Quite An Achievement In 5 Months.....
News2 mins ago
Are We *ever* Going To Get Over Wwii ?
208 Answers
Yet another commemoration - this time 70 years of the Atlantic campaign
http://
Given that WWII lasted about 5 years by the time you've commemorated a VE day anniversary it seems time to start celebrating anothe anniversary of the start of the War!
I hear the cries of 'ingrate' already and patriotic chests puffing up like pidgeons - but WWI was just as formative to those who fought in it and I don't recall continual commemorations of that from my childhood.
Why are we so obsessed with WWII and are we ever going to get over it?
http://
Given that WWII lasted about 5 years by the time you've commemorated a VE day anniversary it seems time to start celebrating anothe anniversary of the start of the War!
I hear the cries of 'ingrate' already and patriotic chests puffing up like pidgeons - but WWI was just as formative to those who fought in it and I don't recall continual commemorations of that from my childhood.
Why are we so obsessed with WWII and are we ever going to get over it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
aog, the Titanic is a mass grave. I believe it should be left alone. DTC has raised the question of whether the Dornier might be the same; I don't know, but it should be considered.
What next? Burning books?
Careful, ChillDoubt, or Goodwin's law will be upon you. As someone else has said, if the Dornier is so important, why aren't the Germans retrieving it? If private concerns are willing to spend their money on it, that's fine by me; the Only Dornier 17 In Existence may be worth something as a collectors' item. As a piece of British history it's negligible. Digging up (non-existent) Spitfires in Burma was at least an effort to preserve our own heritage.
What next? Burning books?
Careful, ChillDoubt, or Goodwin's law will be upon you. As someone else has said, if the Dornier is so important, why aren't the Germans retrieving it? If private concerns are willing to spend their money on it, that's fine by me; the Only Dornier 17 In Existence may be worth something as a collectors' item. As a piece of British history it's negligible. Digging up (non-existent) Spitfires in Burma was at least an effort to preserve our own heritage.
As someone else has said, if the Dornier is so important, why aren't the Germans retrieving it?
-----------------------------
Er, probably because it doesn't have the same significance to the Germans as it does to the history of invasion and attempted invasions of these islands?
In case you hadn't noticed, the Germans preserve remnants of WW2 that are relevant to them in the shape of the Concentration Camp museums.
Some camps I visited whilst serving in West Germany also maintained as artefacts their anti-aircraft guns, which undoubtedly saw service during many a bombing raid. Vogelsang Traing Camp is littered with historical items from the Nazi Regime.
-----------------------------
Er, probably because it doesn't have the same significance to the Germans as it does to the history of invasion and attempted invasions of these islands?
In case you hadn't noticed, the Germans preserve remnants of WW2 that are relevant to them in the shape of the Concentration Camp museums.
Some camps I visited whilst serving in West Germany also maintained as artefacts their anti-aircraft guns, which undoubtedly saw service during many a bombing raid. Vogelsang Traing Camp is littered with historical items from the Nazi Regime.
I believe this sums it up pretty well:
Air Vice-Marshal Peter Dye, the Director General of the RAF Museum. described the discovery and recovery of the last example of this iconic plane as being of “national and international importance”.
“The aircraft is a unique and unprecedented survivor from The Battle of Britain and the Blitz,” he added.
“It will provide an evocative and moving exhibit that will allow the Museum to present the wider story of the Battle of Britain and highlight the sacrifices made by the young men of both air forces and from many nations. It is a project that has reconciliation and remembrance at its heart.”
The aircraft display will be supplemented by an education centre which will offer a wealth of educational resources for primary, secondary and 16+ pupils.
http://
Air Vice-Marshal Peter Dye, the Director General of the RAF Museum. described the discovery and recovery of the last example of this iconic plane as being of “national and international importance”.
“The aircraft is a unique and unprecedented survivor from The Battle of Britain and the Blitz,” he added.
“It will provide an evocative and moving exhibit that will allow the Museum to present the wider story of the Battle of Britain and highlight the sacrifices made by the young men of both air forces and from many nations. It is a project that has reconciliation and remembrance at its heart.”
The aircraft display will be supplemented by an education centre which will offer a wealth of educational resources for primary, secondary and 16+ pupils.
http://
Kromovaracun
/// The fact that the UK did its part to overcome fascism is something we can justifiably look back on with some pride (though we shouldn't allow it to get in the way of the uncomfortable truth -which is that the defeat of Hitler is something which sinister Uncle Joe can probably take more credit for...) ///
Calling your Uncle Joe 'sinister' doesn't completely detach yourself from his political leanings.
So the defeat of Hitler is more credited to Stalin eh?
Just because he disobeyed the Allies agreement and sent his troops to take Berlin doesn't give him any credit, just remember at the start of WW2 he was on the Nazis side.
Didn't we stand alone after being forced back to Dunkirk, didn't we then hold back the Nazis from invading England, didn't we then create the Arctic convoys so as to feed the Russian people and then didn't we along with our western Allies, fight mile after mile through Italy, France, Holland, Belgium and later Germany?
