More history (on meaning of Pearl Harbor) [OT]

Sat Sep 15 12:33:35 UTC 2001

> If whoever bothered to invent that pseudo-quotation bothered to learn
> hitory of WWII, he'd know that most military action had seen no American
> involvement at all.  The widely regarded as the turning point of WWII was
> Stalingrad battle, after which Red Army began the advancement on all
> fronts.

well, honestly rarely military actions turn a war... its way too easy to
define one battle or happening as the turning point for a world war. it was
the cascadation of several incidents which lead into the fall of the "third
reich". untill today historians are argueing about those incidents and
identifying which ones that could be. stalingrad was identified as one of
those incidents. there are several dozen incidents next to it. and several
times we had real luck that the germans underestimated several happenings
and took wrong decisions.
One thing please: Never underestimate the important role which the americans
had on the path of ww2, think of this, if america wouldn't had supported the
allies with a steady stream of ressource shipments, the end of ww2 may have
been very different.

> US become involved in the continental WWII to prevent Soviets from
> occupation of the entire Europe, not to win the war with Germany.  It was
> already going to be defeated (and it was the Red Army which took Berlin).

it was agreed between the alliance forces that the red army was allowed to
take berlin first. i think it was one of the things winston churchill
claimed afterwards as one of the biggest failures.

> From the point of view of saving Europe from communism it was a brilliant
> move - wait for both sides to become exhausted before getting in.  By that
> time the Red Army had no resources to fight both desperate Nazi and Allied
> Forces (Japanese were no threat at all to USSR because it was protected
> by huge very sparsely inhabited landmass, so they could be safely
> ignored for a while), and this is how the modern political map of Europe
> came to be.

well communism was also a fear for the european countries at that point of
time. at least they felt very uncomfortable about that upcoming thread.
there was no official cold war during the time before ww2.

> Of course, American school textbooks forget those small details and make
> it look like that US nearly single-handedly defeated fascism.  It didn't.

agreed, but not only us school box tell a modified truth. but gladly we have
the internet for ppl who want to inform theirselves. mostly the problem is
if you want to tell the whole truth, it would just take too much time. maybe
teachers at school should motivate their students more to inform themselves.
way too much ppl still think that stuff in books or tv just has to be true
because it is put into books and tv. ppl in general should ask more
questions and start to use their brains.

> To get a sense of what was going on and who was fighting whom see
>
> http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm
>
> And if you ever wondered why America dropped A-bomb on Japan - it was to
> prevent imminent occupation of Japan by the Red Army.  After Germany
> capitulated the Soviet armies were quickly shipped eastward, and were
> quickly advancing (this you can also see on the world political map,
> especially if you compare pre-war and post-war boundaries).  The only way
> to prevent People's Republic of Japan was to scare s*t out of Japanese to
> force them to capitulate to Americans.

well there are different aspects, consult this link
http://www.marynet.com/hirosh.html
fact is the drop of the nuclear bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki was
unnecessary to end the war. japan was allready brought down to the knees. if
the bomb was used as final revenge because of pearl harbour, or as an
indirect thread for USSR is something you can discuss about... well it
doesnt change the facts hundred thousand of civilians found a terribe death.
i hope we all agree that there is no justification to use this weapon
anymore.

> The myth that American involvement in WWII made a significant difference
> from the point of view of defeating fascism is just a myth.  What US
> involvement did is to check advancement of communists, not Nazis.

the us traditionally never wanted to get involved into european conflicts.

> No wonder, US immediately took place of the main enemy of the Soviet
> Union. It still was worth it, Stalin was no better than Hitler.

agreed, stalin was no difference compared to hitler. the conflict between us
and ussr was not avoidable...

> Sorry, fellow Americans, you _are_ brainwashed if you believe the drivel
> they teach you as "history".  "Fascist powers were doomed" because of
> Pearl Harbor, sure.  Until you check the figures and actually think for a
> second or two.

well its generalism. not all americans think like this, and those who do,  i
think one explanation may be:  that ww2 except of pearl harbour didnt had
the same influence on america as it had on europe. so most ppl aren't
interested about the detailed happenings of  ww2 as we europeans maybe are.

> --vadim
>
> PS If you want to know how _that_ is related to Sep 11, you may be
> interested to know that Chechens were collaborating with Nazi;
> which prompted Stalin to retaliate after the war with mass
> deportations.  They were allowed to return decade or so later,
> having no love for Russians and the Allies in WWII.  That's how
> their militant leaders became natural allies with Middle-Eastern
> terrorists, including (surprise) bin Laden.

never forget that the middle east was a battlefield during the cold war, red
and blue missused ppl as peasants in a cruel game. However the middle east
problem is factors more complicate then the balkan problem... actually a
problem only middle east can solve on themselves. western nations can
support them, but dont dare to dictate them. never forget most countries in
middle east have histories going back 5000 years (like iran). and well the
osmanian empire also collapsed during ww2... a point you have to see too.
one of the problems may be that america always claims their role as global
leader. you can question if a global leader is allowed to follow his
national interests within the whole world. (i am sorry to say so but a lot
of those national interests are business interests) that is one of  the
reasons why only a global community should claim global leadership.

my two cents to this topic
cheers
eric