History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

[solovsfett]

I apologize if there is another thread for this...

Remember when you read THAT book or article, or watched THAT documentary or movie that caused you to pause, take a step back and realize some of the things you've taken for granted as solid fact are in essence a fiction created by the winners (whether that be winners in war, philosophy, financial influence etc)? Obviously that happened quite a bit in high school and especially college. But now that I've entered my 40's I haven't felt this in a long long time....until now

So the real Ty Cobb is not necessarily the stereotype I'd grown up hearing about for so many years (Ken Burns, ahem, I'm looking your way)
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/who-w...w-thats-wrong/

https://soundcloud.com/jfk-lancer/bu...ringuie-oswald - I've never heard this before, it's an absolutely fascinating window into the early 60's commie scare

and related to that last link (boy was my ignorance on the bay of pigs exposed after reading this one) - http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Ess...ill_Alive.html


so...now it's your turn, what have you read, watched or listened to (podcasts etc) recently that caused you to rethink some element of what has generally been considered historical FACT?

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

The Lost World of Communism. It's a 2009 BBC doc split into 3 parts, here's Part 1 (the other 2 follow): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znb_X48WXUg

There is some nudity in a segment involving a young East German couple and their home movies (it's not amateur pr0n, you sickos), so you probably don't want to sneak-watch this one during downtime at the office. Also, don't read the intellectual cripple-fights going on in the comments (but that should go without saying )

There are people who, despite the systemic repression of the various SSR regimes, still consider their lives under communism to have been better. Especially musicians and artists who were willing to toe the party line. East Germany, in particular, had started to go the "market socialism" route in the 70s, and had the highest standard of living of any of the satellite states. Sure, you couldn't leave the country and the Stasi could throw a black bag over your head in the wee hours of any given morning and make you an unperson, so life still sucked - but it sucked less than the history books say it did.

[alfablue]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

On a very related note- many in the US constantly tell us that we won WWII. Other than putting lots and lots of arms into the fight, and making the bomb that finally got Japan to surrender, we didn't lose much in Europe, on a relative basis. The Soviets lost somewhere around 10,000,000 of it's military. Along with another ~10,000,000 civilians that directly killed. And another ~6,500,000 civilians to the conditions of war.

They also killed more Germans on the eastern front than the west.

The US lost not even 500,000. Roughly 1/50 of what the Soviets lost. (and our losses include the Pacific)

What we did in the war was heroic, no doubt, and I'm constantly fascinated by the work in France. But I think it's safe to say that the Soviet Union did more to defeat Germany than the US did. Although, I'd wager that one could find some evidence that the West let the Soviets do what they did for a much longer time- to soften both the Germans and the Soviets.

We can take a lot more credit with defeating Japan than the Germans. Much, much, MUCH more. Oddly enough, we focus more on Europe than the Pacific. Even I do.

[Kepler]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

Each country evaluates history from its own POV. We think we beat the British to win our Revolution. We did to the extent that we managed to keep them from decimating us long enough for them to become embroiled in separate wars against the Dutch, Spanish AND French while also fighting local wars against Indian potentates. By the time our war was winding up we were strictly a sideshow. The British realized more profit from the exploitation of their tiny Caribbean possessions than from the entire 13 colonies -- in fact there are historians who have argued most of the 13 colonies were run at a net loss.

Another fun fact is the taxes we refused to pay were levied to pay for the Seven Years War (arguable the first "world war" in history) which resulted in North America in clearing the field for American expansion against the French (who lost their position of strength in the settlement) and the Indians (who were screwed over by not even being included in the settlement). The US got off to such a rocket start in large part because we did the following in quick succession:

1750s-1760s: Leached off the Brits and friendly Indians to clear away our regional enemies
1770s-1780s: Begged the French to help us when the Brits objected to us not paying for their defense of us
1770s-1780s: Won our independence because the Brits were distracted by their real wars against real powers
1790s-1800s: Screwed over the French when they asked us to honor our treaty in defense of their revolution (inspired in part by ours)

Now, ALL the nations involved were acting in their own narrow self-interest, so this doesn't mean the US was any less "honorable" than any other nation. And it took amazing diplomacy and leadership to pull off that series of double- and triple -crosses and come out of it without a busted head, so yay to the Founders for that. But it's not quite the inspiring creation myth of our high school textbooks.

