4 ms·

Speaking of good-vs-evil, do you also see WWII veterans and military history in the same light? They got into war that no one asked for. I cannot imagine if US

Speaking of good-vs-evil, do you also see WWII veterans and military history in the same light? They got into war that no one asked for. I cannot imagine if US and allies had lost WWII. It is simply unimaginable. Aside: I find the WWII era military training/propaganda videos pretty entertaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QgXuhv7-54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QgXuhv7-54

lamontcg 5y ago
I view the veterans of the Abraham Lincoln brigade as having fought and sacrificed on the side of good. When the survivors later tried to join the US Army for the fight against Germans and WWII (which they viewed as a continuation of the same war they had already been fighting) many of the were labelled "premature antifascists" and rejected.
ilaksh 5y ago
Right, because there is this magical line in history where everything was different. It's just that the propaganda for that war was so incredibly effective for so long, it is nearly impossible to find people who see it in a realistic light. Normally the magic line goes the other way -- people think propaganda or such may have existed in the bad old days but in "modern times" of course everything is copacetic.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  What people don't realize is that the following: > In 1939, estimates of the Army's strength range between 174,000 and 200,000 soldiers, smaller than that of Portugal's, which ranked it 17th or 19th in the world in size. [1] Despite of the abundant resources, it was largely a sleeping nation militarily prior to WWII. Air Force was essentially non-existent. Pearl Harbor was the critical moment that kicked the US Military machine in top gear. It only accelerated in the Cold War where there was serious FUD. It is difficult to put into context without having lived in that era. Propaganda, whatever you think of it, was necessary to convince the tax payer for their own security as well recruit enough people to sustain defense. The allies had seen the eye of evil and walked into its belly so it was straight forward to sell. Today's generation is largely detached from that reality. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    “for their own security” Heard that one before. Last time I bought that line I gave 5 years of my life to Uncle Sam.
  - avgcorrection 5y ago
    Oh my. It’s almost as if the Soviet Union contributed a lot more bodies to the war than the nation that was separated from most of the war by two major bodies of water. But I’m sure happy that the American propaganda worked, or else the War would have surely been lost... This is hilarious, yet I’m not laughing. > The allies had seen the eye of evil and walked into its belly so it was straight forward to sell. Tell that to Poland.
kzrdude 5y ago
That's an example of a well-cemented "good-vs-evil" dichotomy in the sense that the story of good vs evil in WWII has been told and retold so many times, that people can't imagine arguing with it. The concepts of "good" and "evil" are interesting, for example the discussion of the Banality of Evil (Arendt) etc.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Yes, many philosophers (e.g. Nietsche) wrote of it. It is a pretty well established moral line today, completely undisputed - the holocaust, terrorism, etc. It is beyond political ideology.
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    If you accept the facts as presented in history books without critical review, sure.
    - cycomanic 5y ago
      I'm not sure how to read this, are you denying that the holocaust happened? I grew up during a time when quite a few witnesses were still alive and I did talk to some, no need to read a history book (although it definitely helps your overall formation as a reasonable person).
      - imwillofficial 5y ago
        I’m questioning the good vs evil narrative. In my lifetime I’ve seen it used to lay waste to entire countries, and I helped do it. I’m a little more skeptical now.
  - kzrdude 5y ago
    To say that any side was "undisputed good" would be a simplification too far - of WWII, but I imagine that's not what you mean.
aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
>It is simply unimaginable. WWII being the fight of good versus evil is the foundation myth of post-1945 western civilization. It is the central dogma of the western pseudo-religion, which prevents meaningful discussion of these matters.
- atq2119 5y ago
  Eh, I'd say the Holocaust makes a good argument in favour of it genuinely being a good vs evil thing. I mean, that certainly wasn't the only (or even main) motivation, but come on. The actual myth is that the West is/was systematically engaged on the good side in good vs evil conflicts, when in reality WWII was more of an exception in that regard.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    The origins of WWII have a lot to do with they way what WWI ended. Germany was blockaded and the german people were starved until they were forced to sign a very one-sided treaty. The holocaust, which is undeniably evil, is used to to hide all the other evils that lead up to WWII or were committed during it. This capped by the completely unnecessary nuclear bombing of Nagasaki by the US. WWII was not actually an exception, we just pretend it was.
    - aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
      Don’t forget the forced relocation of Germans after WWII, where the death toll is still debated, but could be as high as 2 million. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–1950) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germ... Also, the systematic destruction of civilian targets by allied bombing campaigns: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive Another example is the systematic starvation of German populace in the post-war years, due to the allord policy of deindustrialization. The average daily food intake was estimated at 1000kcal! And it was not a matter of food scarcity - it was a deliberate allied policy: >Germany received many offers from Western European nations to trade food for desperately needed coal and steel. Neither the Italians nor the Dutch could sell the vegetables that they had previously sold in Germany, with the consequence that the Dutch had to destroy considerable proportions of their crop. Denmark offered 150 tons of lard a month; Turkey offered hazelnuts; Norway offered fish and fish oil; Sweden offered considerable amounts of fats. However, the Allies disallowed the Germans to trade. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_plans_for_German_industry_after_World_War_II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_plans_for_German_indu...
avgcorrection 5y ago
You’re proving the point, are you not? The Nazis were evil, but that doesn’t imply that the allies fought against the Axis powers because they were good. You can do the right thing for the wrong or neutral reasons. “US and allies”—that the US fought the whole war with the rest of the allies as support is another artifact of Hollywood’s portrayal of WWII. Although it’s understandable that there are less American movies about the Eastern Front, so it’s not like that has to be caused by some propaganda effort.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  The western front was more or less a sideshow. All of the big battles were in the East. The Soviets kept bottled up a German force fully half as big as were fielded on the whole western front, in a little peninsula of Latvia ("Courland Pocket"), for almost a year. But the naval war in the Atlantic mattered. And, US supplies (particularly SPAM, and trucks, tires, and fuel) delivered through Iran were helpful late in the war. But aside from naval work that denied Germany South American resources, the Soviets could have done the whole job on their own, and would have overrun all of Europe. In particular, there is no evidence that British and US area bombing achieved anything, although point attacks on rail locomotives did.
  - avgcorrection 5y ago
    US supplies did matter. I should have been more specific: the boots-on-the-ground war effort of the US seems to be exaggerated in people’s minds.
watwut 5y ago
Fun fact: the "WWII veterans" group includes German veterans. They got into war many of them asked for. The good side in WWII includes Stalin and his regime. I do think that Hitler was bigger treat to everyone (including Easter Europeans themselves) and the alliance was needed. However, that does not mean Stalin represents "good guy". The anitisemitism was not limited to Germans. Plenty of non-Germans people cooperated with it for own benefit or out of own anti-semitism. That includes people who were victims themselves - but still disliked Jews. Also, closer to America, in movies American army simply can not possibly commit blunder, make really bad decisions (whether practically or morally). Real WWII featured a lot of those. Also, speaking about movies, in American war movies war essentially feel good and heroic. The good and heroes wins. civilians basically dont exist and literally never are a real character with personality, motivations or agency (as limited as it is). The damage dont to them, the moral choices they have to do or their reaction to it dont exist.

