World War II - a point of view

[wisielec]

World War II - a point of view

Recent events in the media made me rethink some of my views. And form some questions.I'll explain: russian public tv emitted a "historical" show. The explanation of WW2 and invading Poland (signing Ribbentrop-Molotov pact before that) was this: Russia was threatened by a non agression pact made between Poland and Germany in 1933 (which was a laugh, Hitler never planned on keeping his word), which led to anticipating strike in 1939 hand in hand with Germany. Thus the blame for starting the war was...Poland was to blame...There were more points to that "approach" but lets leeave it at that.First question: how the young russian generation feel about that kind of historical lie? Or do you think that Russia never invaded Poland, that it was no aggresion but "protecting its borders"? I really'd like to know.Overall I began to think that there was a neglegance in terms of gaming (war shooters) and polish contribution in allied forces. All we get is the marines, special forces or russian army....although history shows great accomplishments from polish troops: Falaise, Marketgarden, Monte Cassino, Tobruk, Battle over Britain...Warsaw Uprising.but...Second question: would international gaming community would be interested in polish point of view? The bitter glory? Kind of Call of Duty but following polish troops during WW2? I ask if the historical facts are relevant to the story and action that takes place in war games?I wonder will I ever be given to play a decent game fighting as a polish soldier...CDP, maybe you should talk to Infinity Ward, make some plans, eh? ;P

 

[Vattier]

I think in games most important is to be the one in attack. Mostly we play allies since Normandy, Russia since Stalingrad etc. Poland was most of the time in defence.First there was German attack, we were defending and falling back, because of superior power of theirs. But we should mention that Poles managed to fight back III Reich so strong, that they had to call in all their forces - if France attacked at that time instead of drinking champaign that they have no war in their home, they would attack German bunkers with few old keepers who were supposed to keep bunkers clean. Nearly all troops were sent to Poland and the loses we made Reich had to heal for few months. But our "allies" bombed Germany with leaflets and nothing more.Then there was infamous Soviet attack. Now what chances we had against attack from two sides by multiple more enemies and with newer weapon? Still we took many down. 1000 held 40 000 in Wizna, we managed to hold up everything for much longer than anybody expected. We gave a lot of time to our "allies" to help us. But they left us alone. They thought it was a good idea - just like they did with Czechs, "let's let Hitler get some lands out there, maybe he'll leave us alone". I think if Czechs were defending, they had wonderful bunkers on their border with Germany, Poland would come with help and II WW would've never happen. But Czechs were threatened, their government signed a pact and Hitler took it. So, as they were defeated, Poland took a small piece of land that we were arguing about with Czechs.I went out of the topic a bit We were attacked by Russia, it's not the thing they are proud about. In fact they try to hide this attack. "We were helping Belarusians and Ukrainians" and so on. Yea, they truly gave freedom for these nations... Soviet "freedom", but anyway nobody want to hear that Soviets were bad - look what's in all games: "wonderful Red Army, victory over Nazis, freedom", yea, some bullshit... If we show them as aggressors, if we show Katyń again... nobody wishes to hear it - whole world would wish to forget Poland.Not important what Poland did. We helped A LOT over Britain? We took Monte Cassino? We held Tobruk? Who cares, when "west" wishes to have peace? They forgot all that, just to set "Uncle Joe" (Stalin) calm. They gave away Poland to Soviets and stopped caring for the nation who fought "for freedom our and yours". Now who wishes to hear the truth, that these wonderful allies left one of them alone. First time in 1939, then in 1945. That's why there are no games with Poles - it would force world to admit they left us alone.

 

[wisielec]

snip

I understand the frustration but I want to keep this as much peacful conversation as possible, civil that is So dont generalise, dont accuse other countries etc.

Spoiler

zadałem konkretne pytania, nie odpowiedziałeś na żadne...podzielam Twój pogląd, ale nie wywlekajmy takich brudów bo nikt na wątek nie odpowie...ok?

