could possibly shoulder such a grave responsibility such as the choice to use such a weapon. And now, I cannot discuss the similar current day threat that appears in world news since we are not allowed.

Edit: I apologize for my use of the term "League of Nations". I was unaware that there was such a thing after World War I that aspired to resolve world conflicts, and yet was unable to do so.


----------



## Caledfwlch

The Ace said:


> Actually, Britain declared war on Finland after Barbarossa (the only point in WW2 where one democracy declared war on another) - to be fair, neither side took it very seriously.



It's astonishing that whoever made the declaration did so, without bursting into giggles!!
Seriously though, the largest Empire the World has ever seen, declaring War on a tiny insignificant Nation like Finland, just smacks of bullying more than anything! Be like the Federal German Republic declaring War against the Isle of Man!

We Welsh, like our Scots and Irish Brethren firmly believe that the reason the Sun never set on the British Empire, is because the Gods didnt trust the English in the Dark


----------



## The Ace

Caledfwlch said:


> It's astonishing that whoever made the declaration did so, without bursting into giggles!!
> Seriously though, the largest Empire the World has ever seen, declaring War on a tiny insignificant Nation like Finland, just smacks of bullying more than anything! Be like the Federal German Republic declaring War against the Isle of Man!
> 
> We Welsh, like our Scots and Irish Brethren firmly believe that the reason the Sun never set on the British Empire, is because the Gods didnt trust the English in the Dark




Nobody does.

I think it was more for form's sake than anything else, since they'd attacked our ally, the SU.  Personally, I wouldn't blame the Finns for attacking the Russians (and I don't think Churchill did either), but the declaration was almost certainly a bone thrown to Stalin.


----------



## Foxbat

Caledfwlch said:


> It's astonishing that whoever made the declaration did so, without bursting into giggles!!
> Seriously though, the largest Empire the World has ever seen, declaring War on a tiny insignificant Nation like Finland, just smacks of bullying more than anything! Be like the Federal German Republic declaring War against the Isle of Man!
> 
> We Welsh, like our Scots and Irish Brethren firmly believe that the reason the Sun never set on the British Empire, is because the Gods didnt trust the English in the Dark


There was a point in late 1939 when Britain considered coming to Finland's aid during the Winter War. There was a large slice of self-interest involved but if that war had not finished when it did,  we could have been at war with Russia when Barbarossa began. Now that would have been a bit of a conundrum
Franco-British plans for intervention in the Winter War - Wikipedia


----------



## Caledfwlch

Foxbat said:


> There was a point in late 1939 when Britain considered coming to Finland's aid during the Winter War. There was a large slice of self-interest involved but if that war had not finished when it did,  we could have been at war with Russia when Barbarossa began. Now that would have been a bit of a conundrum
> Franco-British plans for intervention in the Winter War - Wikipedia



It is astonishing that during WW2, a British/Allied invasion of Sweden was put under serious consideration, in order to deny Germany the Iron etc it was receiving.

It's quite an interesting take on Neutrality that Sweden was operating back then - "we won't actually get involved in fighting, however we will trade vital materials with the bad guys, and hand over any of their men stupid enough to defect to us"

I can understand them being somewhat nervy, not wanting to find Wehrmacht Panzer Divisions suddenly pouring into Stockholm, but did they really think they would be left alone, forever?


----------



## HareBrain

Caledfwlch said:


> It's quite an interesting take on Neutrality that Sweden was operating back then - "we won't actually get involved in fighting, however we will trade vital materials with the bad guys, and hand over any of their men stupid enough to defect to us"



Casting one side as the "bad guys" would certainly have been an interesting take on neutrality.


----------



## Caledfwlch

HareBrain said:


> Casting one side as the "bad guys" would certainly have been an interesting take on neutrality.



Viewing that particular side as anything but bad guys would be an interesting take on "humanity" 

The Irish Free State kept totally out of it. (IIRC the Irish Republic did not come into being until 1949, so during WW2, it was still technically one of the British Crowns Po sessions/Dominions)

Mine you, it's an interesting thought experiment, as to where the Free State may well have cast its dice - Churchill never one to use such awkward things as "Tact" and "Diplomacy" at the best of times, was utterly clear in his 1, and possibly only communication with the Free State, and specifically its President Eamon Da' Valera.
"if we ever hear even the slightest hint of officially sanctioned Irish assistance to Germany, even if its turning a blind eye to something, then Sir, I shall send the Royal Air Force, and I shall level your Nation back to the dark ages"

Da Valera wasn't stupid, he knew the ilk of Churchill, and Churchill would have ordered the carpet bombing, maybe even with gas weapons of every Irish population centre with more than 20 people, and gone and enjoyed a good nights sleep, and never thought on the matter again.

But certainly, it would appear many Veterans of the Irish Civil War, who were in the Free State Army were fascist to a degree, going to Spain to fight for Franco for example, iirc, they were known as the "Blueshirts"

So there's an interesting AH scenario to explore, where Eire has a second Civil War, 1939-1945, perhaps between the IRA and a Free State that had become overtly Fascist. (Presumably Da Valera would need to be removed, perhaps terminally for this to happen)

I thought I had better check in case my memory was playing tricks - and yes, the Blueshirts were a real organisation, (Army Comrades Association) Pro Free State & the Treaty which created it in 1922, Anti IRA. They still exist in a form, as the Irish Political Party Fine Gael - and celtic memories being long (as a Celt I should know  ) Fine Gael supporters and members are still reffered to as "blueshirts" in a derogatory manner - though I know of no other manner than derogatory with which to hold discourse with a Party founded as a Far Right Organisation! 

Blueshirts - Wikipedia


----------



## BigBadBob141

I heard on a radio documentary that we publish more books about WW2 then any other country.
Just look up the figures for biography on Churchill & Hitler.
I should know as I have a fair few books myself on this subject.
Why are we so obsessed?
Possibly because it truly was our finest hour!!!


----------



## Vladd67

I suppose because some people feel it was the last just war we were involved in, also our last hurrah as a major power.


----------



## Dave

BigBadBob141 said:


> Possibly because it truly was our finest hour!!!


You certainly have a big part of the reason there. You do know that even as Churchill said that during the Blitz, and went out to tell London eastenders how we were 'all in this together' (to turn another phrase) quite a few of them told him exactly where he could go. However, if you mean everyone working together towards a common goal, making sure Britain didn't also fall to the Nazis, rather than lining their own pockets, or thinking only of themselves, and if you mean a competent government, of outstanding talent, working smoothly and seamlessly, well then yes, they were different times indeed.


----------



## Montero

The other thing regarding books on WW2 - publishers like publishing books that will sell well - so you may well have a bit of a feedback loop in terms of what is published and what is read.
Also, we are at the point when a lot of formerly secret documents are being released due to the lapse of however many decades it is - so all sorts of fun tidbits and odd organisations are popping out. I think that has fuelled the fire a bit at the moment. Other countries may well have different systems regarding the release, or non-release, of secret documents from the war period.


----------



## Dave

Montero said:


> Also, we are at the point when a lot of formerly secret documents are being released due to the lapse of however many decades it is...


A good point. I also asked earlier, why there wasn't a similar "_obsession"_ with the Great War 1914-18. There are people who are interested in that today - trips to explore the trenches and people searching family history - but at exactly the time people would have been expected to get retrospective about the Great War, and to ask what their fathers and uncles had done, they were themselves heavily involved in the Second World War, or the rebuilding afterwards, and they just didn't have the time. I think it was simply eclipsed by those more wide-ranging world events.


----------



## Danny Creasy

Personally, it caused my creation; Dad was a poor North Alabama farm boy joining the U. S. Army in 1939 for "three hots and a cot" and Mom was an English 18-year-old that fell for him. Mom passed in 2008 and Dad in 2010. I have deep family connections on both sides of the Atlantic. The war is intwined in my history. I've never considered letting go of the obsession.


----------



## psikeyhackr

We need more WWII science fiction:

The Proteus Operation - Wikipedia

LOL

Actually I put off reading that because I mostly avoid time travel stories but I mostly like James P. Hogan so I finally read it.  It was way better than I expected and may be his best book for character development in my opinion.


----------



## psikeyhackr

Another thing about WWII is the Vietnam War.

I saw a documentary that said originally FDR was opposed to the French going back into Vietnam after WWII.  When I was in high school and the Vietnam War was going strong I don't recall any mention of this.  All of the government propaganda was about stopping Communism.  

Were the Vietnamese supposed to welcome the French back after years of fighting the Japanese?  

So it is like shots from WWII just ricochet off the walls of history forever.

psik


----------



## Danny Creasy

psikeyhackr said:


> Another thing about WWII is the Vietnam War.
> 
> I saw a documentary that said originally FDR was opposed to the French going back into Vietnam after WWII.  When I was in high school and the Vietnam War was going strong I don't recall any mention of this.  All of the government propaganda was about stopping Communism.
> 
> Were the Vietnamese supposed to welcome the French back after years of fighting the Japanese?
> 
> So it is like shots from WWII just ricochet off the walls of history forever.
> 
> psik



Good points.


----------



## Venusian Broon

psikeyhackr said:


> So it is like shots from WWII just ricochet off the walls of history forever.
> 
> psik



Well, WW2 was really just a continuation of WW1, and that was a result of years of the toxifying 'European Balance of Power' which had developed through numerous wars between nations and dynasties in the centuries beforehand.

Personally I'd put the real origin for all this with the formation of Charlemagne's Empire at about 800.

So I'd say it's really just been a very old _arrow_ ricocheting off the walls of history since that point!


----------



## psikeyhackr

Venusian Broon said:


> Personally I'd put the real origin for all this with the formation of Charlemagne's Empire at about 800.
> 
> So I'd say it's really just been a very old _arrow_ ricocheting off the walls of history since that point!



The trouble with going back that far is discoveries like the structure of the atom and nuclear fission cannot even be suspected much less predicted.  H. G. Wells did come up with the tern "Atomic Bomb" before World War I and inspired Leo Szilard in the 1930s.  Even though WWII was over before I was born I was very aware of it because of all of the TV shows about it.  Hogan's Heroes made the war such fun.

Since then technology has been pushing historical events regardless of the usual historical stuff that could occur before 1800.


----------



## Venusian Broon

Technology is one of the factors that have_ always_ pushed and shaped historical events, by being utilised by people for their own needs and ends. Even pre-1800.

But it is not the only factor. 

WW2 would have occurred with or without any nuclear weapons, as the roots of the conflict (and the reason the French wanted to claim Vietnam in 1945) all go back hundreds of years, well before 1800, I would contend.


----------



## psikeyhackr

Venusian Broon said:


> WW2 would have occurred with or without any nuclear weapons, as the roots of the conflict (and the reason the French wanted to claim Vietnam in 1945) all go back hundreds of years, well before 1800, I would contend.



But how important would ICBMs be without nuclear weapons and how much rocket and electronics development would not have been forced so fast without them?  I am not talking about the cause of WWII but the synergy of technology resulting from it.  ENIAC was used for hydrogen bomb calculations after the Japanese surrendered even though the project was started for artillery ballistics.

Google Ngram Viewer

Curious how much the use of the word 'technology' has changed since 1960.

psik


----------



## Caledfwlch

Well, I can see one immediate major difference, and effect of a WW2 where Nuclear Fission and a resulting Atomic weapon, is just a dream, but as in OTL, the Nazi's are still developing V1, V2, and whatever they had planned beyond them.

New York Skyscrapers being blown part, and New Yorkers in their hundreds, maybe thousands, given it's population density dying, as long range German Missiles slam into the City, and other's day and night. The war being brought right to the front door of US Civilians, actually facing what Europe had for several years is bound to have an incredible impact on the American Psyche, maybe leading to a post WW2 USA that is either more Isolationist than ever in the past, or far more aggressive in dealing with threats such as Communism.