[Kepler]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

On a very related note- many in the US constantly tell us that we won WWII.

We did beat the Nips. The Russians beat the Krauts.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

On a very related note- many in the US constantly tell us that we won WWII. Other than putting lots and lots of arms into the fight, and making the bomb that finally got Japan to surrender, we didn't lose much in Europe, on a relative basis. The Soviets lost somewhere around 10,000,000 of it's military. Along with another ~10,000,000 civilians that directly killed. And another ~6,500,000 civilians to the conditions of war.

They also killed more Germans on the eastern front than the west.

The US lost not even 500,000. Roughly 1/50 of what the Soviets lost. (and our losses include the Pacific)

What we did in the war was heroic, no doubt, and I'm constantly fascinated by the work in France. But I think it's safe to say that the Soviet Union did more to defeat Germany than the US did. Although, I'd wager that one could find some evidence that the West let the Soviets do what they did for a much longer time- to soften both the Germans and the Soviets.

We can take a lot more credit with defeating Japan than the Germans. Much, much, MUCH more. Oddly enough, we focus more on Europe than the Pacific. Even I do.

Like in real estate, its Location, Location, Location.

If the Atlantic Ocean had not separated us from the European continent our losses would have been like those seen in European locations. Of course had the Axis been responsible for fighting on our shores in addition to the fighting they did in Europe the war may have been significantly shorter. Then again our ability to make war fighting material was unaffected by the bombing and other tactics that destroyed the capability of the Axis powers to do the same. Had Detroit and other industrial cities been bombed over and over that would have possibly prolonged the war due to our decreased ability to produce guns and tanks and planes and bullets that not only the American forces used to win the war. Detroit, as The Arsenal of Democracy, played as big a role in the war as anything.

[alfablue]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

Like in real estate, its Location, Location, Location.

If the Atlantic Ocean had not separated us from the European continent our losses would have been like those seen in European locations. Of course had the Axis been responsible for fighting on our shores in addition to the fighting they did in Europe the war may have been significantly shorter. Then again our ability to make war fighting material was unaffected by the bombing and other tactics that destroyed the capability of the Axis powers to do the same. Had Detroit and other industrial cities been bombed over and over that would have possibly prolonged the war due to our decreased ability to produce guns and tanks and planes and bullets that not only the American forces used to win the war. Detroit, as The Arsenal of Democracy, played as big a role in the war as anything.

coulda, woulda, shoulda. But we should not take so much credit in Europe. That's all I'm saying. Our vision of the war in Europe is not reflective of what actually happened in many respects.

We built a lot of stuff, sure. But our human sacrifices pale in comparison.

[Kepler]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

Like in real estate, its Location, Location, Location.

If the Atlantic Ocean had not separated us from the European continent our losses would have been like those seen in European locations. Of course had the Axis been responsible for fighting on our shores in addition to the fighting they did in Europe the war may have been significantly shorter. Then again our ability to make war fighting material was unaffected by the bombing and other tactics that destroyed the capability of the Axis powers to do the same. Had Detroit and other industrial cities been bombed over and over that would have possibly prolonged the war due to our decreased ability to produce guns and tanks and planes and bullets that not only the American forces used to win the war. Detroit, as The Arsenal of Democracy, played as big a role in the war as anything.

Which is why the Germans were nuts to declare against us.