 

[Vattier]

Okay... so let's clear it up ;DFirst - there's no frustration, I'm calm.Second - I don't try to make other countries apologize for it. I just would like to see that world admit that that was the history and not try to forget. Remember Katyń? Whole world would like either to forget or to set Russia guilty. It happened, it's fault of Soviets and Stalin, Russia is something different than Soviet Union and Stalin is dead - still they try to hide this historical fact And I don't generalise - You asked in first question young Russians and in second - international community, as the community of countries outside Poland. So they are not pointed into me... Then what I did? Said something more about II WW. Why? Look at what I said. I pointed how we were forgotten. And in schools they rarely teach about forgotten things, right? So there it is - world forgot and should be reminded about this all. Many won't be happy about reminding them about something they wished to forget about. But if I don't remind - it would be just as if I would've forgotten. And I can't do that, because I don't like the idea of forgetting about all these people who gave their life for freedom and peace. It's like trying to forget about Pearl Harbour for USA. Now You get it?

Spoiler

Odpowiedziałem wbrew pozorom na oba Twoje pytania. Zaznaczyłem, że świat nadal nie chce się dowiedzieć o historii - także młodzi Rosjanie. Oraz, że społeczeństwa (a raczej osoby starające się je ukształtować) zachodnich krajów nie są zainteresowani Polskim punktem widzenia - bo to by stawiało (w wielu przypadkach) ich kraj w złym świetle.I powtórzę - wywlekać takie "brudy" to obowiązek. Światu udało się zapomnieć o nas przez takie podejście - nie wywlekajmy "brudów". Brudów? Nie nazywaj brudem poświęcenia Polaków, nawet zmarnowanego przez naszych sojuszników.

 

[Liwra]

Polish thread on international forum? ;p

 

[Gamewidow]

Well i, for one, would be very interested in hearing the Polish side of things ... it's not like you get to hear much of it over here. eace:and i think there is a lot of interest in playing an underdog, so the market probably does existCanada had the relative advantage of being too far away for the soviets to bother with ... but we were used as cannon fodder by the allied troops. "Oh! there's a nearly untakeable beach? well send in the canadians, who cares about them?"

 

[Corylea.723]

There's a lot I don't know about World War II. Every history class I've ever had has been pretty bad; I learned a lot more by reading on my own, though I've mostly read about other periods than WWII.But there is one thing I know. When talking about these topics, it becomes very easy to see groups as monolithic -- as "THE Germans" or "THE Russians" or "THE French." But there is no "THE Nationality;" there are only individual people who are members of that nationality. So it wasn't THE French who screwed up by failing to attack Germany while "THE Poles" had them occupied -- it was one individual French general who made that decision, a guy who's very probably dead by now. In my experience, seeing millions of people as a single entity rarely makes a person happy. Large groups of people often suck; inidividual people are usually pretty nice.As for games, I think those are mostly made with marketing in mind, not politics. The people who make games want to sell as many games as possible, so they want the game to excite gamers. Usually this means giving players the opportunity to play one of the most powerful members of the team that won, historically, or the opportunity to play the most powerful member of the opposition. There are certain types of strategy games that appeal to people who think it's interesting to play a team that has great potential but that isn't in a very good position when the game starts; I think shooters are far less likely to try to incorporate this sort of subtlety. I don't know whether shooter players would want to play a Pole during WWII. But if you guys want to talk about it -- either about the history or about what it would be like as a game -- I'm happy to listen. I don't usually play shooters, myself -- like Geralt, I prefer not to hunt humans -- but if CDPR made a WWII shooter with the opportunity to play a Polish soldier, I'd at least try it.

Spoiler

Talking to yourselves in Polish in front of us feels like having parents spell words in front of a small child. "Don't tell the kid that we're going to the d-o-c-t-o-r, or he might get upset."

 

[wisielec]

Spoiler

Odpowiedziałem wbrew pozorom na oba Twoje pytania. Zaznaczyłem, że świat nadal nie chce się dowiedzieć o historii - także młodzi Rosjanie. Oraz, że społeczeństwa (a raczej osoby starające się je ukształtować) zachodnich krajów nie są zainteresowani Polskim punktem widzenia - bo to by stawiało (w wielu przypadkach) ich kraj w złym świetle.I powtórzę - wywlekać takie "brudy" to obowiązek. Światu udało się zapomnieć o nas przez takie podejście - nie wywlekajmy "brudów". Brudów? Nie nazywaj brudem poświęcenia Polaków, nawet zmarnowanego przez naszych sojuszników.