The possibility of Revenge Weapons dropping chemical, gas and nerve weapons on those civil populations. The whole point of long range weapons, is, they are long range, thus could have been placed well out of the reach of Allied Aircraft, and realistic Land or Naval military intercept, and hammered allied cities, or armies from afar.

Plus think of the massive burst and boost of technology created by the various Space Programmes - ICBM's were IOTL designed to deliver atomic weapons around the world, but the technology soon became obvious as a tool to enable Space Exploration, manned flight, launching Satellites and so on, so just because you don't have Nukes to screw on the end, doesn't mean you don't get all sorts of massive technological and other advances, such as intelligence from orbital spying etc.


----------



## Dave

psikeyhackr said:


> Google Ngram Viewer
> 
> Curious how much the use of the word 'technology' has changed since 1960.



I hadn't realised that Google had been around since 1880.


----------



## Dave

More seriously, that is a great tool. I added "philosophy" which hardly changed over time and also "mass-destruction," the use of which is negligible.


----------



## psikeyhackr

Caledfwlch said:


> Plus think of the massive burst and boost of technology created by the various Space Programmes - ICBM's were IOTL designed to deliver atomic weapons around the world, but the technology soon became obvious as a tool to enable Space Exploration, manned flight, launching Satellites and so on, so just because you don't have Nukes to screw on the end, doesn't mean you don't get all sorts of massive technological and other advances, such as intelligence from orbital spying etc.



I am not saying the space exploration would not happen, I am only saying it would not have happened nearly as fast.  The US freaked when the Russians launched Sputnik, largely because they already had the atomic bomb by then.  The detonated an A-bomb in 1949 partly as a result of spies in the Manhattan Project.  Integrated Circuits were to expensive in 1959, but the US military and NASA started buying them and the downward price spiral started.  



> While the relationship between rocket technology and ICs would remain strong, another key project that created demand for ICs and therefore spurred the widespread use of chips was the United State’s Minuteman missile program. The Minuteman missile program began in the early 1960s as part of the Cold War nuclear arms build-up. A Minuteman missile is an intercontinental ballistic missile or ICBM, which means it is shot into outer space and then falls to earth. Minuteman missiles could be guided to their targets from earth stations or aircraft, but engineers wanted a design that would have an on-board navigational computer. To do so, they turned to the new technology of ICs. Because hundreds of missiles would be made, each using thousands of chips, the program’s demand for ICs was high. Like the demands made by NASA, this meant that certain chips would have to be mass-produced. Engineers met this need and by 1964 Texas Instruments successfully tested a navigational computer based on a set of ICs. While not the only uses for ICs in these years, the guaranteed market and premium prices paid by the NASA and military in the early days of the IC were decisive factors in ensuring the success of this new technology, and led toward mass-produced, low-cost chips for personal computers and other systems.


Integrated Circuits and the Space Program and Missile Defense - Engineering and Technology History Wiki



> *What opened the door* for the first microprocessors, then, was the application of MOS integrated circuits to computing. The first computer to be fashioned out of MOS-LSI chips was something called the D200, created in 1967 by Autonetics, a division of North American Aviation, located in Anaheim, Calif.
> 
> This compact, 24-bit general-purpose computer was designed for aviation and navigation. Its central processing unit was built from 24 MOS chips and benefitted from a design technique called four-phase logic, which used four separate clock signals, each with a different on-off pattern, or phase, to drive changes in the states of the transistors, allowing the circuitry to be substantially simplified. Weighing only a few kilograms, the computer was used for guidance on the Poseidon submarine-launched ballistic missile and for fuel management on the B-1 bomber. It was even considered for the space shuttle.
> 
> The D200 was followed shortly by another avionics computer that contained three CPUs and used in total 28 chips: the Central Air Data Computer, built by Garrett AiResearch (now part of Honeywell). The computer, a flight-control system designed for the F-14 fighter, used the MP944 MOS-LSI chipset, which Garrett AiResearch developed between 1968 and 1970. The 20-bit computer processed information from sensors and generated outputs for instrumentation and aircraft control.


The Surprising Story of the First Microprocessors

psik


----------



## psikeyhackr

Darkest Hour | Focus Features

LOL


----------



## psikeyhackr

Hiroo Onoda, Soldier Who Hid in Jungle for Decades, Dies at 91


----------



## Danny Creasy

Cottencandytrill said:


> I never was into the world wars and stuff but why are a lot of people so obsessed with WW2 though?



This Quora response to the same question is pretty good:


----------



## Danny Creasy

Oh, yes, "cool airplanes" —


----------



## Russiano

Cottencandytrill said:


> There are tons of games, books, conspiracy theories, movies, etc concerning world war two.I never was into the world wars and stuff but why are a lot of people so obsessed with WW2 though?


From the Russian perspective, the most important matter is, of course, not celebrating the victory but human lives lost. It took away every man in paternal grandfather's case in my family and it's nothing special here. This alone made almost all Soviet women to raise all children and do hard work by themselves independently (obviously, due to the fact that so many men were dead or missing).
There are many eerie stories like Lyuban Offensive Operation near to Myasnoy Bor, — just a ground pregnant with bones today. Although its surroundings still have a few citizens, they look abandoned and a vast part of the area has turned into a swamp. This one refers to me personally, because this is where my grandfather died, and yet his name isn't mentioned on the memorial stone which treasures victims of that bloodbath. It was a slaughter with Soviet people scarcely having any weapons to fight back. The betrayal of general Vlasov with further blaming him for everything gone wrong on that day made the whole operation forgotten, a ghost. Victory Parade never mentions it, people who live in Myasnoy Bor have never heard of it. Basically, the trace is gone and the case is closed. Sometimes I stumble across skeletons in monochrome photos made during excavations and wonder if there is grandfather among them. This is my own reason to be, as it's said, slightly obsessed with WW2.

As for the rest of the world, I don't think I'm allowed to speak for everyone but I have my assumption that it was _world _war. The more countries fight the less is hope that your own won't be involved if it ever happens again. Moreover, it was one of the deadliest global military conflicts that history has never seen before. Yugoslavia, as an example, lost 1/4 of its population. In addition, it was the first use of the atomic bomb in 1945. Not to forget thousands of rumours about Hitler and his suicide.


----------



## psikeyhackr

Russiano said:


> From the Russian perspective, the most important matter is, of course, not celebrating the victory but human lives lost. It took away every man in paternal grandfather's case in my family and it's nothing special here. This alone made almost all Soviet women to raise all children and do hard work by themselves independently (obviously, due to the fact that so many men were dead or missing).



That is one of the disgusting things about so called American history.  With all of the WWII movies I saw on TV in the 60s and supposed history courses what happened to the Russians is hardly mentioned.  Stalin allying with Hitler to invade Poland got more emphasis than the rest of the Eastern Front history.  Then the Commies became bad guys after the war.






What would have happened if Hitler had not been stupid enough to invade Russia so the winter could kick the German armies ass?


----------



## BAYLOR

psikeyhackr said:


> That is one of the disgusting things about so called American history.  With all of the WWII movies I saw on TV in the 60s and supposed history courses what happened to the Russians is hardly mentioned.  Stalin allying with Hitler to invade Poland got more emphasis than the rest of the Eastern Front history.  Then the Commies became bad guys after the war.
> 
> What would have happened if Hitler had not been stupid enough to invade Russia so the winter could kick the German armies ass?



Hitler still would have lost the war , but it would have taken  longer . Stalin signed the non aggression pact  in the hopes of buying  himself time . Sooner or later when his forces were ready, he would gone after Germany but not as an ally veto England and the US.


----------



## psikeyhackr

BAYLOR said:


> Hitler still would have lost the war , but it would have taken  longer . Stalin signed the non aggression pact  in the hopes of buying  himself time . Sooner or later when his forces were ready, he would gone after Germany but not as an ally veto England and the US.



But the Western Front war could have lasted longer and atomic bombs could have been dropped on Germany.


----------



## BAYLOR

psikeyhackr said:


> But the Western Front war could have lasted longer and atomic bombs could have been dropped on Germany.



That would likely have happened had Germany still been in the war.


----------



## BAYLOR

If the Axis had won that war, we would now be living in an age of darkness and despair.


----------



## Edward M. Grant

psikeyhackr said:


> Then the Commies became bad guys after the war.



The Commies--not the ordinary Ivans who died by the millions in the war, but the ones running the country--were always bad guys. They just got a brief propaganda victory in the West while they were on 'our' side.

Stalin was never really on anyone's side but his own. One of the most (darkly) amusing things I've read about WW2 was that the other Russian leaders asked Stalin for a meeting after the Nazis invaded, and he thought it was because they planned to kill him, and was quite shocked when they didn't. Because that was exactly what he would have done in their position.


----------



## Edward M. Grant

BAYLOR said:


> If the Axis had won that war, we would now be living in an age of darkness and despair.



Which is basically what happened to the half of Europe that the Allies gave to Stalin.

Realistically, as you mentioned above, if Hitler had beaten Russia and Britain, he'd have seen his cities being vaporized a couple of years later. It's unlikely he could have developed nukes fast enough to retaliate before Germany was a radioactive wasteland... though, if he did, he'd have been able to launch them towards America by rocket, rather than having to build planes which could fly that far. America would have had to develop the B-52 or something much like it even earlier than they did (AFAIR they were working on a prop-driven trans-Atlantic bomber which was scrapped at the end of the war).

Edit: Duh, I'd forgotten the B-36. Apparently that was originally designed to bomb Germany from the US.


----------



## BAYLOR

Edward M. Grant said:


> Which is basically what happened to the half of Europe that the Allies gave to Stalin.
> 
> Realistically, as you mentioned above, if Hitler had beaten Russia and Britain, he'd have seen his cities being vaporized a couple of years later. It's unlikely he could have developed nukes fast enough to retaliate before Germany was a radioactive wasteland... though, if he did, he'd have been able to launch them towards America by rocket, rather than having to build planes which could fly that far. America would have had to develop the B-52 or something much like it even earlier than they did (AFAIR they were working on a prop-driven trans-Atlantic bomber which was scrapped at the end of the war).
> 
> Edit: Duh, I'd forgotten the B-36. Apparently that was originally designed to bomb Germany from the US.



 With a range of 10,000 miles. A very impressive plane.


----------



## Overread

Honestly if Russia and the UK fell I suspect the USA would have ended the war and left Europe alone and found some means to peace with Germany. Yes they'd have possibly had the nukes at some stage (assuming a change in how the war went we might have seen the USA project hindered and not advanced as far/fast as the German); but with no actual country base in Europe any more it might have caused them to pull back. 

Of course we can play "what if" till the cows come home because there are often so many variables its very hard to pin down what would or wouldn't have happened. Even if you can study all the actors there's always the element of chance - a stray shot kills someone important in battle; a prized warship takes a sudden bad hit and sinks crippling sea power; a coded communication gets translated early by a stroke of genius by a normal unknown person and suddenly a major battle has a huge change of result.


----------



## BAYLOR

Overread said:


> Honestly if Russia and the UK fell I suspect the USA would have ended the war and left Europe alone and found some means to peace with Germany. Yes they'd have possibly had the nukes at some stage (assuming a change in how the war went we might have seen the USA project hindered and not advanced as far/fast as the German); but with no actual country base in Europe any more it might have caused them to pull back.
> 
> Of course we can play "what if" till the cows come home because there are often so many variables its very hard to pin down what would or wouldn't have happened. Even if you can study all the actors there's always the element of chance - a stray shot kills someone important in battle; a prized warship takes a sudden bad hit and sinks crippling sea power; a coded communication gets translated early by a stroke of genius by a normal unknown person and suddenly a major battle has a huge change of result.



All the Nazis knew how to do was conquer , pilfer,oppress  and destroy . They lived by piracy.  Hitler didn't understand economics nor did the vast majority of his underlings. The Nazi economy was parasitic in nature   and only really worked at all when they were conqueing other nations and taking their  business and resources  to feed the war machine .


