4 ms·

I think it's near impossible to tell the story of "The Real X" -- that's a pretty sensational/trollish way to title something -- but if one is going to make suc

I think it's near impossible to tell the story of "The Real X" -- that's a pretty sensational/trollish way to title something -- but if one is going to make such a rhetorical gesture there should be a lot more to back it up than what is given here. It's a complete American fantasy that our forces played a major role in the downfall of Germany, or that our blood sacrifice was particularly crucial to the outcome of any aspect of the war as a whole. Certainly U.S. resources like oil and materiel were critical to Allied success, not to mention the atom bomb in the defeat of Japan, and the (severely delayed) opening of a western front in France 1944 helped contain Soviet victories (in other words, impacted the Cold War), but it is pretty insulting to the 20X more USSR trooops who died and the nearly 10x more Chinese forces who perished to say that an account of the "Real War" could possibly exclude them like this.

yamtaddle 4y ago
> It's a complete American fantasy that our forces played a major role in the downfall of Germany, or that our blood sacrifice was particularly crucial to the outcome of any aspect of the war as a whole. Certainly U.S. resources like oil and materiel were critical to Allied success, not to mention the atom bomb in the defeat of Japan, and the (severely delayed) opening of a western front in France 1944 helped contain Soviet victories (in other words, impacted the Cold War), but it is pretty insulting to the 20X more USSR trooops who died and the many many Chinese forces who perished to say that an account of the "Real War" could possibly exclude them like this. Please indicate which part of the article is claiming this. > I think it's near impossible to tell the story of "The Real X" -- that's a pretty sensational/trollish way to title something I think most people find such a title for a piece like this is appropriate and communicates its meaning just fine, if they're not going out of their way to find "gotchas".
- eduction 4y ago
  My point is pretty simple: It was not an American war, America was not a major party to the horrors of the war (except as a perpetrator of nuclear attacks on civilians), and an article purporting to describe the real visceral combat traumas of world war 2 would include descriptions from forces of countries that lost millions in the war. The piece only makes sense, and is only interesting, in the context of a fantasy world in which US forces played a much more decisive and heroic role than they did. It’s jingoism.
notacoward 4y ago
Has it occurred to you that Soviet and Chinese primary sources are less readily available? Far less, almost to the point of impossibility. It's not like those governments were forthcoming about anything for decades afterward. Also what, exactly, would adding those change about his essential point regarding the horrors of war and how they're portrayed? Did Chinese or Soviet bodies blow up differently? Immediacy and authenticity were essential to the themes he was addressing, so he used the most suitable sources available to him. What's wrong with that? Turning this into an argument about "credit" for who "won" the war seems more than a bit distasteful (especially while war is being fought over the very ground you're so quick to treat as a game board), and also beside the point.
- eduction 4y ago
  I know (and can see from this thread) that emotions run high around anything touching on the ex USSR but I don’t think the current war in Ukraine is at all germane to this article from 1989 about ww2 (or to the content of my posts on HN about it).
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - notacoward 4y ago
    It's just as germane as turning a story about the (almost universal) horrors of war into some kind of scorekeeping exercise, and nobody's showing more emotion than you. Why don't you try addressing my main point about accessibility and incremental value of primary sources, instead of picking one literally parenthetical comment to quibble about? It's the same thing you did with OP: sniping instead of engaging. Contrary to guidelines BTW. Please try to do better.
    - eduction 4y ago
      Missed this at the time. Belated thoughts: Hmm. I didn't address the point about primary sources because it didn't seem like the main point. Right after you brought that issue up, the next sentence seemed to cast aside the importance of the issue: "Also what, exactly, would adding those [sources] change about his essential point..." I wasn't sure the key point, and the last sentence seemed to be the most likely crux of what you were saying, but maybe I misread. Maybe you're right about the sources, I can't claim to have looked for books or papers by ex Soviet soldiers. Although given how many Soviet soldiers there were, and given the USSR's incentives to highlight German brutality, are you sure on this score that there are not raw recollections of brutal war in USSR in ww2? Anyway, I think a piece by the same author without such a sweeping and judgmental title ("real" is a very loaded word in this context that, as I've said, I don't think is earned here) would work just as well.

yamtaddle 4y ago

> It's a complete American fantasy that our forces played a major role in the downfall of Germany, or that our blood sacrifice was particularly crucial to the outcome of any aspect of the war as a whole. Certainly U.S. resources like oil and materiel were critical to Allied success, not to mention the atom bomb in the defeat of Japan, and the (severely delayed) opening of a western front in France 1944 helped contain Soviet victories (in other words, impacted the Cold War), but it is pretty insulting to the 20X more USSR trooops who died and the many many Chinese forces who perished to say that an account of the "Real War" could possibly exclude them like this. Please indicate which part of the article is claiming this. > I think it's near impossible to tell the story of "The Real X" -- that's a pretty sensational/trollish way to title something I think most people find such a title for a piece like this is appropriate and communicates its meaning just fine, if they're not going out of their way to find "gotchas".

eduction 4y ago
My point is pretty simple: It was not an American war, America was not a major party to the horrors of the war (except as a perpetrator of nuclear attacks on civilians), and an article purporting to describe the real visceral combat traumas of world war 2 would include descriptions from forces of countries that lost millions in the war. The piece only makes sense, and is only interesting, in the context of a fantasy world in which US forces played a much more decisive and heroic role than they did. It’s jingoism.

notacoward 4y ago

Has it occurred to you that Soviet and Chinese primary sources are less readily available? Far less, almost to the point of impossibility. It's not like those governments were forthcoming about anything for decades afterward. Also what, exactly, would adding those change about his essential point regarding the horrors of war and how they're portrayed? Did Chinese or Soviet bodies blow up differently? Immediacy and authenticity were essential to the themes he was addressing, so he used the most suitable sources available to him. What's wrong with that? Turning this into an argument about "credit" for who "won" the war seems more than a bit distasteful (especially while war is being fought over the very ground you're so quick to treat as a game board), and also beside the point.

eduction 4y ago
I know (and can see from this thread) that emotions run high around anything touching on the ex USSR but I don’t think the current war in Ukraine is at all germane to this article from 1989 about ww2 (or to the content of my posts on HN about it).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- notacoward 4y ago
  It's just as germane as turning a story about the (almost universal) horrors of war into some kind of scorekeeping exercise, and nobody's showing more emotion than you. Why don't you try addressing my main point about accessibility and incremental value of primary sources, instead of picking one literally parenthetical comment to quibble about? It's the same thing you did with OP: sniping instead of engaging. Contrary to guidelines BTW. Please try to do better.
  - eduction 4y ago
    Missed this at the time. Belated thoughts: Hmm. I didn't address the point about primary sources because it didn't seem like the main point. Right after you brought that issue up, the next sentence seemed to cast aside the importance of the issue: "Also what, exactly, would adding those [sources] change about his essential point..." I wasn't sure the key point, and the last sentence seemed to be the most likely crux of what you were saying, but maybe I misread. Maybe you're right about the sources, I can't claim to have looked for books or papers by ex Soviet soldiers. Although given how many Soviet soldiers there were, and given the USSR's incentives to highlight German brutality, are you sure on this score that there are not raw recollections of brutal war in USSR in ww2? Anyway, I think a piece by the same author without such a sweeping and judgmental title ("real" is a very loaded word in this context that, as I've said, I don't think is earned here) would work just as well.