Spoiler

W pełni rozumiem i zgadzam się, ale mnie nie zrozumiałeś - pisząc brudy miałem na myśli moralność i postępowanie naszych wrogów i aliantów. daleki jestem od zapominania na rzecz łagodzenia stosunków...zapytałem o opinię obcokrajowców - graczy, czy zainteresowani byliby "alternatywnym spojrzeniem na WW2", czy interesuje ich heroizm polskich żołnierzy et cetera.

Polish thread on international forum? ;p

Yep, it looks like it ;DI hope we won't stray from my initial post...game widow - well I can tell you that some facts describe polish troops far away from "underdog" ...but that is another story I guess. And we can agree that the minority in allied troops got treated the wrong kind of way...to do impossible sometimes. That is why my astonishement - polish troops fought against all odds on many occasions but never erned the recognition for it...that is what I find strange...

 

[wisielec]

When talking about these topics, it becomes very easy to see groups as monolithic -- as "THE Germans" or "THE Russians" or "THE French." But there is no "THE Nationality;" there are only individual people who are members of that nationality. So it wasn't THE French who screwed up by failing to attack Germany while "THE Poles" had them occupied -- it was one individual French general who made that decision, a guy who's very probably dead by now. In my experience, seeing millions of people as a single entity rarely makes a person happy. Large groups of people often suck; inidividual people are usually pretty nice

I totally agree..that is why I dont get the animosity between Russia and Poland...somehow we cant get along politically and historically...and recent poll in Russia showed that we are pretty high in the "enemy" standards

As for games, I think those are mostly made with marketing in mind, not politics. The people who make games want to sell as many games as possible, so they want the game to excite gamers. Usually this means giving players the opportunity to play one of the most powerful members of the team that won, historically, or the opportunity to play the most powerful member of the opposition.

Yes, but poles, australians or other were pretty much as part of this "big winner" as others and contributed a lot...so... anyway thanks for listening

 

[TC_Coyote]

An interesting topic...I'll have to read through the thread more thoroughly when I have a chance.Couple of notes from skimming through, tho:1)

I think in games most important is to be the one in attack.

Well, that'd depend on the individual gamer's style of play. Personally, I'm one of those who in strategy games tends to just build up a nice defendable location and blast anything that comes close to it. And only after that do I start conducting raids.2)

if France attacked at that time instead of drinking champaign that they have no war in their home, they would attack German bunkers with few old keepers who were supposed to keep bunkers clean.

....the problem with using "if" in a historical context is that there's an infinite amount of alternative scenarios. If the Allies hadn't crushed Germany economically in the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, there may not have been a WWII to begin with (reportedly the economist Keynes was a member of the British delegation and said as much at the time, that the treaty guaranteed nothing but that another war would occur within two decades.....he was reportedly told to shut up or he'd be charged with treason for suggesting such a thing). For that matter, there was a pretty even chance the US would've entered the first World War on Germany's side -- which would've introduced a whole bunch of different scenarios that would've headed off the eventual causes of WWII.3)

It's like trying to forget about Pearl Harbour for USA. Now You get it?

Should I note we _still_ have conspiracy nuts over here who think that Roosevelt had advance warning of Pearl Harbor and allowed it to occur because he wanted an excuse to get the US into "another European war"? ....yes, the '9/11 Truthers' are not a new phenomenon, and anti-war sentiment in the US was higher prior to the US entry into WWII than it's been for any war since then . The majority of the US was isolationist and their position -- prior to Pearl Harbor -- was "we lost too many lives and too much money fighting for Europe last time. If they want to kill each other again, let them."....and on another historical topic.... A Polish cultural group has taken over a corner of the International Hall at the local Oktoberfest this year and have posted a number of old photographs regarding the Polish community in my area. One of them is of an inscription on a statue of Tadeusz Kościuszko in Cleveland. The text:

"I come to fight as a volunteer for American Independence," said Kosciuszko."What can you do?" asked Washington."Try me." Was the reply.

