Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This point is arguable and no evidence to support it. But even if its true, everyone knew if England collapsed it would be up to the US to do it mostly alone. And with no UK stepping stone to continental Europe it would be very difficult. You people who want to make the US to be the bad guy make me sick.
That is the problem. Too many people like you want to believe that the Humanity of Americans is somehow SUPERIOR to others and hence......we are always the good guys. WRONG! We are NORMAL....typical humans. Stop thinking that we are SPECIAL.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats Grobnick
The argument could be made that WW2 was fought for freedom, although it's difficult since many righties claim Stalin was far worse than Hitler and he took over many countries Hitler occupied.
Stalin was a scumbag, but if you look at our history and some of the people we've supported in places like Iran, Chile, Vietnam, et al, we have no problem supporting scumbags as long as they're our scumbags.
Wars are instigated by aristocratic interests (or their modern equivalent) for purposes of rapaciousness, prestige or doctrinal zeal. The nation being attacked has often given provocative cause, at least in the context of aristocratic interests. But often said nation has no choice, regardless of its passions or societal structure.
But returning to the point broached by the OP, in most nations and most epochs, veterans went to war not from personal convictions, but sheer necessity; maybe conscription, maybe peer pressure or the need to save face. True believers are rare. Most fought not for abstract and altruistic notions, such as the “freedom†of future generations of their countrymen, but simply because they had to, because it was unseemly not to. Then, decades after the war, it’s a disingenuous talking-point to use veterans as props in a debate against protestors and dissidents. The assertion is that by protesting, the protestors are disrespecting the veterans, disrespecting their sacrifice, subverting the very concept that the veterans fought and bled to uphold. This is a conniving trick, because it conflates respect for the sacrifices of our elders, with allegiance to the present regime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
~40,000,000 died in between 1939 & 1945 during WWII. And the party who started this topic seems completely oblivious to this fact.
You're off by about a factor of 2. It may also be worth noting in passing, that more Soviet citizens died in the first week of the German invasion in the summer of 1941, than the totality of American military casualties, 1607-2017 (including combat deaths, disease among the troops, and military accidents). If we're going to whip out the yardstick and start comparing military sacrifices, we might as well admit that Soviet men and women died, so that Americans wouldn't have to. How do we characterize that one - as more leftist propaganda?
They actually used to teach Civics and History in our schools.
Now they just promote Anti-American Leftist Talking Points.
Schools are Political Arms of the Left, just as the Media is.
Please the right pushed their views as much as the left does.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
You're off by about a factor of 2. It may also be worth noting in passing, that more Soviet citizens died in the first week of the German invasion in the summer of 1941, than the totality of American military casualties, 1607-2017 (including combat deaths, disease among the troops, and military accidents). If we're going to whip out the yardstick and start comparing military sacrifices, we might as well admit that Soviet men and women died, so that Americans wouldn't have to. How do we characterize that one - as more leftist propaganda?
I'd characterize it as our good fortune in not having fought a war on our homeland since the Civil War. In some way that might not be a good thing, it seems there are still far to many in this country who view war as a glamorous display of patriotism. Some seem to view it as life in a John Wayne movie and not the bloody, costly, inhumane mess it inevitably is.
If we're going to whip out the yardstick and start comparing military sacrifices, we might as well admit that Soviet men and women died, so that Americans wouldn't have to. How do we characterize that one - as more leftist propaganda?
An alternative characterization might be that Stalin's cozying up to Hitler, via the Soviet-Nazi nonaggression pact, sacrificed millions of his citizens needlessly through his own stupidity and unpreparedness for war.
I'd characterize it as our good fortune in not having fought a war on our homeland since the Civil War. In some way that might not be a good thing, it seems there are still far to many in this country who view war as a glamorous display of patriotism and not the bloody, costly, inhumane thing it inevitably is.
Civil war keeps being brought up on here and I know I've brought it up myself. I have to wonder if we're in the mist of one with Media/TV/Internet, radio, Etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