----------



## psikeyhackr

Edward M. Grant said:


> The Commies--not the ordinary Ivans who died by the millions in the war, but the ones running the country--were always bad guys.



I am a cynic.  There are no Good Guys.

Isn't it interesting that the Commies, Cappies and Socies cannot think of something as simple as making 700 year old double-entry accounting mandatory in the schools?  And then the Cappies kill a million Vietnamese to defend economists who can't do algebra?  What happened to the Depreciation of all of the automobiles purchased by American consumers for the last half-a-century?
Economic Wargames


----------



## Lafayette

DelActivisto said:


> Yeah, and yet for some reason we still argue about whether or not it was actually about slavery.



I think that question depends on where you were coming from. If you were a southerner it was about states rights. If you were an abolitionist it was about slavery. If you were black it was about freedom.

In my opinion, it started out as states rights versus federal sovereignty and ended up about slavery.


----------



## psikeyhackr

Lafayette said:


> In my opinion, it started out as states rights versus federal sovereignty and ended up about slavery.



The interesting thing is that we do not discuss how many poor Whites who did not own slaves fought for the the Confederacy.  What did they have to get out of it?  Stupid Pawns?!?


----------



## Lafayette

Foxbat said:


> From a personal view, I had an uncle who served both on HMS Nelson and then later HMS Belfast (now a museum ship). But I think it was another of my uncles that really brought home how the war affected people. My uncle Frank was an alcoholic and I remember when I was a youngster, I would see him drunkenly staggering about the town in broad daylight whilst other townsfolk screwed up their noses and went about their business. To me, he was a family embarrassment and I did my best to avoid him. The strangest thing was that he was always dressed really smartly. I remember he was always clean-shaven,  in slacks and navy blue blazer.
> 
> I never understood him until my dad sat me down and explained that Frank had been in the Merchant Navy. Twice, the ships he served on had been torpedoed and twice, he survived by clinging on to wreckage in the Atlantic until rescued. Drink, for him, was the only way he could blot out the memories of all his lost friends.
> 
> I understood a lot better after that, got to know him more and found that he was actually a really nice guy. Sadly, he died not long after finally defeating his alcoholism. That's what the war did to a member of my family and there will be millions of families all over the world who still, as Brian says, have a living memory of the impact of this conflict. Frank and Pat (my uncle on the Belfast) are why I have an interest in that period (my dad was too young, although he did try and sneak into the RAF).



In a strange and in an indirect way I and the rest of my family were affected. My oldest brother told me that our father also had two ships shot out from under him. I believe it caused or was one of the factors that caused his alcoholism. The result was he couldn't hold a job and take care of his large family (I'm number ten of sixteen) and so most of us (including me) were adopted out.

I and two of my brother were probably luckier than the rest for we were adopted by a very good and loving woman that was friends with my birth mother.


----------



## BAYLOR

Edward M. Grant said:


> The Commies--not the ordinary Ivans who died by the millions in the war, but the ones running the country--were always bad guys. They just got a brief propaganda victory in the West while they were on 'our' side.
> 
> Stalin was never really on anyone's side but his own. One of the most (darkly) amusing things I've read about WW2 was that the other Russian leaders asked Stalin for a meeting after the Nazis invaded, and he thought it was because they planned to kill him, and was quite shocked when they didn't. Because that was exactly what he would have done in their position.



  Purging  his generals in 1937, signing the nonaggression pact with Nazi Germany, refusing to believe the  warnings from his intelligence  and spy network of an impending attack by the Gemans. These are are good examples of Stalin's awesome stupidity and incompetence.  He bears a great deal of the blame for the millions in Russia who died as a result of his decisions and actions.


----------



## Foxbat

Stalin was a monster but also an utterly fascinating character. Before ruling the USSR, he spent time as a meteorologist and as a bank robber. He was also a published poet.


----------



## BAYLOR

Because the Greatest Generation is almost gone. A few more years and all they will be is a memory .


----------



## sknox

I gotta say, I really dislike that phrase "greatest generation." The soldiers were just soldiers, poor saps who found themselves in a war and did the best they could. The folks back home, likewise. Nobody really knew what they were doing, and nobody had much choice in the matter.

In that, how were Americans any different from the British or Canadians? Or, for that matter, the French, the Italians, and yes even the Germans or Japanese? War came. The grunts turned out and died. Or lived. It was pretty much a horrifyingly random business. There's a reason why our heroes insist they were not heroes. They were there. They know. 

None of that lessens one iota what was accomplished. Tyranny was turned back, and that is no small thing. But greatest generation? Would that make the vets of WWI the second-greatest generation? Or would you hand that to the Civil War vets, the poor wretches? Is the Iraq War like the seventh-greatest?

Wars come. People fight and die, and the rest of the world watches and weeps over its loss. There's very little greatness in that.


----------



## BAYLOR

sknox said:


> I gotta say, I really dislike that phrase "greatest generation." The soldiers were just soldiers, poor saps who found themselves in a war and did the best they could. The folks back home, likewise. Nobody really knew what they were doing, and nobody had much choice in the matter.
> 
> In that, how were Americans any different from the British or Canadians? Or, for that matter, the French, the Italians, and yes even the Germans or Japanese? War came. The grunts turned out and died. Or lived. It was pretty much a horrifyingly random business. There's a reason why our heroes insist they were not heroes. They were there. They know.
> 
> None of that lessens one iota what was accomplished. Tyranny was turned back, and that is no small thing. But greatest generation? Would that make the vets of WWI the second-greatest generation? Or would you hand that to the Civil War vets, the poor wretches? Is the Iraq War like the seventh-greatest?
> 
> Wars come. People fight and die, and the rest of the world watches and weeps over its loss. There's very little greatness in that.



Your right.


----------



## Edward M. Grant

sknox said:


> Tyranny was turned back, and that is no small thing.



At the risk of being heretical, a handful of small tyrannies were destroyed, and replaced by two big ones (Stalinist Russia and Maoist China). Tyranny was the winner in WWII, not the loser.

Even the West became more tyrannical in the Cold War era, as governments decided they had to become more like the USSR in order to defeat it. We're still living with the consequences of that today.


----------



## BAYLOR

Edward M. Grant said:


> At the risk of being heretical, a handful of small tyrannies were destroyed, and replaced by two big ones (Stalinist Russia and Maoist China). Tyranny was the winner in WWII, not the loser.
> 
> Even the West became more tyrannical in the Cold War era, as governments decided they had to become more like the USSR in order to defeat it. We're still living with the consequences of that today.



George Patton wanted to launch a war against Stalin's Russia.  It would have been a very costly war  had we done so . But there is part of me that wishes  we had , I think in best case scenario, we would have broken the back of the Soviet Union and like prevented the whole Cold War.  Stalin was criminal every bit as malevolent  Hitler and he should been forced for answer for his crimes. I think ther are alot of Russias Ukraines and Eastern Europeans  that would have loved to seen him swing from a rope. 

In chase of Mao, we made a very large blunder. Chaing was on the point of stamping out Mao and his group, instead the Us told him to work with him to fight the Japanese. What colossally bad idea that was. We should have let Chaing finish him off. Mao demise before he could become a threat would have saved the million who die as result of his Great leap forward, Cultural revolutions and other persecutions. Mao too is one histories great criminals.


----------



## sknox

Both Russia and China had been tyrannies for a very long time. They were the worst sort of tyranny, a hereditary empire. True, both had toppled their emperors and replaced them with republics, but both republics were either failed or in the process of failing. I've always seen Stalin and Mao as the ones who destroyed the old order. Bathed in blood, no argument there, but the French got rid of theirs in a similar bloodbath (I include the Napoleonic Wars as part of the process). The other European nations need not be smug about this. The First World War overturned the European old order, at a terrible cost.

WWII did turn back tyranny; specifically, fascism. It did not end it. Tyranny is a hardy weed, taking root wherever the ground is parched, and will grow even when your back is turned. But those who pulled up the last one still get credit.


----------



## BAYLOR

sknox said:


> Both Russia and China had been tyrannies for a very long time. They were the worst sort of tyranny, a hereditary empire. True, both had toppled their emperors and replaced them with republics, but both republics were either failed or in the process of failing. I've always seen Stalin and Mao as the ones who destroyed the old order. Bathed in blood, no argument there, but the French got rid of theirs in a similar bloodbath (I include the Napoleonic Wars as part of the process). The other European nations need not be smug about this. The First World War overturned the European old order, at a terrible cost.
> 
> WWII did turn back tyranny; specifically, fascism. It did not end it. Tyranny is a hardy weed, taking root wherever the ground is parched, and will grow even when your back is turned. But those who pulled up the last one still get credit.



WWI wiped away the Hapsburgs, The Hohenzollerns, The Romanovs, The Ottoman dynasties and set Europe on a path to a second world war because the big Four let polical expediency  be their guide. Woodrow  Wilson  who wouldn't listen to anyone but himself .  Lloyd George of Britain a political opportunist who wanted German possession in Africa  , Vittorio Orlando who contributed  nothing to the alliance was only  looking for spoils , George Clemenceau was looking to settle the score with Germany over their humiliating loss in the Franco/Prussian war . In Clemenceau's case , I think that had he died in the Franco/Prussian war, he would rendered  a far more useful and valuable  service  to France an the world.  A genuinely fair and just peace could have helped avert a second world war.  

The very same Western allies who left Franco in power in Spain because he remained neutral  and was staunch anti communist.

Stalin and Mao  both murdered millions and in retrospect,  neither one of them should have been left standing to bask in the glow of their combined tyrannies.  It might been better had  the west had  stomped them both  into the ground before they got access to atomic weapons.


----------



## Nozzle Velocity

sknox said:


> I gotta say, I really dislike that phrase "greatest generation." The soldiers were just soldiers, poor saps who found themselves in a war and did the best they could. The folks back home, likewise. Nobody really knew what they were doing, and nobody had much choice in the matter.



That's not entirely true. There were plenty of young men who wanted to go to Europe and the Pacific. The desire to enlist didn't start out with a bang though. There was a big fight in Congress over draft entitlements regarding who had to go and who got to stay, relating to age, employment, etc. Later, there was also the question of what the hell we were doing in North Africa after being attacked by the Japanese.

As I type this in August 2018, my immediate neighbor, Bob, is still kicking around. He flew fighters in the Pacific in WWII. (A few years ago, he went parachuting on his 92nd birthday, much to the terror of his kids. His wife has passed on, so she had no say.) His neighbor on his other side is also a WWII vet. That generation of vets almost covered the neighborhood when I bought this house in '94. My impression from talking to them is that the desire to enlist increased as the war ground on. 

I was close to my grandparents and great-grandparents, so the men in the family told me stories of WWI and WWII. I think all of these people I've mentioned would be embarrassed at this "Greatest Generation" idea. My impression in the 90s was that Tom Brokaw and others were pushing it on the anniversary of D-Day as atonement for the Boomer behavior during the Generation Gap and the Year Zero mentality of the 60s. 

My grandpa was drafted when he was 23 and had two kids, so he definitely didn't want to go. He went into the Navy because he figured they had the best food. He landed on Okinawa immediately after the battle and said you could walk on the beach without touching the ground because of the bodies. Marines were rifle-butting dead soldiers' teeth to get the gold. He said that was all the war he wanted to see. Unfortunately, he was trained as an LST skipper for the invasion of Japan. Their instructions were to drop off their load and return to the ship for more, doing it over and over. How many times? They were told to do it until they died because literally none of the LST skippers were going to survive that mission. Patton may (or may not) have said nobody ever won a war by dying for their country, but that was exactly what these sailors were prepard to do. Imagine that. You wake up every day and train for that job.

So, in my view, there were definitely heroes, but the "Greatest Generation" always sounded too broad and, ironically, a little self-serving. It's the same dynamic today when you see vets get annoyed after meeting people who like to say, "Thank you for your service."