 

[wisielec]

"I come to fight as a volunteer for American Independence," said Kosciuszko."What can you do?" asked Washington."Try me." Was the reply.

Funny! Thanks!Indeed, Kościuszko did a lot, europe and america...true genius of his times I would say. Another one was Puławski who formed US cavalry...nevermind I got back to work and I began to read news, and the comments about ww2 70th anniversary. A week of bliss and again I am pissed...maan, why people cant get along really?Its tiring. Its when the "nationalism" comes boiling in my blood. I think europe and US have to understand one thing: Polands history was falsified, changed and abused for 50-60 years after the war. And it seems it still is. There are so many things that are "classified" (US and GB) but could shed a new light on events when treaties were signed and on polish leaders demises or dissapearing, communistic parties winning the elections and so on... I reccomend "I saw Poland betrayed" by Arthur Lane Bliss, US ambasador if anyones interested.A few yeears back England supposed to make public documents on gen Sikorski fatal flight...but they classified them for another 50 years...why? What is in those files? Anyone want to make a guess?So, yes, some polish citizens are (over) sensitive about our history. because its really complicated, too many powers involved, too many bad things happened, and its still a wound that didnt heal properly. Poland took the greatest casualties and damage (proportionally speaking). Most intelligence (people), and economy were sistematically and utterly destroyed, our potential was seriously crippled...and it continued after WW2 ended.But on most occasions it seems world want to forget some things, thats why we are rumbling so much...even on game forums sorryfeel free to STFU me :teeth:

 

[TC_Coyote]

Funny! Thanks!

Can't remember which series it was...but one of the Law & Order (cop/courtroom type tv shows) series several years back had one of the main characters interviewing a shop owner about a customer (the killer in that episode). If memory serves the dialogue went as follows:"And he was Russian. Me? I'm Polish. We don't like the Russians so much. They kept invading, you see."

Polands history was falsified, changed and abused for 50-60 years after the war. And it seems it still is.

Well.....to some extent _all_ nations histories are falsified. I recall back in high school my uncle gave me a book for Christmas whose title was "Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths of American History" In the case of Poland and other countries in that region, I think part of the problem is simple lack of knowledge in the West. I know most of my European history classes in grade school (back in the 1980s) focused primarily on Western Europe. Anything east of Germany didn't get much coverage. In part, this was probably a result of the Cold War. Anything 'over there' could be lumped together as 'the Soviets and their allies' (Warsaw Pact countries, to use the western name). ....oh, and before anyone brings up the various 'US students can't locate (country) on a map' studies Europe seems so fond of: In my 8th grade history class we had to memorize all the countries and capitol cities, and be able to locate them on a map. ...thankfully, however, the teacher didn't force us to learn all the new ones when halfway through the school year the USSR dissolved.Plus, admitting Poland and other countries got screwed over in post-WWII agreements would mean certain Allied leaders made "mistakes". (read as: sold other countries down the river to come to an agreement with Stalin). And given some of those leaders are icons to certain political groups....trust me, I had an argument with a liberal individual a few months back on another subject (economics/The Great Depression) who kept insisting Franklin Roosevelt could do no wrong on any subject. (Outcome of said discussion, btw: The individual finally declared Economics to "not be worth studying" since it didn't give him the answers he "already knows to be true"). (NOTE: I'm not trying to start a political argument here over the merits of FDR in US politics. The man did some great things, but he also had his faults, just like any President. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you can find some conservatives who would insist just as strongly that Reagan could do no wrong.)Interestingly, General Patton was in favor of continuing full speed ahead through Berlin and all the way into Russia to evict Stalin as well. If memory serves, it was Churchill who put the brakes on anything along those lines on the basis that while the US could have bore the costs in terms of economy and human lives for a bit longer, England had lost far too many men at that point for the country to support any attempts to push the Russians back. ....this would also be the origin of many of the "Who ordered Patton's death?" conspiracy theories out there -- some have a Russian spy killing him as a potential threat, others have FDR or Churchill ordering his death because he'd become inconvenient to keep around.

 

[Vattier]

I think in games most important is to be the one in attack.