lamontcg 5y ago

I view the veterans of the Abraham Lincoln brigade as having fought and sacrificed on the side of good. When the survivors later tried to join the US Army for the fight against Germans and WWII (which they viewed as a continuation of the same war they had already been fighting) many of the were labelled "premature antifascists" and rejected.

ilaksh 5y ago

Right, because there is this magical line in history where everything was different. It's just that the propaganda for that war was so incredibly effective for so long, it is nearly impossible to find people who see it in a realistic light. Normally the magic line goes the other way -- people think propaganda or such may have existed in the bad old days but in "modern times" of course everything is copacetic.

systemvoltage 5y ago
What people don't realize is that the following: > In 1939, estimates of the Army's strength range between 174,000 and 200,000 soldiers, smaller than that of Portugal's, which ranked it 17th or 19th in the world in size. [1] Despite of the abundant resources, it was largely a sleeping nation militarily prior to WWII. Air Force was essentially non-existent. Pearl Harbor was the critical moment that kicked the US Military machine in top gear. It only accelerated in the Cold War where there was serious FUD. It is difficult to put into context without having lived in that era. Propaganda, whatever you think of it, was necessary to convince the tax payer for their own security as well recruit enough people to sustain defense. The allies had seen the eye of evil and walked into its belly so it was straight forward to sell. Today's generation is largely detached from that reality. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  “for their own security” Heard that one before. Last time I bought that line I gave 5 years of my life to Uncle Sam.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  Oh my. It’s almost as if the Soviet Union contributed a lot more bodies to the war than the nation that was separated from most of the war by two major bodies of water. But I’m sure happy that the American propaganda worked, or else the War would have surely been lost... This is hilarious, yet I’m not laughing. > The allies had seen the eye of evil and walked into its belly so it was straight forward to sell. Tell that to Poland.

kzrdude 5y ago

That's an example of a well-cemented "good-vs-evil" dichotomy in the sense that the story of good vs evil in WWII has been told and retold so many times, that people can't imagine arguing with it. The concepts of "good" and "evil" are interesting, for example the discussion of the Banality of Evil (Arendt) etc.