----------



## sknox

Nozzle Velocity has it exactly right. I'm glad to hear that description. I'd only differ with the part that says they "were prepard [sic] to do" that. Maybe a few were prepared. Most just went where they were told to go. With all and full respect to the soldiers of WWII, that's pretty much what every soldier does, though the exact mix of motives vary by individual. To me, stories like _The Naked and the Dead_, _Catch-22_, or _From Here to Eterinity_ ring true, and make bitter nonsense of phrases like "greatest generation" or "thank you for your service." 

War is a horror show. Instead of thanking a vet for their service, I'd want to say damn, buddy, glad you made it back, can I buy you a drink. I'd listen to them if they wanted to talk, and if they didn't I'd shake their hand walk away.

I'll offer my own reply to the OP. People are obsessed not with the war, which is a reality they cannot know, but with the stories. And they are more obsessed with WWII because there are so many stories--far more than for any other war. Heartbreakingly many.


----------



## Nozzle Velocity

sknox said:


> I'd only differ with the part that says they "were prepard [sic] to do" that. Maybe a few were prepared.



Well, certainly trained, if not prepared. I'm not sure how you would prepare for that end result. Also, he had one child when he was drafted, not two, as my Aunt keeps reminding me. I think two kids gave you an exemption.

Here's something to think about on the strategic level: The Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact signed in April 1941 held together even after Operation Barbarossa two months later. In fact, it held until August 1945 when the Soviets invaded Manchuria after the fall of Berlin. This was beneficial to both parties who didn't want to fight a two-front war. The world is round, after all, but this was the firebreak between the Axis and the Allies. It was encouraged by the U.S. who saw the benefit of allowing Stalin to focus on Germany even though that freed Japanese resources to take the Phillipines, attempt to gut the U.S. Pacific Fleet, take Singapore, basically everything they did for the next four years. While the U.S. fought Japan in the Pacific, Stalin harangued FDR unceasingly, demanding that the U.S. immediately leave Africa and enter the European theater to siphon German resources from the Eastern Front. Nice guy, that Uncle Joe.


----------



## Boaz

Do you think the OP was just trolling?

Anyway...

Dear OP, 

I am not an historian.  I do hold a minor college degree in history (1988), which qualifies me to pretend to know the terms Ides of March, Magna Carta, and Casus Belli. That being said, let me pull up my soap box...

Short answer: Our loved ones fought in it.  It was Good vs. Evil. The aftermath of the war defines our world.

Long answer:

Let me say that most every following sentence contains at least one oversimplification... 

WWII is so close in time to us.... that many of us knew and spoke with our parents, grandparents, uncles, teachers, pastors, doctors, nurses, bosses, co-workers, and neighbors about their experiences in the war.  Many of us did not get one hundred percent of our information from textbooks... we received first hand accounts from eye witnesses.  My great uncle Gib told me of his work on an aircraft carrier in the Atlantic and the Pacific.  Another great uncle, who fought in WWII, was nicknamed Yank by his relatives... everyone called him Yank... in the late 80's, his wife still called him Yank!  

And when we did not get the stories from our grandfathers, our fathers told us of their bravery.  I don't know how many times my father told me about his uncle Junior... a paratrooper in Operation Market Garden.

And audio and video of the death and destruction, took the war to even those who wanted no part.  It was inescapable.

People can suggest root causes and unseen objectives for war, but at least on the surface, if not to the core, WWII was fought over ideology.  How will the human race live?  As bullies or friends?  Promoting euthanasia or goodwill? As superior races or neighbors?

WWII was not fought because Hitler's great grandfather had been Duke of Krakow and Hitler sought to assert his claim. Lebensraum is not the same thing as hereditary title.  (Not that I'm big on hereditary title...) Operation Himmler and the Mukden Indicent were shoddy attempts to give a casus belli... for the aggressors to gain lebensraum.

For the most part, I do not believe international war has been waged for ideology.  Our -ism versus their -ism.  Civil wars?  Often.  Wars between nations? Not as much.  I think most wars are started for anger, greed, pride, glory, lust, jealousy... at least six of the seven deadly sins.  Both sides desire to portray themselves as morally right.... and in a war between kings, languages, ethnicities, and religions this is a fairly easy thing to do.

Yes, the European Wars of Religion, the Napoleonic Wars, and most civil wars can be explained in terms of ideology.  

WWII was fought on one side by Germans, Italians, and Japanese against the Poles, French, Brits, Russians, Chinese, and Americans.... I cannot imagine a greater oversimplification than that.  Of course, I've omitted Canada, Australia, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Brazil, Philippines, India, and a hundred others on the allied side.  What about Albania?  They repulsed Mussolini's attack, but after being conquered, their fascist government joined the Axis.  Was Finland in the Axis or merely defending themselves against the Russians?  Romania. Bulgaria. Hungary.  What about Vichy France?  How many of them were killed by the Allies?  And didn't the Americans field Japanese units?

There is not an equitable nor easy way to list all of the combatants.  Most of the allies had been involved in the Soviet Union against the Reds during 1918-1920.  They allied against the Nazis, but they disliked each other at best.

What I'm saying is that WWII could not be easily qualified for King and Country, For God, For the Motherland, by language, by race, by religion, or by hereditary claims.... Each combatant (each nation, each person) had to qualify their involvement.  Since none of the old reasons were easily applied or believable, they fought for ideas.  

Germany:
Lebensraum.  
The superiority of the Aryan race.  

These were the ideas of the Nazis.  These were their excuses... Since the German peoples were so numerous and needed more space in which to live and since the Slavic/Jewish/Gypsy peoples were inferior, then the Germans (as the banner bearers for the Aryans) could murder them at will.

Japan:
Other nations blocked all access to natural resources. 
Superiority of the Japanese race/culture.  

These were the Japanese reasons for war.  Since the Japanese were racially and culturally superior to all others (they were descended from and blessed by the gods) and since the lesser races would not equitably share their natural resources nor put them to the supreme use of enhancing the Japanese culture, the Japanese were justified in murdering them.

Italy:
Ancient Rome was the greatest civilization.... ever.

This was the Italian reason for war.  A lot... I mean a whole lot.... a lot of wishful thinking went into the Italian casus belli.... and their ancestors invented the term.  Anyway, because they were the descendants of the Caesars, this meant they could murder Ethiopians and Albanians.

And because of the need to respond to such asinine reasons, at least on the part of the USA, the war became a war of ideology for us.  Capitalism vs. Fascism.  Republicanism vs. Totalitarianism.  Rescue vs. Murder.  Good vs. Evil.

And I feel that war is now mostly about ideology....

I also think that WWII holds a place for us, because we were all involved.  San Marino, Luxembourg and Denmark did not want to get involved, but they were not given a choice.  Goums, Sikhs, Mongolians, Thais, Cypriots, Somalis, Haitians, Samoans, Kenyans, Croatians.... almost every single nation was touched by the war.  Few events have had such connections.

And also few events have had such repercussions.... Japanese-American Internment Camps, the Marshall Plan, the Monnet Plan, the Chinese Civil War, Breton Woods, Black Tulip, the Berlin Wall, the Iron Curtain, the Cold War, the Arms Race, the Western Bloc, the Soviet Bloc, the fear of MAD (mutually assured destruction), Reza Pahlavi, Mao, Tito, Nasser, the United Nations, Decolonization (in and of itself, this may be the largest repercussion of WWII... the independence of Africa and all the subsequent wars to the present day), India, Pakistan, West Pakistan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the European Community, NATO, the Warsaw Pact, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the First Indochina War, the Korean War, the Suez Crisis, the U.S. and Soviet space programs, the Vietnam Conflict, the Six Day War,  the EU, Japanese apocalyptic art, the remarkable economic recoveries by Japan and West Germany, the 1973 Arab-Israeli War... that is to say that we are still living in it.  

(Thiat section looks a bit like Billy Joel's _We Didn't Start The Fire_.) 

Maybe, in a hundred years, historians will be able to definitively state the aftermath.

Just my thoughts...


----------



## Boaz

Noz Vel, Hitler declared war on the U.S. four days after the IJN attacked Pearl Harbor.... bet he was waiting for some reciprocity in Manchuria.


----------



## BAYLOR

Boaz said:


> Noz Vel, Hitler declared war on the U.S. four days after the IJN attacked Pearl Harbor.... bet he was waiting for some reciprocity in Manchuria.



 Germany was fighting Britain and the  Soviet Union and then declares   war on the US. Too many enemies and too many fronts and not enough resources and industrial output.  The US had a massive industrial  capacity , we could out produce all the other waring countries combined  and we could supplely them with weapons and everything else on scale that Germany  and it allies couldn't hope to match.   Germany fighting The UK and can't  conquer Britain because the Royal Navy and the he couldn defeat the RAF because the raid stations which gave the Raf a huge strategic advantage and enable them to ply their planes where they were needed most. Lacking a  significant surface feet doomed Operation Sealion to failure.  Then the was the Easter Front , Hitler's  operation Barbarossa invasion of the Soviet Union was folly on an epic scale. The Red Army bleed  German dry of men , weapons and other valuable resources .


----------



## Boaz

BAYLOR said:


> Too many enemies and too many fronts and not enough resources and industrial output.



Baylor,  Why did Hitler pull the trigger?  Did he really believe Britain and France would let Poland fall?  Was he just evil?  Was Nazism basically a Ponzi scheme... did he have to just keep going until it crumbled?

In the U.S., there is the idea of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy.  It is based upon a bunch of what if's, and "they just had more money", and "we were betrayed", and moral justifications.  It ignores the hard facts of disparities in industrialization, slavery (drained manpower for war, killed chances of allying with France, Britain, or Spain), disparities in population, and disparities in cash.

In retrospect, the Nazis could only have maintained the ante-bellum status quo through a bunch of what if's and a complete denial of the economics and demographics. 

What if Canaris could have assassinated Hitler early in the war?


----------



## BAYLOR

Boaz said:


> Baylor,  Why did Hitler pull the trigger?  Did he really believe Britain and France would let Poland fall?  Was he just evil?  Was Nazism basically a Ponzi scheme... did he have to just keep going until it crumbled?
> 
> In the U.S., there is the idea of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy.  It is based upon a bunch of what if's, and "they just had more money", and "we were betrayed", and moral justifications.  It ignores the hard facts of disparities in industrialization, slavery (drained manpower for war, killed chances of allying with France, Britain, or Spain), disparities in population, and disparities in cash.
> 
> In retrospect, the Nazis could only have maintained the ante-bellum status quo through a bunch of what if's and a complete denial of the economics and demographics.
> 
> What if Canaris could have assassinated Hitler early in the war?




  When he sent troops into the Rhineland  in 1936 in violation of the Versailles treaty  France and Britain protested  but did nothing, when  he took over Austria,  again  France and Britain didn't Nothing . At Munich in 1938, they broke their pledge to defend Czechoslovakia  and  handed  the Sudatenland   because they stupidly  believed that by appeasing him they could avoid War and they did nothing when he swallowed up the last of Czechoslovakia . Hitler  got cocky and started to believe that he was a genius and second coming of Frederick Barbarossa . What he didn't see was the abyss starting  to open up in front of him after Munich. Hie early victories against France  and Britain  and early success in Russia further inflated his puffed up ego. Hitler  was not by any definition a statesman,  a diplomat  and as events'  later  proved after 1942 ,1943 and the final outcome for Germany ,  a military  genius at all. His military background  was that of a corporal in WWI , when it came to understanding  military strategy he was rank  amateur and blunderer .  Hitler  the most evil man in all history  though Stalin and Mao  are not far behind him in that category. Hlter was also a very mediocre human being  with a big mouth who got lucky early on didn't know  what to do when his luck ran out.   Germany even under the most favorable circumstances was ultimately never going win WWII .