Well, that'd depend on the individual gamer's style of play. Personally, I'm one of those who in strategy games tends to just build up a nice defendable location and blast anything that comes close to it. And only after that do I start conducting raids.

But I thought about FPS There are some strategies with Poland (like Hearts Of Iron 2) and September campaign.

if France attacked at that time instead of drinking champaign that they have no war in their home, they would attack German bunkers with few old keepers who were supposed to keep bunkers clean.

....the problem with using "if" in a historical context is that there's an infinite amount of alternative scenarios. If the Allies hadn't crushed Germany economically in the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, there may not have been a WWII to begin with (reportedly the economist Keynes was a member of the British delegation and said as much at the time, that the treaty guaranteed nothing but that another war would occur within two decades.....he was reportedly told to shut up or he'd be charged with treason for suggesting such a thing). For that matter, there was a pretty even chance the US would've entered the first World War on Germany's side -- which would've introduced a whole bunch of different scenarios that would've headed off the eventual causes of WWII.

Okay, there are "if" and they are in a way pointless, true. But France and Great Britain were in alliance with us. Alliance I understand as "we help, when one of us is attacked, by fighting his enemies", not as "we throw leaflets over enemy of our ally and declare fake-war, hoping we won't be attacked". Of course, later, as You said, FDR sold us to USSR. Well, we were in England, over Japan, in Northern Africa, in Italy (Monte Cassino), we were on western frontline, defending France, then recapturing it, we even fought side by side with USSR, that struck us so strong before. So, yea. Comparing these betrayals to some "if"-ing about history is... whatever.

It's like trying to forget about Pearl Harbour for USA. Now You get it?

Should I note we _still_ have conspiracy nuts over here who think that Roosevelt had advance warning of Pearl Harbor and allowed it to occur because he wanted an excuse to get the US into "another European war"? ....yes, the '9/11 Truthers' are not a new phenomenon, and anti-war sentiment in the US was higher prior to the US entry into WWII than it's been for any war since then . The majority of the US was isolationist and their position -- prior to Pearl Harbor -- was "we lost too many lives and too much money fighting for Europe last time. If they want to kill each other again, let them."

Okay, I suggest You forget about Pearl Harbour, about all these people who lost their life. Yes, I didn't mean the fact of attack, we had Enigma then (yes, we had, we worked it out even before the war, but who would mention Poles, anyway, better to make film about stealing it from U-Boot, aye?) so we could make some more decisions, but anyway we would wait forever for help from "west", that would rather keep the war far away and then come, shoot a bit and take the glory. Aye, superior USA saved us again, even though they didn't want to get involved. Shame they didn't crush USSR by the occasion... but that would give a risk of bringing some war to other continent, so losing the precious peace.Or forget about World Trade Centre, how about that? Now You see, we had a great hit, loooots of casualties and... nobody cared.

Anybody heard of him ever? He's Marian Rejewski. He managed to decrypt Enigma.All that is because we were "one of Soviet allies". Mostly due to how our "allies" cared for us. "Sorry, Stalin will be angry, so get lost, Poles". And still the world argue about that. We don't need any "sorry", we want the world know what happened. But this is politically wrong.

 

[TC_Coyote]

Vatt'Ghern: Trust me, I'm not objecting to your position. I'm just offering a possible explination for peoples' behavior. I think what happened to Poland and the other eastern countries post-war was a travesty. My dad's side of the family was from Poland originally, though the last of them had immigrated to the US a generation or two earlier.I apologize if I caused offense with my comments as to 'if'ing about history.

Okay, I suggest You forget about Pearl Harbour

As I said, I consider to be nuts the folks with the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories, Vatt'Ghern. Even into her 80s, one of my grandmothers refused to trust the Japanese on anything because of that event some 50 years earlier.

we had Enigma then (yes, we had, we worked it out even before the war, but who would mention Poles, anyway, better to make film about stealing it from U-Boot, aye?)

