Could All Help With Signing My Petition
Seasonal1 min 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, manpower is one way of measuring military strength. My point was more that, for every dead Briton you honour for preserving your freedoms, you might reasonably honour 40 Soviet citizens. I'm not fussed if you don't; but claiming the British played a greater part in victory than the USSR did just isn't correct.
Kromovaracun
AOG
/// I cannot think of a credible military historian who believes that the British contribution to WW2 outweighed that of the Soviet Union. The numbers just aren't even comparable. ///
I will repeat this for the last time for the sake of the slow learners.
I never said the British alone outweighed that of the Soviet Union, I said the Western Allies
AOG
/// I cannot think of a credible military historian who believes that the British contribution to WW2 outweighed that of the Soviet Union. The numbers just aren't even comparable. ///
I will repeat this for the last time for the sake of the slow learners.
I never said the British alone outweighed that of the Soviet Union, I said the Western Allies
Given that WW2 ended in 1945 and you had to be 18 to sign up, that puts AOG at a minimum of 85 years old, making him one of the oldest ABers around. Though he is ancient and bigoted, I don't sense that he is of this sort of age magnitude, his moralising based on his experiences of living through WW2 age
Children, children!!
Let’s remember jake’s original question:
“Why are we so obsessed with WWII and are we ever going to get over it? “
I’m surprised you do not ask the same question each time the matter of slavery is remembered jake. But then again, perhaps I’m not.
As has already been said, the fact is that there are still a considerable number of people alive who endured WW2. True, anybody much under 80 is unlikely to have strong recollections of it but anybody over that age will. So let’s have just a little think about what it is you think they should simply “get over”.
Many young children from the big cities were evacuated, torn from their mothers (their fathers probably in the forces) and forced to live with strangers in strange surroundings. Those who remained faced nightly bombing raids, cowering in a hole under the stairs or in a dug-out in the back garden (as if that would have afforded any protection). Basic food was rationed, luxuries were unavailable (and both these features remained for many years after the end of the war). Their education was disrupted, many of them lost their fathers and sometimes their mothers, and many more lost their homes, having been “bombed out”. Compare this with today’s youngsters who chuck a strop at being denied the latest i-Phone or a meal from McDonalds.
Young adult males were mainly conscripted into the forces (or the coal mines) and huge numbers of them (fathers, brothers and sons) lost their lives. Many more were left physically or psychologically impaired for the rest of their lives. Those who were lucky enough to return came back to a country almost completely in ruins. Although they survived they effectively lost the best years of their lives.
Young women were forced to work in heavy industries (when many of them had not worked at all) and those with children faced the added problems of absent fathers, children possibly evacuated and possibly being rendered homeless into the bargain.
None of this was of Britain’s making and discussing “who won the war” (be it the British, the Americans or the Russians) somewhat misses the point of jake’s question. So, before we suggest that the nation “gets over it” just have a think about the many, many people still alive who were effected in some of the ways I have mentioned. No, I was not there (thank God) but I don’t expect the people who were will “get over it” in quite the same way as somebody who had just lost a fiver in the street. The least we can do is to show our support for them whilst they’re still around. To suggest they should get over it is crass and insulting.
Let’s remember jake’s original question:
“Why are we so obsessed with WWII and are we ever going to get over it? “
I’m surprised you do not ask the same question each time the matter of slavery is remembered jake. But then again, perhaps I’m not.
As has already been said, the fact is that there are still a considerable number of people alive who endured WW2. True, anybody much under 80 is unlikely to have strong recollections of it but anybody over that age will. So let’s have just a little think about what it is you think they should simply “get over”.
Many young children from the big cities were evacuated, torn from their mothers (their fathers probably in the forces) and forced to live with strangers in strange surroundings. Those who remained faced nightly bombing raids, cowering in a hole under the stairs or in a dug-out in the back garden (as if that would have afforded any protection). Basic food was rationed, luxuries were unavailable (and both these features remained for many years after the end of the war). Their education was disrupted, many of them lost their fathers and sometimes their mothers, and many more lost their homes, having been “bombed out”. Compare this with today’s youngsters who chuck a strop at being denied the latest i-Phone or a meal from McDonalds.
Young adult males were mainly conscripted into the forces (or the coal mines) and huge numbers of them (fathers, brothers and sons) lost their lives. Many more were left physically or psychologically impaired for the rest of their lives. Those who were lucky enough to return came back to a country almost completely in ruins. Although they survived they effectively lost the best years of their lives.
Young women were forced to work in heavy industries (when many of them had not worked at all) and those with children faced the added problems of absent fathers, children possibly evacuated and possibly being rendered homeless into the bargain.
None of this was of Britain’s making and discussing “who won the war” (be it the British, the Americans or the Russians) somewhat misses the point of jake’s question. So, before we suggest that the nation “gets over it” just have a think about the many, many people still alive who were effected in some of the ways I have mentioned. No, I was not there (thank God) but I don’t expect the people who were will “get over it” in quite the same way as somebody who had just lost a fiver in the street. The least we can do is to show our support for them whilst they’re still around. To suggest they should get over it is crass and insulting.
here's what you said, aog:
//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. //
You clearly distinguish in your first paragraph between "we" and "our western allies". So when in the second paraggraph you say WE did more to defeat Hitler than Stalin, you are not talking about the western allies. You're talking about us.
And you're wrong.
//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. //
You clearly distinguish in your first paragraph between "we" and "our western allies". So when in the second paraggraph you say WE did more to defeat Hitler than Stalin, you are not talking about the western allies. You're talking about us.
And you're wrong.
"I never said the British alone outweighed that of the Soviet Union, I said the Western Allies "
Fine. The point still stands - the campaigns you mentioned earlier in Africa/Italy were absolutely dwarfed in scale of resources and combatants by the Eastern front.
Tying these up certainly wasn't insignificant by any stretch, but you'd be hard pressed to find any credible historian who deems their absence as decisive to victory in the Eastern front.
So it isn't Stalinist or even sympathetic to Stalin to insinuate that the Eastern front had a greater role in effecting the Nazi surrender.
Apologise for implying that I am a Stalinist.
Fine. The point still stands - the campaigns you mentioned earlier in Africa/Italy were absolutely dwarfed in scale of resources and combatants by the Eastern front.
Tying these up certainly wasn't insignificant by any stretch, but you'd be hard pressed to find any credible historian who deems their absence as decisive to victory in the Eastern front.
So it isn't Stalinist or even sympathetic to Stalin to insinuate that the Eastern front had a greater role in effecting the Nazi surrender.
Apologise for implying that I am a Stalinist.
aog,were you ever in a battle and thought "I hope the commander knows what's going on, because we certainly don't"
Is your assessment of history so innocent that you really think that one person who lived at the time, in one place, one country, in one armed force, is better placed than one who has access to the accounts of many people from all sides and who can see all government records, all statistics that apply, all military records after the event? That's what historians have and you do not.
Is your assessment of history so innocent that you really think that one person who lived at the time, in one place, one country, in one armed force, is better placed than one who has access to the accounts of many people from all sides and who can see all government records, all statistics that apply, all military records after the event? That's what historians have and you do not.
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.