It is possible that had  Britain  and France stood up to him over Czechoslovakia , Hitler might have been  removed from office by his Generals  because a number them wanted him gone. but after Muchich all that changed.

There is no what's if about the Confederacy , they were not winning the Civil war for all those reasons.


----------



## Nozzle Velocity

Boaz said:


> In the U.S., there is the idea of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy.  It is based upon a bunch of what if's, and "they just had more money", and "we were betrayed", and moral justifications.



Well, that could be an entire thread on its own. I don't want to derail this one, but briefly, those events actually influenced some of FDR's later decisions in WWII. Like Churchill, he was knowledgeable about military and political history. 

The American Civil War sprang from a conflict over the future of slavery in the western territories, and nothing was going to prevent that clash short of a meteor wiping out everything west of Kansas. Lincoln knew if the South was allowed to keep its slaves through conditional surrender, the issue would crop up every time a new state was added - just like it did before the war. So, he eventually demanded unconditional surrender so the slavery issue would be settled permanently.  Two years after the surrender, the southern states forgot everything they'd ever said or written about slavery and began promoting the idea that the war was about betrayal and stolen states' rights, etc. They could complain, but the real issue was settled.

Fast forward to 1918. Near the end of WWI, active segments of the German public appeared to be flirting with embracing communism. The Allies didn't want to exacerbate the situation by entering Germany and scaring the communists into toppling the current government, so they began offering terms of _conditional_ surrender. Give up the war now, and you can stay in power. After the war, Germany refused the idea that they were ever beaten on the battlefield and began spreading the myth about "betrayal" and the "stab in the back" on the home front from Jews, communists, etc. Sound familiar? 

As I said, FDR was well aware of these events. When faced with the decision on how to negotiate with the Axis powers, he always pushed for unconditional surrender and occupation in the belief that it would forestall cyclical, recriminatory wars with Germany and prevent future Japanese depradations in Asia and the Pacific. Needless to say, this decision was not without controversy at the time.


----------



## Nozzle Velocity

Boaz said:


> Noz Vel, Hitler declared war on the U.S. four days after the IJN attacked Pearl Harbor.... bet he was waiting for some reciprocity in Manchuria.



Not sure I follow that. Reciprocity from whom? I'm probably missing something.


----------



## Boaz

Germany attacked Russia.  Japan did not.

Japan attacked U.S.  Germany declared war on U.S.

I assume Hitler thought Japan would come through and declare war on Russia and fight the Russians in Manchuria, Mongolia, and Siberia.

Well, I mentioned the Lost Cause because it's based upon selective memory and what if's.... and I hear and read "What if Germany went full speed into jets in 1940?", "What if Hitler did not invade Russia?", "What if....?"

And to my knowledge, the Germans wholeheartedly bought the idea that their army was undefeated in WWI.  Then the Nazis start saying, "If we had not been betrayed by bureaucrats, capitalists, communists, Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Austrians, Turks, homosexuals, Junkers, liberals, conservatives, the Catholics, Americans, and Mexicans.... we'd have won."

Back to the OP and my previous comments regarding ideology... I think the lack of real Casus Belli for the Axis showed their naked ambitions and the evil they did to achieve them.  This allowed the Allies to feel that they held the moral high ground like it's almost never been held in history.... and that makes us feel good about our forefathers and the stand they took against evil.


----------



## Nozzle Velocity

Boaz said:


> I assume Hitler thought Japan would come through and declare war on Russia and fight the Russians in Manchuria, Mongolia, and Siberia.



That would make sense to a rational person, but Hitler was never concerned about the Soviets. Foolishly, he thought their army was a paper tiger. If Japan attacked Mongolia, then Hitler planned to instantly betray the Soviets and hit them from the west. If the Soviets and Japan signed a neutrality pact, no matter. He could hit the Soviets anyway, take out their Army and be back before winter to finish Operation Sea Lion. Hitler's concern for Japan was that they initiate a war with the U. S., and he pursued that goal consistently through the years. The Soviets were a side issue...until they weren't.


----------



## Boaz

...until they weren't.


----------



## Boaz

I mentioned that my great uncles Gib, Yank, and Junior fought in WWII and that is how it affects my family.  But that's my father's side.... my mother was a refugee.  She came to the U.S. on a steam ship (so she claimed, I think it's a bit more dramatic/romantic/nostalgic than a diesel engine... and she was only three years old, how would she know).


----------



## BAYLOR

Nozzle Velocity said:


> That would make sense to a rational person, but Hitler was never concerned about the Soviets. Foolishly, he thought their army was a paper tiger. If Japan attacked Mongolia, then Hitler planned to instantly betray the Soviets and hit them from the west. If the Soviets and Japan signed a neutrality pact, no matter. He could hit the Soviets anyway, take out their Army and be back before winter to finish Operation Sea Lion. Hitler's concern for Japan was that they initiate a war with the U. S., and he pursued that goal consistently through the years. The Soviets were a side issue...until they weren't.



Stalin  saw  conspiracies around every corner and feared any potential rivals,. He  purged the  generals and the officer core of the Red Amy costing  them valuable personal and weakening the  army  it showed when they attacked Finland a few years later. The much smaller Finnish army inflicted some  serious damage  and causalities on them.  The Red Army prevailed but, just barely. Hitler seeing this, erroneously concluded that defeating the Russians would be relatively simple for his military.


----------



## Nozzle Velocity

Interesting. What's amazing is that Hitler and his generals thought the war in Europe was basically over once they took Trondheim. Dealing with Britain and Russia would be mop up operations.


----------



## BAYLOR

Nozzle Velocity said:


> Interesting. What's amazing is that Hitler and his generals thought the war in Europe was basically over once they took Trondheim. Dealing with Britain and Russia would be mop up operations.



The  problem for Hitler was he left Britain standing ,  Had he  taken  out the British Army at a Dunkirk, the loss of the army could conceivably  have forced Britain to sue for peace . Fortunately , Hilter was fool.  The British evacuation at Dunkirk enabled them to preserve  the core of their army and live to fight another day . And then the was  the Battle of Britain,  The big mistakes include  underestimating British aircraft  production numbers due to faulty intelligence , failure to knock out the radar installations , Failure to know out the RAF Airfields.   But the biggest mistake of  all was  putting  Herman Goering in charge of the Luftwaffe  . Yes he was a great pilot in WWI but, running the German Air Force and air  industry  was quite beyond his rather limited capabilities  and in any even't , botching the  Battle of Britain for Germany cost them  over 3000 of their best pilots and aircrews . After the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe while still formidable , was significantly weakened . And having failed to neutralize  Great Britain,  Hitler decides  to launch Barbarossa  thus leaving himself open to a two front war.


----------



## Lew Rockwell Fan

BAYLOR said:


> they stupidly  believed that by appeasing him





BAYLOR said:


> Germany even under the most favorable circumstances was ultimately never going win WWII .





BAYLOR said:


> There is no what's if about the Confederacy , they were not winning the Civil war for all those reasons.



I think those are all the same basic error - looking back at history through multiple layers of historiographers' condensations, over simplifications, court historian partisanship, and scholarly posing.  "Gosh, it was OBVIOUSLY inevitable," we say in blurry hindsight.  "All those primitive people must have sure been dumb."

Few if any major wars, had inevitable outcomes, paticularly given the knowledge avaiable to the participants. It the outcomes were truly obvious, those wars wouldn't have been fought.  Those 2 wars are actually analogous in one way - a protracted war favored the stronger economy. Both sides (or should I say, all 4) were aware of that and made their plans accordingly. I'm not a student of war, more or the failures of policy that lead to it, but I have read books by those that were.

There isn't much realistic question that Antietam could have gone the other way, and not very much that that would have precipitated British intervention.  That battle turned on pretty nearly pure chance. At Gettysburg, it was more a matter of some spectacularly bad decisions made by some normally competent officers. Early was correct in the first part of his famous analysis "It took a great many mistakes to lose that battle. And I myself made most of them." The second part was noble exaggeration. Longstreet took more heat from the general public than was justified & Early was trying to deflect it.

I'll leave the military aspects of the land war to others, but Hitler's grand strategy, in the wider field of diplomacy, was NOT crazy.  If the British had looked more coldly to their own self interests, if the French had accepted his offer of a non aggression treaty, it could have turned out very differently. I suspect it would not have turned out better for him, but  certainty is folly.  No, Stephen Jay Gould had it right, the primary causal agent in history is neither "great men" nor "economic imperatives", but, rather,   horseshoe nails.


----------



## sknox

>No, Stephen Jay Gould had it right, the primary causal agent in history is neither "great men" nor "economic imperatives", but, rather,   horseshoe nails. 

But all three are reductionism at its finest. There is no primary causal agent in history because history is not a result (therefore it doesn't have a cause). "History" is an abstraction, a word we use with typically human malleability. Sometimes it just means "the past." Sometimes it means the discipline and profession. And sometimes, like Humpty Dumpty, it means exactly what we want it to mean (usually when we are imparting some platitude or other). 

There was a war. It involved millions of people, so there were millions of motivations, goals, and mistakes. One of many reasons to dislike reductionism is that it does such disservice to those millions of individuals, reducing them all to "just this" or "only that" or, in that repugnant phrase, to "the bottom line."  We love summaries, short versions, and bottom lines, so we instinctively search for the "real" reason for events. We also love a mystery, and finding the hidden reason that explains some great thing appeals to us.

If there's a reason why people are so obsessed with WWII, perhaps it lies in the millions. No war--no single event of any kind--has been so thoroughly documented. People can spend their whole life studying the war and still come across new anecdotes and experiences, and that doesn't even count the fictional works based on personal experiences. It's much more difficult to be fascinated by something that has no details.


----------



## psikeyhackr

sknox said:


> >No, Stephen Jay Gould had it right, the primary causal agent in history is neither "great men" nor "economic imperatives", but, rather,   horseshoe nails.



So the inventor of horseshoes unconsciously rules the world.

Henry Ford is responsible for Global Warming.






In the long run Ford trumps Jobs and Gates.  

If the planet goes into Hot House mode all of previous history is relatively irrelevant.


----------



## Edward M. Grant

sknox said:


> If there's a reason why people are so obsessed with WWII, perhaps it lies in the millions. No war--no single event of any kind--has been so thoroughly documented. People can spend their whole life studying the war and still come across new anecdotes and experiences, and that doesn't even count the fictional works based on personal experiences. It's much more difficult to be fascinated by something that has no details.



And a lot of the artifacts are still around and widely available. I've fired a friend's rifle that was probably used to defend Moscow against the Nazis in 1941, and his sniper rifle that might have been used in Stalingrad. I'd love to know which poor Russian conscript was handed them and told to go and stop the fascists all those years ago.

Heck, people in Russia are digging up old battlefields and selling rusty bits of metal on ebay.


----------



## Boaz

psikeyhackr, I've always had a very soft spot for Mr. Reed.  He sponsored my sixth grade football team in Nashville... Jerry Reed's Green Hill Commodores... kind of a mouthful, but Jerry could've sung it.


----------



## BAYLOR

Edward M. Grant said:


> And a lot of the artifacts are still around and widely available. I've fired a friend's rifle that was probably used to defend Moscow against the Nazis in 1941, and his sniper rifle that might have been used in Stalingrad. I'd love to know which poor Russian conscript was handed them and told to go and stop the fascists all those years ago.
> 
> Heck, people in Russia are digging up old battlefields and selling rusty bits of metal on ebay.



For the poor Russian Soldier,  they not allowed the option of retreating   .  There were snipers  in back of the main troops contingents  with orders to shoot any soldiers  that tried to retreat or dessert .  Advance or die and if the solider died,   they had 10 more to replace him . Joseph Stalin and his Generals had little if any regard for the solider's lives . The irony is they called it the Great Patriotic War . The Russian soldiers fought not so much  because they were necessarily  committed  patriots,  though some of them probably were. They fought  because ,  they were  dead men,  either at the hands of the Nazis or the hands of their own countrymen.  So , they really had no choice in the matter.