General rule with Hollywood: Don't expect them to get _anything_ right about _anything_. My dad (a history major prior to his service as an Air Force medic in Vietnam, after which he went into respiratory care) used to watch Hollywood movies set in ancient Rome and point out all the errors the studios made with basic ship design, not to mention occasions when they'd use some other nationality's ships entirely. Hollywood makes movies for two reasons: 1) entertainment or 2) when they have a political agenda to push. Facts rarely enter into things. Quoting Lt. Gen. Harold "Hal" G. Moore (Mel Gibson played him in the film version of Moore's book, 'We Were Soldiers Once... And Young') regarding Hollywood's, and society's, treatment of Vietnam War veterans:

In time our battles were forgotten, our sacrifices were discounted, and both our sanity and our suitability for life in polite American society were publically questioned. Our young-old faces, chiseled and gaunt from the fever and the heat and the sleepless nights, now stare back at us, lost and damned strangers, frozen in yellowing snapshots packed away in cardboard boxes with our medals and ribbons.We rebuilt our lives, found jobs or professions, married, raised families, and waited patiently for America to come to its senses. As the years passed we searched each other out and found that the half-remembered pride of service was shared by those who had shared everything else with us. With them, and only with them, could we talk about what had really happened over there--what we had seen, what we had done, what we had survived.We knew what Vietnam had been like, and how we looked and acted and talked and smelled. No one in America did. Hollywood got it wrong every damned time, whetting twisted political knives on the bones of our dead brothers.

Source: Prologue of "We Were Soldiers Once... And Young", Hal Moore and Joseph Galloway's recollections of the battles of the Ia Drang Valley. Hollywood spent four decades demonizing the US troops who fought in that war, whether they wanted to be there or not and no matter what they'd done there, to the point that the federal government had to declare the veterans of that specific war to be a "protected class" because of all the discrimination against them. Last month, over three decades later, one US city finally held a "welcome home" event for the survivors who'd originally returned home to find people spitting on them and throwing bags of dog droppings at them.Those who study history know who it was that decrypted the Enigma machine. A couple months ago, a friend of mine who used to be in the US Navy immediately commented on Enigma when a Polish individual was protesting that Americans can't name any accomplishments by his countrymen. (My immediate response to the individual had been to name Copernicus). Those who rely on Hollywood for their history, however...they can't even get the basics of US history right, nevermind that of other countries.

Aye, superior USA saved us again, even though they didn't want to get involved. Shame they didn't crush USSR by the occasion... but that would give a risk of bringing some war to other continent, so losing the precious peace.

See my note earlier today in this thread regarding Patton. There _were_ those in the military who took a long view and saw the USSR as a threat that should be dealt with early, they were overruled by the political leadership.

But this is politically wrong.

*chuckles* You don't want me to get started on the degrading effect that political correctness has on school curriculums and the general knowledge base of citizens...Again, I apologize if I caused offense with the wording of my statements, Vatt'Ghern.

 

[Vattier]

Hmm... we didn't have anything like citizens spitting on soldiers coming home, but we had something terrible as well.Soldiers, who fought in II WW during Warsaw raise, who were partisans, these who fought in armies in Great Britain etc. were captured after war by Soviet government, tortured, judged for show (it had nothing in common with "fair") and killed.I'm glad that this occupation of Poland and other "soviet" countries ended. Soldiers from Vietnam can call themselves lucky that they got some bags with dog droppings on them, instead of teared out nails from fingers, beating by "militia", holding in cells filled with water from rain, with nothing but glassless tiny window, no light. To add, these from Vietnam were fighting mostly for money - it was their job, there was no compulsory army then, am I right? These about whom I mentioned were fighting... well, You should know what for they were fighting.I'm glad to hear this:

But this is politically wrong.

*chuckles* You don't want me to get started on the degrading effect that political correctness has on school curriculums and the general knowledge base of citizens...

And I meant not generals. They could only order troops, they couldn't decide about politics. I blame governments of "allies", I see You blame them too.As to the Hollywood - I don't trust their "imagination", but lots of people take such pseudo-historical films more seriously.I apologize, I got myself running in this. But it's... sensitive topic for me.

 

[TC_Coyote]

To add, these from Vietnam were fighting mostly for money - it was their job, there was no compulsory army then, am I right?

