D-Day

Post Reply New Topic

http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/edgeof ... -all-wars/

The usage of ?war to end all wars,? which I had usually taken to refer to the Great War, and (at least at first) to be un-ironic, doesn?t really start in any serious way until the 1930s, a period when it was pretty clear that the Great War wasn?t going to be the last one. It hit an early peak in 1943, when it was likely being used as a lament ? ?we thought we had fought the war to end all wars, but?? ? and rose steadily in the post-World War II years. It strikes me that, from this evidence (to which all the usual caveats apply), that ?war to end all wars? was only really used in a substantial way when it already clearly didn?t apply to 1914-1918. World War II (or its threat) had already come along and made tragic the phrase by the time ?war to end all wars? became common.

/\ /\ Oh my yes, the USA was simply horrible. Just because the Nazi regime was refusing to surrender, they bombed Dresden. The Nazis bombed London, and nearly burned it to the ground. The Americans fought long and hard to push the Nazis back towards Berlin, and sometimes in war things are done which are later regretted by nincompoops.

It was brave, insane, and it worked. It makes good press in Europe.

We left more dead on beaches in the Pacific, islands where 125,000 Japanese were never heard from again,

War Crimes are things the winners say about the losers.

It was planned and run by bad managemrnt, civilians with six weeks training jumped in to hell and most came out of grad school as fighters. It was a steep learning curve.

It could have been better, killing all French males would have helped. Bought in blood, why give it up?

Europe is just a problem.

But for the poor eighteen year old draftees, they came through.

A massive German counter attack was expected, something like the battles with Russians, where everyone dies, it never happened.

Who was most evil is still in despute, I think all. It was a speedy end to war, a good idea.

For all the problems, the troops were heros, they expected to die, they won.

/\ The horrifically costly Battle of Okinawa was a sample of what taking Japan would have been like had it been done conventionally.

I am not going to argue about what should or shouldn't have happened. There is no changing the past. What matters to me is what actually did happen.

About 150,000 people where killed instantly by the bombs. Thousands more suffered injuries especially severe burns, and about as many people died soon after the explosions because of their injuries. The after effects of the radiation alone were astronomical. All sorts of cancers, birth defects and high rates of miscarriages, and deaths of infants and children. It is impossible to tell for sure how many people died for sure, but a rough estimate is 200,000 to 250,000 people. Many Americans were killed too. Although in reality, does it even matter what country they belonged to? The people who died were not the ones fighting. They were civilians. Along with the Japanese, an estimated 3,000 US civilians died, and they were mostly women and children.

I think this has been an interesting discussion, and I am pleased that not everybody accepts without question the triumphalist nature of the recent D-day celebrations. But the fact remains that for many of the survivors of war, their wartime experiences become the 'best days of their lives'. Many others, however, fall victim to Depression, PTSD and Suicide.

I have my own ideas about why the human race feels such a need to fight wars, and it is not simply about gaining or protecting power and/or territory.

I think that war provides an opportunity for the human race to test its own limits and capabilities to the point of destruction. Huge areas of human expertise are inspired and funded by the military. In the UK, the ubiquitous Ordnance Survey was originally set up in order to provide decent maps. Veterinary science came into being because of the military requirement for healthy horses. Modern computers are almost a by-product of the techniques which were developed in WW2 in order to decode the enemy's radio messages. The mapping of the ocean floors took place largely in order to facilitate the deployment of nuclear submarines. And the atom bomb itself was developed for the specific purpose of winning the war against the Japanese. Space exploration in general, and GPS in particular, is largely a military venture.

But war also tests our emotional responses - mothers and fathers grieve for their sons and daughters, and sons and daughters grieve for their parents. Husbands grieve for their wives, and wives grieve for their husbands. But all are expected to accept that the loss of life is OK because it is part of the 'fight for right'. In the Western world, that idea is beginning to come under scrutiny, but young Muslims are beginning to behave in a similar way to young Englishmen in WW1 - they are signing up without question to a completely false idea.

/\ /\ Very well written.
As for killing, and going to war being a part of the human psyche, it seems to be true. I'm not a big believer in evolution, but it could go back to the earliest humans who survived only by killing other humans who were not of their tribe. People forget the Korean 'war'. It came on the heels of WWII, but was more like WWI in the way it was fought. And the wars go on, in the name of religion, and just for the power to rule people.
When people ask why we don't see any real evidence of extraterrestrial visitors, I ask them, would you want to visit such a bloody violent planet where the inhabitants are constantly killing each other ??? There must be nicer places to visit.