systemvoltage 5y ago
Yes, many philosophers (e.g. Nietsche) wrote of it. It is a pretty well established moral line today, completely undisputed - the holocaust, terrorism, etc. It is beyond political ideology.
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  If you accept the facts as presented in history books without critical review, sure.
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    I'm not sure how to read this, are you denying that the holocaust happened? I grew up during a time when quite a few witnesses were still alive and I did talk to some, no need to read a history book (although it definitely helps your overall formation as a reasonable person).
    - imwillofficial 5y ago
      I’m questioning the good vs evil narrative. In my lifetime I’ve seen it used to lay waste to entire countries, and I helped do it. I’m a little more skeptical now.
- kzrdude 5y ago
  To say that any side was "undisputed good" would be a simplification too far - of WWII, but I imagine that's not what you mean.

aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago

>It is simply unimaginable. WWII being the fight of good versus evil is the foundation myth of post-1945 western civilization. It is the central dogma of the western pseudo-religion, which prevents meaningful discussion of these matters.

atq2119 5y ago
Eh, I'd say the Holocaust makes a good argument in favour of it genuinely being a good vs evil thing. I mean, that certainly wasn't the only (or even main) motivation, but come on. The actual myth is that the West is/was systematically engaged on the good side in good vs evil conflicts, when in reality WWII was more of an exception in that regard.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  The origins of WWII have a lot to do with they way what WWI ended. Germany was blockaded and the german people were starved until they were forced to sign a very one-sided treaty. The holocaust, which is undeniably evil, is used to to hide all the other evils that lead up to WWII or were committed during it. This capped by the completely unnecessary nuclear bombing of Nagasaki by the US. WWII was not actually an exception, we just pretend it was.
  - aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
    Don’t forget the forced relocation of Germans after WWII, where the death toll is still debated, but could be as high as 2 million. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–1950) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germ... Also, the systematic destruction of civilian targets by allied bombing campaigns: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive Another example is the systematic starvation of German populace in the post-war years, due to the allord policy of deindustrialization. The average daily food intake was estimated at 1000kcal! And it was not a matter of food scarcity - it was a deliberate allied policy: >Germany received many offers from Western European nations to trade food for desperately needed coal and steel. Neither the Italians nor the Dutch could sell the vegetables that they had previously sold in Germany, with the consequence that the Dutch had to destroy considerable proportions of their crop. Denmark offered 150 tons of lard a month; Turkey offered hazelnuts; Norway offered fish and fish oil; Sweden offered considerable amounts of fats. However, the Allies disallowed the Germans to trade. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_plans_for_German_industry_after_World_War_II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_plans_for_German_indu...

avgcorrection 5y ago

You’re proving the point, are you not? The Nazis were evil, but that doesn’t imply that the allies fought against the Axis powers because they were good. You can do the right thing for the wrong or neutral reasons. “US and allies”—that the US fought the whole war with the rest of the allies as support is another artifact of Hollywood’s portrayal of WWII. Although it’s understandable that there are less American movies about the Eastern Front, so it’s not like that has to be caused by some propaganda effort.

ncmncm 5y ago
The western front was more or less a sideshow. All of the big battles were in the East. The Soviets kept bottled up a German force fully half as big as were fielded on the whole western front, in a little peninsula of Latvia ("Courland Pocket"), for almost a year. But the naval war in the Atlantic mattered. And, US supplies (particularly SPAM, and trucks, tires, and fuel) delivered through Iran were helpful late in the war. But aside from naval work that denied Germany South American resources, the Soviets could have done the whole job on their own, and would have overrun all of Europe. In particular, there is no evidence that British and US area bombing achieved anything, although point attacks on rail locomotives did.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  US supplies did matter. I should have been more specific: the boots-on-the-ground war effort of the US seems to be exaggerated in people’s minds.

watwut 5y ago

Fun fact: the "WWII veterans" group includes German veterans. They got into war many of them asked for. The good side in WWII includes Stalin and his regime. I do think that Hitler was bigger treat to everyone (including Easter Europeans themselves) and the alliance was needed. However, that does not mean Stalin represents "good guy". The anitisemitism was not limited to Germans. Plenty of non-Germans people cooperated with it for own benefit or out of own anti-semitism. That includes people who were victims themselves - but still disliked Jews. Also, closer to America, in movies American army simply can not possibly commit blunder, make really bad decisions (whether practically or morally). Real WWII featured a lot of those. Also, speaking about movies, in American war movies war essentially feel good and heroic. The good and heroes wins. civilians basically dont exist and literally never are a real character with personality, motivations or agency (as limited as it is). The damage dont to them, the moral choices they have to do or their reaction to it dont exist.