Incorrect. The 'all volunteer army' was a post-Vietnam development in the US. Most of the soldiers sent to Vietnam were drafted or, like my father, enlisted because if you enlisted you at least could pick which branch of the military you'd wind up in. (When dad joined the Air Force medical, the military was primarily drafting to the Marines and Army in the front lines due to the mass casualties units were facing). There were career military folks, yes -- the aforementioned Hal Moore had a WWII sergeant as his #2 in his unit, with said individual also having served during the Korean War (sometimes refered to in the US as "the forgotten war"). But a lot of those who fought and died or were injured, or returned home to a hostile public, hadn't intended to be in the military during their lives.

I'm glad to hear this:

But this is politically wrong.

*chuckles* You don't want me to get started on the degrading effect that political correctness has on school curriculums and the general knowledge base of citizens...

And I meant not generals. They could only order troops, they couldn't decide about politics. I blame governments of "allies", I see You blame them too.

Yes, unfortunately in most every war the generals and soldiers -- the people who actually know what's occuring -- are the ones given the least ability to actually determine policy. Or the ones who do are the least capable, because they're more interested in playing political games than dealing with actual strategy. There's a reason why Gen. Westmoreland's considered by many to be the perfect example of a REMF.

As to the Hollywood - I don't trust their "imagination", but lots of people take such pseudo-historical films more seriously.

Yes, unfortunately this is true.

I apologize, I got myself running in this. But it's... sensitive topic for me.

Not a problem, it's perfectly understandable.

 

[Corylea.723]

Soldiers from Vietnam can call themselves lucky that they got some bags with dog droppings on them,

I hear that you are angry. I hear that you are bitter. I hear that you have a very good reason for feeling that way. But telling people who are in pain that they have no right to feel bad, because your pain is worse ... I think that's a bad thing to do to anyone, Vatt'ghern.

To add, these from Vietnam were fighting mostly for money - it was their job, there was no compulsory army then, am I right?

No, you are wrong. The army was compulsory then -- to be forced to go into the army is called being drafted; the existence of a compulsory army is called having the draft. The US still had the draft during the Vietnam era; most of the young men who were sent there were forced to go against their will. Boys could avoid being drafted in various ways; those with political connections and/or lots of money found ways to avoid the draft, but ordinary people had no such recourse.

 

[Vattier]

Soldiers from Vietnam can call themselves lucky that they got some bags with dog droppings on them,

I hear that you are angry. I hear that you are bitter. I hear that you have a very good reason for feeling that way. But telling people who are in pain that they have no right to feel bad, because your pain is worse ... I think that's a bad thing to do to anyone, Vatt'ghern.

Hmm... I should add "only" there "that they got only some..."I don't say they have no right to feel bad. I think that it's better to still have home, place where they can go back, where they can find new life (build it), where they are protected. As Quixote said. Government gave them protection, there was somebody who could help them. Here soldiers had it upside down. Society was loving them, when government was fighting, torturing and killing them.So there it was stupidity of people, who believed in films and didn't get the reality, that they were forced. And here it was "You will suffer because You helped from Your own will". Because of the sick politicians. We all know how looked Soviet Union. Ruled by bunch of sick people. And here nobody could help these boys.It would be enough to teach community about why they aren't right. Government had for sure power to change that and in fact changed at least a bit. This government had power to dictate who will be in free Europe, where will be next war, had power to decide to throw nuclear bombs and was too weak to teach society to calm down?And I thank You both for explaining me this point about drafted army. Shame enough it shows people who were against these soldiers were double as stupid as I thought. Not only they were against soldiers who fought for them, who were their friends before, but also they didn't see they had been forced to do this.It's a shame they lacked such basic... knowledge or intelligence? What failed? Was that media who told lies, or people themselves who couldn't judge it all well enough? (It's a question, I can't know what was in USA then)

 

[Corylea.723]

World War II was such a terrible time for everybody, I thought you might enjoy this one bright note from that time:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ondboIwZSdQ

 

[Vattier]

Truly, the end of a war is the best part of it. No more occupants dictating what to do, no more fear for life, for family, should be nice feeling. We enjoyed it as well in 1989.