----------



## Overread

Don't forget WW1 the UK had a similar general policy of shooting deserters and those who refused to go over the top of the trenches. I forget what the WWII policies were, but in general very few armies tolerate disobedience with any degree of leniency. Heck the Romans would even Decimate their own legions if a legion was found to be unloyal.

It strikes me that our attitude toward soldiers today is very very different to even in the semi-recent past. Part of that is big shifts in human rights and the breakdown of many social structures that once held people of different stations in very different regard.


----------



## sknox

BAYLOR said:


> For the poor Russian Soldier,  they not allowed the option of retreating   .  There were snipers  in back of the main troops contingents  with orders to shoot any soldiers  that tried to retreat or dessert .  Advance or die and if the solider died,   they had 10 more to replace him . Joseph Stalin and his Generals had little if any regard for the solider's lives . The irony is they called it the Great Patriotic War . The Russian soldiers fought not so much  because they were necessarily  committed  patriots,  though some of them probably were. They fought  because ,  they were  dead men,  either at the hands of the Nazis or the hands of their own countrymen.  So , they really had no choice in the matter.



I wonder about this. If true, it would seem to belittle the bravery of the many partisans who fought behind the lines, and the innumerable acts of courage and patriotism displayed by ordinary soldiers. I mean, there were soldiers in engineering corps, medics, pilots, tank commanders. Were there sniper planes flying behind the bombers? And what does one make of the sniper in Stalingrad who shot not his own men but Nazis in record numbers and at great risk?

This is miles from my field of knowledge, but just in plain numbers it doesn't make any sense that several million men fought the enemy only because there were ... well, how many snipers does it take to urge on five million? I can't make the logistics work, and it flies in the face of all I know of human nature. I don't doubt there were plenty of soldiers who desperately wished they weren't there. It's likely because we can document that for Western soldiers. But doesn't it seem equally likely there were plenty of Russian soldiers who fought to defend the motherland?


----------



## Lafayette

There is another aspect I wonder about that hasn't (to my mind anyway) been touched upon because they belong to a group that was known for being cruel, vicious, and merciless: the bravery of the WWII German soldiers. Is it possible to be courageous while being cruel and rotten?

As writers, most of us know that the 'Good Guys' aren't always pure or fight for the noblest reasons. Could the reverse be said of 'The Bad Guys?'

Perhaps, I'm being naive in believing that we should give the devil his due, but I believe that we should keep people and events in their proper perspective or we will end up labeling people and events as black and white and miss the truths that are important. Labeling can be another form of prejudice.

Please understand, this wonder of mine doesn't excuse the Nazis for their atrocities or any other group that practices genocide. My wonder or curiosity is on the individual, not the group.


----------



## Montero

@ Lafayette - read Erich Maria Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front for one German's take on WW1 and A Time to Love and a Time to Die for his take on an eastern front soldier from WW2. All available in English.

And having looked up Erich Maria Remarque on Fantastic Fiction, there are a whole lot more on the aftermath of WW1 and other parts of WW2. Erich Maria Remarque


----------



## Lafayette

Montero said:


> @ Lafayette - read Erich Maria Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front for one German's take on WW1 and A Time to Love and a Time to Die for his take on an eastern front soldier from WW2. All available in English.
> 
> And having looked up Erich Maria Remarque on Fantastic Fiction, there are a whole lot more on the aftermath of WW1 and other parts of WW2. Erich Maria Remarque


Thanks for the tip. When I get the time I may do that. 

However, one of the points I failed to mention is that the movies and tv as a whole paint WWII German soldiers as black. I.e. cruel, vicious, merciless, stupid, and cowardly.


----------



## Overread

I think part of it might actually stem from modern day Germany. There's a huge fear there of glorifying the acts of the Nazi party and the armies in case it can support modern day pro-nazi groups. That might well have easily combined with the fact that most war and post war media produced by the allied western block (which is also the dominantly English speaking block and has Hollywood in it) was pro-allies and anti-nazis. 

Modern day we've moved further from it to a point where new generations are more open to the idea of viewing things from the "other side" whilst in post war and for a long time after, the Nazi was still the enemy, still the monster that had only just been defeated. 

Media and games also like them now like zombies and aliens, as a universal evil. Put Nazis in your film and you don't have to explain why they are evil or make them out to be evil and such; your audience already knows and accepts them as the bad-guys very readily (more so than aliens). Plus unlike zombies and aliens, Nazis are sane thinking humans, so it works on a different level. Zombies are evil, but ultimately mindless; whilst Aliens are inhuman.


----------



## AnyaKimlin

Because a lot of us grew up with the consequences of it.   When I was a child in 80s, Liverpool was still cleaning up bomb sites, one great uncle had been in the merchant navy, one was a conscientious objector and had been in the ambulance corps, the others had been in the military and my grandfather had been a navigator.  One of the first remembrance Sundays I remember, was a talk by a man who was a pacifist having witnessed Hiroshima.   

On the home front my gran ran a pub, her sisters did "clerical work" etc My aunt wasn't evacuated and one of a few teens who stayed in Liverpool during that time.  My gran refused to use an air raid shelter etc   The stories from all of them feel alive in me.


----------



## Montero

Lafayette said:


> Thanks for the tip. When I get the time I may do that.
> 
> However, one of the points I failed to mention is that the movies and tv as a whole paint WWII German soldiers as black. I.e. cruel, vicious, merciless, stupid, and cowardly.



Hhm, yes, movies.......
Well they want bums on seats and a popular action movie where the white hats and black hats are instantly identifiable is often a safe money spinner.


----------



## KGeo777

I think younger generations are going to grow up with a very different understanding of WW 2 than those born after 1950 or so since the internet (at least for now) allows unfiltered access to information.

Operation Keelhaul was called the last secret of WW 2. Those Soviet bloc citizens who understandably sided with Germany against the Soviet Union were forced to return--where they were murdered. The US and UK military knew they were sending them to their deaths.


----------



## Montero

The internet is good but not perfect - there is an awful lot of "information" that is repeating what other people have repeated. At school I was taught logic, and analysis of information - as part of various classes - science, English, History. I can only hope that this continues so that there is educated assessment of internet information by users.
Also, while you can search the internet for information, you first need to know there is something to look for. Sometimes searches can take you in interesting new directions, other times all you get is what is most talked about.

In terms of abandoning people who rely on you - that has sadly not ended. UN Peacekeeping forces have been hamstrung by that - see one example here:
What's the point of peacekeepers when they don't keep the peace?

Edited to add: Having just posted the link about Peacekeepers it strikes me that while relevant to the previous post, it is bordering on World Affairs - which we no longer discuss here on SFF due to heated arguments. I am adding this edit to that newer members are aware of that restriction.


----------



## Overread

"Also, while you can search the internet for information, you first need to know there is something to look for. "

You also typically need to know part of the answer to your question too. Once you're past the most mundane of regular activities you need to know a bit of the answer to be able to filter the search results. People fast forget that Google does not show the most accurate answers, but the most popular. It is very possible to build websites and have them rank very high in Google searches, even when the information within can be very inaccurate, highly opinionated or just flat out wrong.

Interpretation of information also goes on and yes there is a LOT of repetition of subjects. You can see this in books as well, sometimes you get a couple of really good solid reference books; then a slew of copy-cat books that cherry pick bits out of those earlier books and just repeat it in a different way. This can repeat errors or create new ones or even leave out key bits of information.


----------



## sknox

The advice I gave to my students still holds, I think:  the Internet is a great place to start; it's a lousy place to stop.


----------



## KGeo777

Oh yeah I should say Google is not the most reliable search engine for information. And it does have a Soviet-link too, ironically enough. Overall though discussions are much more open than they used to be since the internet can't be controlled the way corporate media is/was (at least for now).


----------



## Lafayette

Outside of the great wealth of information, I would like to add that the internet is a two-edged sword. You can find some of the most informative, uplifting, beautiful sites in existence and the most dishonest, mean-spirited, and deprave places you wouldn't want to imagine. As mentioned one needs to filter what you find.

Monitors, please forgive us if we have gotten off track.


----------



## sknox

We could start another thread: why are people so obsessed with the Internet. ;-)


----------



## BAYLOR

sknox said:


> We could start another thread: why are people so obsessed with the Internet. ;-)



That would be a pretty good topic .


----------



## Lafayette

BAYLOR said:


> That would be a pretty good topic .


Another one we could start is: Net Neutrality Pro or Con?


----------



## Edward M. Grant

KGeo777 said:


> Operation Keelhaul was called the last secret of WW 2. Those Soviet bloc citizens who understandably sided with Germany against the Soviet Union were forced to return--where they were murdered. The US and UK military knew they were sending them to their deaths.



We're also finally starting to see discussion of the Soviet infiltration of Western governments during WWII and how that may have affected those governments' decision to support Stalin against Hitler, even when that went against their own interests.

I'm guessing that, when the final book on WWII is written, it will be very different to the story we grew up on.


----------



## psikeyhackr

Edward M. Grant said:


> when the final book on WWII is written.



Some time after World War VII.


----------



## Dave

Oh no! We only got to page 10 of this thread without the mention of Hitler!

On the subject of the stereotypical Hollywood portrayal of Nazis, I think the recent Netflix TV Series _The Man in the High Castle _(loosely based upon the PK Dick novel of the same name) did a good job of showing both the Nazis and Japanese as quite normal human beings who just have different political belief systems, and also what the world in the 1960's would have been like had the Allies lost. Current forum restrictions on speaking about world affairs prevent me from making further analogies with the present day.

There are cruel people, whatever their politics. However, governments showing cruelty to their own people will top anything an individual might do alone.

Why are people obsessed with WWII? I think we have covered all the corners already.


----------



## sknox

Final book? We don't even have the final book on the Peloponnesian War! (though Donald Kagan is going to be hard to beat)


----------



## Montero

Mentioning Hitler..........Saw a documentary a while back which said that one of the new things from WW2 was the discovery of the concept of the psychopath. A lot of Nazis were interviewed extensively by psychologists before and after the Nuremberg trials and they noted a lack of empathy - and so the psychopath was discovered.
Though I suspect there were more complexities - this article on Himmler's diary
Soldier, father, psychopath: Himmler's diaries rediscovered
shows him having empathy for some people - family, staff in the SS.

Have also seen a documentary on the psychology of atrocities - and the first step is to demonise/de-humanise the people/group you want to pick on.
So the question arises - when does a belief system tip over into de-humanisation of the people not in your group?
In fact, I have seen a lot of dismissal of people's opinions because they are xxxx or not-yyyyy. Where xxxx or yyyy can be a religion, a political party, a movement (e.g Green, vegan, union member) etc. 
One of the great strengths of the human race is the socialisation - co-operation enables us to do really big projects, understanding of others helps with kindness (very broad generalisation here) - but in a sense like all tools - depending on how it is used (or abused) it can be what underlies the commission of atrocities.


----------



## sknox

>when does a belief system tip over into de-humanisation of the people not in your group? 

This is very, very old. It's as old as tribalism. We are people (any number of tribes named themselves People), and those over there are not. It's okay to kill them, because they aren't people.

That view of the world leans heavily on isolation. It tends to break down once we start building cities. Notice I said "tends to". Tribalism is still a strong instinct; it just has to work harder in a city because cities are inherently more diverse than tribe and village.


----------



## Lafayette

Montero said:


> Mentioning Hitler..........Saw a documentary a while back which said that one of the new things from WW2 was the discovery of the concept of the psychopath. A lot of Nazis were interviewed extensively by psychologists before and after the Nuremberg trials and they noted a lack of empathy - and so the psychopath was discovered.


So is psychopath a scientific word or term for evil? I wonder could this terminology be construed as another form of political correctness?