The Japanese probably had no choice: they were strangled by embargoes of oil, rubber and scrap iron and had to take out the British navy in one strike all over east Asia, so they attacked: British Borneo, Thailand, Malaya, and Indochina. The US navy was a growing threat so they stole a march on us by attacking Hawaii and the Philippines, but their immediate objective was to cripple the British navy and end British colonial domination of east Asia. Attacking us was a long-term losing proposition (Yamamoto famously said there was no end game where the US did not win a protracted war) but they didn't see a way of routing the British without denying them US possessions for recuperation, so they went for it.

The Germans, OTOH, had a choice: they could have at least waited FDR out and forced him to declare.

But better still, they could have used the sneak attack on Pearl as an excuse to stop all offensive operations, pull out of the alliance with Japan (cite racial theories -- common white defense), and offer an incredibly generous peace. The west would be under tremendous diplomatic pressure to recognize some German territorial gains in eastern Europe. If Germany offered the unconditional return of all western territory to status quo ante and withdrawal to pre-war German western borders, the western allies would almost certainly have sold out the Poles, Czechs, and Commies. The US might not even have gotten involved, faced with the prospect of a long war of attrition with Japan. Without a western front, the Politboro would have had to choose whether to continue an insanely destructive and murderous war, or to recognize German control up to the "Ost" line. They might have taken it, at least temporarily, to recover strength (I mean it's basically the EU/NATO expansion circa today). The Russian-German animosity was permanent, but a respite would have been as mutually beneficial at that point as Ribertrop-Molotov was earlier.

[MadTownSioux]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

... Had Detroit and other industrial cities been bombed over and over that would have possibly prolonged the war due to our decreased ability to produce guns and tanks and planes and bullets that not only the American forces used to win the war. ...

Or New Orleans. The Higgins boat produced in NOLA credited by Pres. Eisenhower:

“Andrew Higgins is the man who won the war for us.”
-President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1964 interview

[SJHovey]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

Which is why the Germans were nuts to declare against us.

The Japanese probably had no choice: they were strangled by embargoes of oil, rubber and scrap iron and had to take out the British navy in one strike all over east Asia, so they attacked: British Borneo, Thailand, Malaya, and Indochina. The US navy was a growing threat so they stole a march on us by attacking Hawaii and the Philippines, but their immediate objective was to cripple the British navy and end British colonial domination of east Asia. Attacking us was a long-term losing proposition (Yamamoto famously said there was no end game where the US did not win a protracted war) but they didn't see a way of routing the British without denying them US possessions for recuperation, so they went for it.

The Germans, OTOH, had a choice: they could have at least waited FDR out and forced him to declare.

But better still, they could have used the sneak attack on Pearl as an excuse to stop all offensive operations, pull out of the alliance with Japan (cite racial theories -- common white defense), and offer an incredibly generous peace. The west would be under tremendous diplomatic pressure to recognize some German territorial gains in eastern Europe. If Germany offered the unconditional return of all western territory to status quo ante and withdrawal to pre-war German western borders, the western allies would almost certainly have sold out the Poles, Czechs, and Commies. The US might not even have gotten involved, faced with the prospect of a long war of attrition with Japan. Without a western front, the Politboro would have had to choose whether to continue an insanely destructive and murderous war, or to recognize German control up to the "Ost" line. They might have taken it, at least temporarily, to recover strength (I mean it's basically the EU/NATO expansion circa today). The Russian-German animosity was permanent, but a respite would have been as mutually beneficial at that point as Ribertrop-Molotov was earlier.

There was historical precedent as well. IIRC, Lenin basically ceded large chunks of Russia to the Germans to bail out of WWI early in order to concentrate on the problems at home.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

But our human sacrifices pale in comparison.

I often think about these kinds of numbers when I visit the Viet Nam Memorial. I wonder how the Wall would look if it bore 400,000 names instead of 58,000. I find it impossible to even imagine the magnitude of the kinds of losses the German or Soviet military suffered and cannot begin to picture the space required to similarly memorialize those numbers of dead.