Yes I think we did more to defeat Hitler than Stalin ever did.
/// The fact that the UK did its part to overcome fascism is something we can justifiably look back on with some pride (though we shouldn't allow it to get in the way of the uncomfortable truth -which is that the defeat of Hitler is something which sinister Uncle Joe can probably take more credit for...) ///
Calling your Uncle Joe 'sinister' doesn't completely detach yourself from his political leanings.
So the defeat of Hitler is more credited to Stalin eh?
Just because he disobeyed the Allies agreement and sent his troops to take Berlin doesn't give him any credit, just remember at the start of WW2 he was on the Nazis side.
Didn't we stand alone after being forced back to Dunkirk, didn't we then hold back the Nazis from invading England, didn't we then create the Arctic convoys so as to feed the Russian people and then didn't we along with our western Allies, fight mile after mile through Italy, France, Holland, Belgium and later Germany?
Yes I think we did more to defeat Hitler than Stalin ever did.
The history of WWII is a mes. I think the UK can be proud of the part it played in winning, but to pretend that the defeats to the Soviets in the East were not at least as important, and probably more so, than anything else in the African or Western Theatres. As much as Stalin was allied with Hitler to start with, once Hitler betrayed that agreement he was lost. Beforehand... well Britain's victories in the Air in 1940 were important and vital, but Hitler started losing when he turned on Russia.
aog, an estimated 20 million Soviet citizens died in WW2, half of them civilians. Against 388,000 British military and civilians. (More Americans than British died, too, just in case their contribution should be forgotten.)
More than 40 Russians for every Briton.
I don't think the claim that the British did more than the Soviets to defeat Hitler holds water.
More than 40 Russians for every Briton.
I don't think the claim that the British did more than the Soviets to defeat Hitler holds water.
jake-the-peg
/// But wouldn't it be nice if they flew the flags there of all the countries that fought in those wars side by side ///
/// The German flag next to the French, the Britsh next to the Japanese ///
I am sure that even in death some who suffered in the hands of the Germans and the Japanese would turn in their graves at that very thought.
Should the the Lawrence family also join the killers of Stephen Lawrence in their forgiveness of each other?
/// But wouldn't it be nice if they flew the flags there of all the countries that fought in those wars side by side ///
/// The German flag next to the French, the Britsh next to the Japanese ///
I am sure that even in death some who suffered in the hands of the Germans and the Japanese would turn in their graves at that very thought.
Should the the Lawrence family also join the killers of Stephen Lawrence in their forgiveness of each other?
aog
from their entry into the war, the Soviets were engaged with never less than 70% of the German armed forces
WW2 was won on the eastern front and the Germans would have eventually been beaten even without us and the USA opening up the western front with the Normandy landings
Of course that would have led to Soviet domination of europe which was Churchill's big fear
That is why it is often said that the american intervention didn't so much save us from speaking German - it saved us from speaking Russian!
However, WW2 is a sequence of interdependencies and 'what ifs'
The British holding out meant significant German panzer forces left in France which could have been the factor needed to break through in Russia.
And of course, it provided a foothold in europe for us supplies to go via UK to the Soviets
from their entry into the war, the Soviets were engaged with never less than 70% of the German armed forces
WW2 was won on the eastern front and the Germans would have eventually been beaten even without us and the USA opening up the western front with the Normandy landings
Of course that would have led to Soviet domination of europe which was Churchill's big fear
That is why it is often said that the american intervention didn't so much save us from speaking German - it saved us from speaking Russian!
However, WW2 is a sequence of interdependencies and 'what ifs'
The British holding out meant significant German panzer forces left in France which could have been the factor needed to break through in Russia.
And of course, it provided a foothold in europe for us supplies to go via UK to the Soviets
Of course if we'd not had that treaty with Poland and kept neutral it's unlikely Hitler would have risked so much trying an invasion over the channel.
Then you'd probably have had either a Nazi or Russian mainland Europe or half and half until they collapsed the way dictatorships tend to - usually when the 'strong man' dies
Like Franco in Spain for example
Then you'd probably have had either a Nazi or Russian mainland Europe or half and half until they collapsed the way dictatorships tend to - usually when the 'strong man' dies
Like Franco in Spain for example
Sorry folks, guests arrived.........holiday makers.
jno...Yes....they were films based on WW2 events and that was my point in differentiating WW1 and WW2 from "our Jake"...we had entered an era of the media and heroes just made for films.
CJP...you spotted my deliberate mistake.....617 was the Dambusters and 633 a film based on another WW2 event.
jno...Yes....they were films based on WW2 events and that was my point in differentiating WW1 and WW2 from "our Jake"...we had entered an era of the media and heroes just made for films.
CJP...you spotted my deliberate mistake.....617 was the Dambusters and 633 a film based on another WW2 event.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.