----------



## Av Demeisen

@Lafayette *The German War: A Nation Under Arms, 1939-45 by Nicholas Stargardt*
A study of how ordinary Germans (soldiers & civilians) experienced the Second World War. Published in 2015.

From the blurb:
When war broke out in September 1939, it was deeply unpopular in Germany. Yet without the active participation and commitment of the German people, it could not have continued for almost six years. What, then, was the war Germans thought they were fighting? How did the changing course of the conflict – the victories of the Blitzkrieg, the first defeats in the east, the bombing of Germany’s cities – change their views and expectations? And when did Germans first realise that they were fighting a genocidal war?

Drawing on a wealth of first-hand testimony, The German War is the first foray for many decades into how the German people experienced the Second World War. Told from the perspective of those who lived through it – soldiers, schoolteachers and housewives; Nazis, Christians and Jews – its masterful historical narrative sheds fresh and disturbing light on the beliefs, hopes and fears of a people who embarked on, continued and fought to the end a brutal war of conquest and genocide.


----------



## Montero

Lafayette said:


> So is psychopath a scientific word or term for evil? I wonder could this terminology be construed as another form of political correctness?


It's a scientific term with a definition - and having gone to look for quotes I find that contrary to the documentary I saw, it was first recognised long before WW2. This is an interesting article which is clear - explaining the difference between psychopathy and psychosis.

Psychopathy - Scholarpedia


----------



## Dave

Lafayette said:


> So is psychopath a scientific word or term for evil? I wonder could this terminology be construed as another form of political correctness?


Firstly, I'm not a clinical psychologist. However, I very much doubt that one would ever say, "Hello Mr. Jones, we've run the tests and it turns out that you're a psychopath!" I also believe that current thinking would not put people in boxes as that Scholarpedia definition does i.e. "1% of the population," but on more of a sliding scale where we are all a tiny little bit psychopathic, but a small few are more than others. In this kind of social science it is difficult to give definitive proof and these concepts will be argued over by academics on salaries way above ours for the best parts of a career.


----------



## Montero

@Dave - 
I've been thinking on this discussion - which is getting well away from the start of the thread - about how when people work in a group, which means in theory they can achieve far more than an individual (like a barn raising) they have to some extent subsume their individualism to the aims of the group.
When you get onto working in large companies, then you need managers who can make/inspire people to put the company ahead of their desire to get out the door on time. So for managers you need people who are able to put an abstract - the good of the company - ahead of empathy with the employee in front of them. (Ideally you need employees who put the needs of the company ahead of their own without a manager telling them to do it.......)
Incidentally, there was (another) documentary where the carrot and stick methods were tested - two groups of civilians had tasks to carry out and were assigned army NCOs from a basic training establishment to get them motivated and organised. One group was the carrot group, the other the stick. I can't remember now which group won. The NCOs themselves commented that in reality, they'd use a mix. (Pity there wasn't a control group where both methods were used....)
I guess as ever, it's back to everything in moderation.... There was nothing moderate about the Nazis.


----------



## Av Demeisen

Lafayette said:


> However, one of the points I failed to mention is that the movies and tv as a whole paint WWII German soldiers as black. I.e. cruel, vicious, merciless, stupid, and cowardly.


I forgot to mention above that among the many German civilians and soldiers whose lives (through letters, diaries, etc.) form the basis of Stargardt's study is Wilm Hosenfeld, the Wehrmacht intelligence officer who helped pianist Wladyslaw Szpilman in Warsaw. You probably have seen the Roman Polanski film _The Pianist_ that is based on these two men's story? (With what degree of accuracy I can't recall.)


----------



## sknox

_The Nazi Seizure of Power_ is hands down the best book I've read on how something like Nazism can come to your home town. William Sheridan Allen conducted extensive interviews with the people of one small town, which he called Thalburg in order to preserve privacy (first published in 1965). He sets the scene, follows events and people almost day by day through the mid-1930s. I cannot recommend the book highly enough.

And thanks for the recommendation of Stargardt. Looks like that will be a necessary follow-on to Allen.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Av Demeisen said:


> *The German War: A Nation Under Arms, 1939-45 by Nicholas Stargardt*



I forgot I had this - I went through a binge of WWII accounts, and am still trying to catch up with them. Even still...



sknox said:


> The Nazi Seizure of Power



...has just been added to my Wishlist.


----------



## Av Demeisen

Brian G Turner said:


> [_The Nazi Seizure of Power_] has just been added to my Wishlist.


Same here.


----------



## Dave

Brian G Turner said:


> ...has just been added to my Wishlist.





Av Demeisen said:


> Same here.


You're all obsessed!


----------



## Av Demeisen

Dave said:


> You're all obsessed!


The second part of Volkert Ulrich's Hitler biography will be released (in German) this autumn, and I still haven't read Norman Ohler's *Blitzed: Drugs in Nazi Germany*. Something to look forward to.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Dave said:


> You're all obsessed!



I'll have to be if I ever want to seriously write a WWII thriller based in Germany.


----------



## Edward M. Grant

Dave said:


> Firstly, I'm not a clinical psychologist. However, I very much doubt that one would ever say, "Hello Mr. Jones, we've run the tests and it turns out that you're a psychopath!"



There's been an accepted psychological test for psychopathy for decades. But it would probably be a bad idea to tell a psychopath that you've run the test and determined that they are.

One thing to remember about the Nazis (which I think I mentioned earlier in this thread) is that many of them--including Hitler--were stoned on meth, which probably accounts for a significant amount of their behaviour.


----------



## Montero

Edward M. Grant said:


> One thing to remember about the Nazis (which I think I mentioned earlier in this thread) is that many of them--including Hitler--were stoned on meth, which probably accounts for a significant amount of their behaviour.



Huh, now that I didn't know. Just went to look up whether President Kennedy really used cocaine and there is a website out there on the drug habits (or not) of loads of presidents. Does at least say to what extent the evidence is hearsay.


----------



## Edward M. Grant

The use of meth is pretty well documented. I forget what they called it at the time, but it was mass-produced and shipped out to the troops, particularly on the Eastern Front.

Hitler was getting a cocktail of drugs from his pet doctor. Which is probably why he made some crazy decisions and went downhill rapidly near the end of the war. Years of that stuff has to take a horrible toll on your body.


----------



## Lafayette

Okay, now we have the drugs. Now, where is the sex and rock'n'roll?


----------



## Av Demeisen

Lafayette said:


> Okay, now we have the drugs. Now, where is the sex and rock'n'roll?


None of that! Entartete Musik.


----------



## Dave

I wasn't aware of the drugs, but that explanation of behaviour makes sense.


----------



## Montero

Can't help wondering whether the drug habit caused the war, or shortened it - I guess depends on how much and when. Hitler attacking Russia was a bonkers move.

Oh, and you can bring in sex.....penicillin was developed and came into use in the latter part of WW2 - and a lot was used curing Allied troops of venereal disease. The Nazis didn't have it...

And not Rock and Roll - but jazz - the Nazis banned it as degenerate music. Germans couldn't listen to it or play it, but the Nazis didn't care about the countries they'd conquered and there was a thriving jazz scene in Paris in WW2. (Source of that - documentary called Tunes for Tyrants which is worth watching.)


----------



## Edward M. Grant

Montero said:


> Hitler attacking Russia was a bonkers move.



Not really. Stalin was making plans to attack Germany, so the battle would have happened sooner or later. Hitler just ensured it happened on his terms.

Declaring war on America... now that was a bonkers move.


----------



## Edward M. Grant

Lafayette said:


> Now, where is the sex and rock'n'roll?



Read up on the history of the Brownshirts.


----------



## Av Demeisen

Night of the Long Knives ...


----------



## Edward M. Grant

I forget the details, but there's a probably real story about Hitler going to visit his Brownshirts in their early years and arriving to find them in the middle of a gay orgy. Apparently the Communists used to make fun of them for that.

If I remember correctly, most of the leaders from that era ended up dead a few years later.


----------



## Montero

@Edward M. Grant 
Goodness me. Now some people on SFF have subjects they are particularly strong on, Kylara and horses for example. You look like you are the person for weird stuff from WW2  (Weird stuff as in the kind of stuff school lessons just don't cover.....)

I too remember there being something about the leaders from the era not surviving. Makes sense - the kind of people who start a revolution do not necessarily have the sort of personality that fits in well with the hierarchical organisation that follows once said revolution is successful.


----------



## Vladd67

Montero said:


> Can't help wondering whether the drug habit caused the war, or shortened it - I guess depends on how much and when. Hitler attacking Russia was a bonkers move.
> 
> Oh, and you can bring in sex.....penicillin was developed and came into use in the latter part of WW2 - and a lot was used curing Allied troops of venereal disease. The Nazis didn't have it...
> 
> And not Rock and Roll - but jazz - the Nazis banned it as degenerate music. Germans couldn't listen to it or play it, but the Nazis didn't care about the countries they'd conquered and there was a thriving jazz scene in Paris in WW2. (Source of that - documentary called Tunes for Tyrants which is worth watching.)


The Germans may not have been able to listen to jazz, but I imagine the Italians could, after all Mussolini was a jazz musician at one stage


----------



## Av Demeisen

Inspired by this thread, I finally started Norman Ohler's *Blitzed: Drugs in Nazi Germany* which had been quietly sitting on a shelf for some years.


----------



## Montero

Vladd67 said:


> The Germans may not have been able to listen to jazz, but I imagine the Italians could, after all Mussolini was a jazz musician at one stage



We watched the Tunes for Tyrants a bit at a time, don't recall anything on Mussolini. Saying that, it's interesting how Hitler eclipses Mussolini in terms of how much attention paid in the UK. Also, while the Italian government was allied with Hitler's I have no idea whether the Italians had the same Master Race obsession. I do recall though, that there is a film I watched some time back on an Italian Catholic priest who ran an underground getting Italian Jews to safety, and at the end of the film, there was text showing how the percentage of Jews rescued in Italy was far higher than in the rest of Europe. 

And now for some facts....
A bit of searching shows the film was called The Assisi Underground. Further searching gives this L Rescue of Jews by Catholics during the Holocaust - Wikipedia  regarding how the Catholic church stood against Nazi policies and rescued a lot of people across Europe.
I didn't know about the latter. I think some of the fascination of WW2 is what a lot happened - not just big army actions but all sorts of stuff - and thanks to modern records and the war being relatively recent, the stories are being preserved. Maybe part of the obsession comes from making sure it is preserved.


----------



## Vladd67

I think that had Mussolini taken the same route Franco did he may well have stayed in power longer. Of course there may well have been a communist inspired uprising to kick him out.


----------



## Alan Aspie

BAYLOR said:


> ...they attacked Finland a few years later. The much smaller Finnish army inflicted some  serious damage  and causalities on them.  The Red Army prevailed but...



Yeah... They prevailed. Like in the road of Raate.

16 500 Russians prevailed. 3200 Finns politely asked them to stop. 
7 000 - 8 000 Russians and 402 Finns died. 

Russians left some stuff when they left. Finns thanked. 

Battle of Raate Road - Wikipedia

And in Kollaa they also prevailed. Hundreds of meters. 

Battle of Kollaa - Wikipedia


----------



## Alan Aspie

sknox said:


> I wonder about this. If true...



Maybe you should read about it.

Russians had two chains of command: political and military. Every unit had a political officer besides a military officer. 

Military officers orders were not valid if political officer did not ok them. 

Military officers had a power to execute anyone at any time at any reason if they saw it necessary. If military officer did not obey political officer he got a bullet in his head.

You can start reading from this dude. 

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - Wikipedia


----------



## psikeyhackr

Here we go again:

*Helen Hunt To Star In Peter Bowker’s BBC One World War II Drama ‘World On Fire’*
Helen Hunt To Star In Peter Bowker’s BBC One World War II Drama ‘World On Fire’

Of course we must remember that the world now has 3 times the population, lots more nukes and Global Warming coming down on us.  But that is a Chinese hoax.