[St. Clown]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

On a very related note- many in the US constantly tell us that we won WWII. Other than putting lots and lots of arms into the fight, and making the bomb that finally got Japan to surrender, we didn't lose much in Europe, on a relative basis. The Soviets lost somewhere around 10,000,000 of it's military. Along with another ~10,000,000 civilians that directly killed. And another ~6,500,000 civilians to the conditions of war.

They also killed more Germans on the eastern front than the west.

The US lost not even 500,000. Roughly 1/50 of what the Soviets lost. (and our losses include the Pacific)

What we did in the war was heroic, no doubt, and I'm constantly fascinated by the work in France. But I think it's safe to say that the Soviet Union did more to defeat Germany than the US did. Although, I'd wager that one could find some evidence that the West let the Soviets do what they did for a much longer time- to soften both the Germans and the Soviets.

We can take a lot more credit with defeating Japan than the Germans. Much, much, MUCH more. Oddly enough, we focus more on Europe than the Pacific. Even I do.

A few notes to that:

1) Had we not entered the war when we did, Germany would've had control over all of Western Europe and could have then focused its troops and machinery entirely upon Russia. Would that have changed the end result of the Eastern Front? I don't know, but it would've likely slowed down the Russians and become a war of attrition. Stalin proved that he was willing to indiscriminately throw soldiers into battle as matches to a fire, so the Russians likely would've won eventually. With the USA joining the war, we forced the Nazis to split their forces into three fronts, effectively. They had to continue concerning themselves with Britain and North Africa in addition to Russia.

2) Don't discount the war materiel that we provided the Brits prior to our joining the war officially. They likely wouldn't have lasted long enough for our entry to matter had we not done so.

3) Body counts can be a misleading metric in that war. The Russians threw soldiers into combat without weapons during the defense of major cities, telling them to pick a corpse clean while rushing to engage the Germans. Our leaders could never have done that and survived the public scorn, both military and political leaders included. The same with contrasting our war ethics to those of the Japanese, as they grew more and more desperate to defend their home territory. The kamikaze pilots were completely inconceivable to our troops until they witnessed it firsthand. Different tactics led to differing loss totals.

This is not to say that the US should be given sole credit for winning the war, but neither should our efforts be discredited.

[alfablue]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

I often think about these kinds of numbers when I visit the Viet Nam Memorial. I wonder how the Wall would look if it bore 400,000 names instead of 58,000. I find it impossible to even imagine the magnitude of the kinds of losses the German or Soviet military suffered and cannot begin to picture the space required to similarly memorialize those numbers of dead.

Having been to Normandy- Germany also has a memorial burial site there. It's really odd, and hard to accept, given that they were the enemy.

Still, the US pattern has been for a long time to do a war where we sacrifice as little as possible to win- from Spanish American War up to the present- we've never really put out as other countries did (or were seemingly gladly to put in harms way- which is odd, too). Even with 400,000 deaths in WWII, we did whatever it took to minimize that. The interesting thing about Yamamoto was that knowledge- the attempt at Pearl was to make the sacrifice so big that it would be something we'd want get into. It wasn't, and then putting the factories on line was just part of the battle. So it was a long and painful loss that was already known.

One other thing on a perspective thing. If you look at how we treat June 6 vs. other invasions that were much larger than that later in the war, it is interesting to me that we focus so much on Europe. Again- I am guilty of that, too.

[Kepler]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

There was historical precedent as well. IIRC, Lenin basically ceded large chunks of Russia to the Germans to bail out of WWI early in order to concentrate on the problems at home.

Correct.

Shout out to my long-deceased 9th grade European History teacher John Ohanesian, who was so interesting that I instantly recalled both the treaty and its terms. That's good teachin'.

[joecct]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

If the goal of the Japanese was "Asia for the Asiatics" and the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere," don't you think those goals were met?

If you take the long view, who won the Pacific War?