----------



## Graymalkin

In answer to the original post I'd echo some that WWII represented the biggest single global power reshuffle up to date. And in relatively modern times. We in UK have been lucky for the last 70 years. While large swathes of the planet have continued dealing with the fall out from WWII, we've enjoyed our sheltered geographical location. I think these things produce a curious fascination with war. 
Every year hundreds of individuals and entire families dress up in military uniforms and civilian costumes and invade a small rural area near me. They wander about for two days and return to their modern lives. I have mixed feelings about it. I know war veterans who are thoroughly against it. Some say it's a bit of fun. Makes me a bit uncomfortable. One group dressed as German Paratroopers 'attacked' another group at a railway station. It turned into a real fight. All seems a bit weird. Make love etc.


----------



## sknox

>Maybe you should read about it. 
Maybe I have.

>Military officers orders were not valid if political officer did not ok them. 
More properly: some military officers' orders were not valid if a political officer did not ok them.
Some orders were things like peel these potatoes, or empty the latrine. Pretty sure the political officer did not have to ok those.

Look, there's no doubt that there were times when the political officer overruled the military officer to the detriment of the operation. There were certainly military officers who were murdered for political reasons. I was only disagreeing with the reductionism, and with the implication that Russian soldiers fought only because they were afraid of being shot by their own commanders. I was trying to give them credit for honest patriotism, or at the very least for the same sort of muddled idealism to be found in most any group of young men.


----------



## Vladd67

Graymalkin said:


> In answer to the original post I'd echo some that WWII represented the biggest single global power reshuffle up to date. And in relatively modern times. We in UK have been lucky for the last 70 years. While large swathes of the planet have continued dealing with the fall out from WWII, we've enjoyed our sheltered geographical location. I think these things produce a curious fascination with war.
> Every year hundreds of individuals and entire families dress up in military uniforms and civilian costumes and invade a small rural area near me. They wander about for two days and return to their modern lives. I have mixed feelings about it. I know war veterans who are thoroughly against it. Some say it's a bit of fun. Makes me a bit uncomfortable. One group dressed as German Paratroopers 'attacked' another group at a railway station. It turned into a real fight. All seems a bit weird. Make love etc.


A friend of mine is in a fallschirmjäger re-enactment group and he said at displays they sometimes let members of the public try out the gear, anyway at one event the groups ‘expert’ was laying down the law over how things were worn etc. (Every group has them, I knew a couple in the Sealed Knot) when this pensioner who had joined the unit for the day and had been dressed up in the uniform told him he was talking rubbish, or words to that effect, turns out he had been captured at Monte Cassino at had ended up as a POW in the UK and never went home.


----------



## Montero

Well that is someone you sit down and interview for posterity.

I saw "somewhere" that exactly what was carried and when is already being lost for all countries' militaries in WW2 because records weren't all kept - as in model of water bottle issued, style of boot, etc, etc. And often it wasn't quite as standardised as you might expect depending on how different factories did stuff, older kit being re-used etc.

I know it's a lot earlier, but the English Civil War period - they used stuff from government and private armouries and it could be Elizabethan or earlier. With commanders of a regiment paying for the outfitting, it got pretty mixed. (And there was the joy of having the same colour coats in opposing regiments - woad blue being popular because it was cheap leading to field signs - as in identifier assumed for the day - coloured rag round your arm or whatever.)


----------



## sknox

Yeah, the whole business of dressing the same is pretty recent. It got pioneered during the 30 Years War. It adds hugely to the expense of operating an army, for one thing, and earlier governments lacked both the cash and the organizational resources to pull it off.


----------



## Vladd67

Montero said:


> Well that is someone you sit down and interview for posterity.
> 
> I saw "somewhere" that exactly what was carried and when is already being lost for all countries' militaries in WW2 because records weren't all kept - as in model of water bottle issued, style of boot, etc, etc. And often it wasn't quite as standardised as you might expect depending on how different factories did stuff, older kit being re-used etc.
> 
> I know it's a lot earlier, but the English Civil War period - they used stuff from government and private armouries and it could be Elizabethan or earlier. With commanders of a regiment paying for the outfitting, it got pretty mixed. (And there was the joy of having the same colour coats in opposing regiments - woad blue being popular because it was cheap leading to field signs - as in identifier assumed for the day - coloured rag round your arm or whatever.)


I don’t know what it was like in ECWS but in the Knot when Parliament started wear their New Model Army redcoats it made it a little boring to see. I missed the different colours.


----------



## Montero

We stayed pre-New Model Army in my time. In fact, I remember a new London Trained Band starting up and they were a bunch drawn mostly from firemen and policemen - they decided to wear blue so they'd be the boys in blue.....
There were intermittent attempts by some higher-ups for more uniformity - saying too many felt hats, or too many boots, or..... generally got ignored. The period reality was the richer regiments would provide breeches, coat and shirt and the poorer ones coat only, so breeches and stockings in all sorts of colours was more authentic.


----------



## Vladd67

Oh and the arguments over buff coats


----------



## Montero

Ooh my yes, so expensive! so inappropriate that you have one!
Mind you I once had a lovely conversation with a gentleman wearing a leather waistcoat. I think his feathers had just been ruffled by someone because he saw me looking at the waistcoat and spontaneously explained how the house cow had died, he'd taken the hide to the tannery, the tanner had charged half the hide for tanning it and his waistcoat plus leather for shoes was the rest of it. Nice one.


----------



## A.G. Kimbrough

It was the first war driven by technology. World wide communications, Radar detection and weapons control, mechanized armor, landing craft, rockets, strategic bombers, and the ultimate weapon, the atomic bomb. WW2 ignited a technology upheaval that still drives the world today.


----------



## BAYLOR

A.G. Kimbrough said:


> It was the first war driven by technology. World wide communications, Radar detection and weapons control, mechanized armor, landing craft, rockets, strategic bombers, and the ultimate weapon, the atomic bomb. WW2 ignited a technology upheaval that still drives the world today.



Jet airplanes too.


----------



## Extollager

One reason the Second World War exercises continuing fascination, for some people, is that it was that colossal war that had happened not really very long ago (when we were kids).  When I was old enough to have some sense of history, that war was only 25 years or so ago.  It was part of my dad's biography in that he served in the army of occupation in Japan, and when I was a kid he wasn't an old man.  Mom remembered the Portland newspaper with the headline about the "Sun Bomb" that had been dropped on Hiroshima.  A lot of the people of that generation have died, but they were alive and robust in our most impressionable years, when people my age were kids.


----------



## hitmouse

My parents are still alive and healthy and were born during the war. My mother's family was pretty comprehensively destroyed in a single night of the blitz, and it is fair to say that it has affected the family ever since. WW2 was clearly the major defining factor in the lives of my grandparents and their generation, and it continues to define European politics.
Living memory, impossible to ignore.


----------



## J Riff

Whe I was a hospital orderly, early 70s, we had a woman from Auschwitz there. She was not so obsessed with it, but could never escape it.


----------



## CupofJoe

A.G. Kimbrough said:


> It was the first war driven by technology. World wide communications, Radar detection and weapons control, mechanized armor, landing craft, rockets, strategic bombers, and the ultimate weapon, the atomic bomb. WW2 ignited a technology upheaval that still drives the world today.


I'll give you all the above, but I think many wars are driven by technology. Look at the first world war. Aircraft were barely useable a flying machines at the start, by the end they could fly many times faster and were just about to cross the Atlantic. Submarines were interesting toys more than weapons at the start, by the end they were very effective tools. Machine guns, assault rifles weapons of mass destructions and combined arms tactics were all perfected in WW1. There even mobile x-ray vans helping treatment at the western front.
For me Why WW2 still holds sway... There is a lot of source material that was never available before. and then there is the Bad Guys. The Nazis have become the go-to villains. If you wrote a group like this, you'd probably be told they were unbelievable...


----------



## Venusian Broon

Extollager said:


> One reason the Second World War exercises continuing fascination, for some people, is that it was that colossal war that had happened not really very long ago (when we were kids).  When I was old enough to have some sense of history, that war was only 25 years or so ago.  It was part of my dad's biography in that he served in the army of occupation in Japan, and when I was a kid he wasn't an old man.  Mom remembered the Portland newspaper with the headline about the "Sun Bomb" that had been dropped on Hiroshima.  A lot of the people of that generation have died, but they were alive and robust in our most impressionable years, when people my age were kids.



Exactly Extollager, I was born in 1971 only 26 years after the end of war, but actually we were still in the midst of the aftershocks of that war - especially the superpower contest that was the cold war. Remember that places like Vietnam had been fighting more or less continously since during WW2 to try and get independence from the Japanese, French and then US intervention. 

Frankly it didn't feel that we were starting to properly heal from it until the Berlin wall fell in 1989. (Actually in an _specific _official sense, from the Potsdam agreement, the second world war didn't end until Germany reunified and provided a 'government adequate for the purpose of concluding a full peace treaty.')

So in that respect I did feel it was definitely still part of living memory. 

But one wonders how long something like the Napoleanonic wars was fascinating for people in the 19th Century. I suspect it was similar.


----------



## Caledfwlch

There have also always been "purges" of those deemed undesirable by the people and or powers that be, but ww2 saw the first ever systematic, mechanised extermination of people considered to be enemies of the state or simply because of their religion or race. There are many reasons why ww2 captured the public imagination so. 

Another big reason I suspect is that ww2 was a conflict that was utterly clearcut, in morality and so on. The Axis powers were genuinely bad guys, evil doing evil stuff and whilst the Allies made the odd difficult to forgive or understand mistake such as the carpet bombing of a dresden out of revenge, we were still generally the good guys on the side of light.


----------



## psikeyhackr

TV was flooded with WWII series when I was a kid, Combat, 12 O'Clock High, Hogan's Heros.

"I know nothing, nothing!"






And of course ENIAC was financed to compute ballistics tables.  Since it was not completed until the war ended I do not know if it was ever used for that.  It did computations for the H-bomb instead.

WWII is also used as justification for the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes.  The Depression and WWII are like a turning point in history.


----------



## Extollager

Caledfwlch, it's arguable that "the first ever systematic, mechanised extermination of people considered to be enemies of the state or simply because of their religion or race" was that of the Armenians in Turkey during 1915-1923.  A young adult book that could introduce the Armenian genocide to many readers is David Kherdian's *The Road from Home*.  For the diligent adult reader, there's Raymond Kevorkian's *The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History*.









						Armenian Genocide: A Complete History, by Raymond Kévorkian
					

In this monumental work on the Armenian Genocide, the subtitle underlines that what is presented here is a complete history, thereby subtly recognising that it




					academic.oup.com
				




More accessible is David Balakian's *Black Dog of Fate*, and there's Philip Marsden's account of the Armenian diaspora, *The Crossing Place*.

My understanding is that when Raphael Lemkin coined the term "genocide," he used the Armenian holocaust to exemplify what he meant by it.


----------



## Caledfwlch

I know the Armenian genocide happened but I didn't realise it involved people rounded up and systematically murdered by the state, thanks for the info I will do some googling. 

The Germans often get the credit for inventing the "concentration camp" so I have found it comes as a shock to British people to discover it was the British empire who invented them in South Africa during the Boer War.


----------



## psikeyhackr

*20 Slang Terms From World War I*








						20 Slang Terms From World War I
					

One of the subtlest and most surprising legacies of the First World War is its effect on our language.




					getpocket.com
				




Wonder how many from WWII?

One I have heard a lot is, "The whole nine yards!"  It means all of whatever is is you are talking about but I read some WWII American plane had an ammunition belt that was 9 yards long. So shooting the whole belt into something was "giving them the whole 9 yards".


----------



## Caledfwlch

Psikey - one of my fave British slang terms from this era was "piece of cake" meaning it will be easy.
Soldiers on all sides and nationalities devised a huge amount of slang to describe the reality they were living in.


----------

