For anyone who cares

[gae]

This is the anniversary of D-Day. 06/06/44

[cincygreg]

A Toast to all who served!

Headlines Of The Day




IKE'S Speech

[Beachcomber]

And today the headlines would read:

"American Forces illegally compromised French Territory today. UN General Assembly calls for immediate withdrawal and is seeking War Crimes charges to be brought against FDR. Hitler concerned about breach in French territorial integrity, in depth interview with German leader inside..."

[Lew]

I was going to start a thread on this topic, but Gae never taught me how to post pictures so I wouldn't have been able to post that newspaper headline). Still, I'm not going to complain, I mean, Gae has taught me so many things over the years, I can't really grip over one little thing she didn't show me...

I would love to go through about 3 or 4 high schools today and start asking random students if they know what today is. And I'm not so worried if they don't remember the exact date, but if I ask them, what is D-Day, can they tell me anything at all about it? Obviously each and every student at St. X could offer an in-depth analysis, but I mean, on the whole, I have feeling the answers from the other schools would be scary. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my suspicion.

Having said that, being the WWII mark that I am let me say that, with no disrespect to those who landed at Normandy that day, I do believe that American history books somewhat overplay the significance of D-Day. That is, if you're looking at it from a "how were the Germans defeated" angle. By the end of 1943, the Soviets had clearly taken control of the Eastern front and they were on the move west. Absent some kind of a fluke, German defeat was inevitable. And in all likelihood, the Soviets would have gotten them had there been no D-Day from the west. Yes, the eventual surrender date would have probably fallen much later than May 1945, and yes millions more would have died (both German and Soviet), but make no mistake the Soviets had the numbers.

Now, the Soviet position has always been that they more or less single-handedly defeated the Germans, and that the Allied efforts in June 1944 were too little too late. I respectfully submit that's crap. But that's because I disagree that a western front was opened on June 6, 1944. I'm of the belief that there was a "western front" from the beginning. In 1942, there was extensive fighting in North Africa. In 1943, there was extensive fighting in the Mediterranean. And throughout both years, there was heavy strategic bombing of Germany from the U.S. by day and the Brits at night. No matter what the Soviets want to believe, the fact is, every German who was dedicated to combating the Allies on the west (it's estimated that over a million German troops and civilians were committed to the air war against the U.S. and Royal Air Force)was one less German who could fight on the Eastern front.

Now, let's not kid ourselves- the Soviets weren't going to stop at mid-Germany on their own. So yes, in that respect, June 6, 1944 is of tremendous significance. By the U.S. and Brits invading from the west, it a) liberated GL's France and b) prevented all of Germany from being conquered by the Soviets. So don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that June 6, 1944 is not a significant date by any means. My point is that the "second front" opened long before D-Day, but also that I feel our history books downplay the Soviet effort against the Germans.

Having said all of the above, my hat absolutely goes off to those men who landed at Normany that day. I can't imagine what they went through and nothing can take away from the heroism of their efforts.

[Becky Eliza Potter]

Not giving the Russians there due is called "Propagation" Lew. Are history books never gave Stalin any credit for nothing.

[Beachcomber]

I would be curious to know the number of returning Soviet troops Stalin had killed because they had been "contaminated" by the West. As many as had died in the conflict and possibly more. Stalin was as much a human monster as Hitler, yet he has never been really portrayed as such even in most western history books. I guess because he was on "our" side...

[Lew]

You hit the nail on the head, GL. It's amazing how we were enemies with the Soviet Union (remember Wilson sent U.S. troops over in 1920 to fight for the whites against the reds) until June 22, 1941, when we became friends with them until May 1945, in which we became enemies with them again for the next 50 years or so. I mean, it's almost like pro wrestling.

The Soviets can downplay our involvement all they want. The fact is, we sold them all kinds of things they needed to fight the Germans (I have a book that documents the American-made telephone wire, radios, airplane fuel, and other such commodoties that they absolutely loved and bought, literally, by the boat load). And again, the fact that the Germans had to guard and defend France against an invasion (throughout the whole war, not just 1944) and defend their homeland against allied bombing...all that helped take away from the Eastern front. And the fact is, in 1942, they almost pulled it off. Thankfully they failed, but had Hitler played his cards right, and cut off their oil supply instead of sacrificing his entire 6th Army at Stalingrad, things might have been different.

Obviously the U.S. planned for the worst. The B-36 bomber was already on the drawing board, and it had the range to fly from the U.S. to Germany and back without refueling. It also had the ability to deliver nuclear weapons, which were being designed with Germany (not Japan) in mind.

As I've said before, I rank Stalin worse than Hitler because 1) he's responsible for more deaths, 2) he remained in power over twice as long, and 3) Hitler at least got to see his empire destroyed before he killed himself, whereas Stalin died in his sleep while his country was a world superpower.

And you're right, that crap where he purged his own men (who'd fought and risked their lives for him) because they were "contaminated" by the west...I mean, that speaks volumes of the man. And yet, even today, how many people know who he is? You hang a Swastika on your door, or have a portrait of Hitler, they'll talk about you. But you hang a portait of Stalin on the wall....who the hell would even know who he was?

If Marge Schott had said "Stalin was ok in the beginning, but he went too far," the a-holes at ESPN wouldn't have said anything because they wouldn't have known what she was talking about.

[Beachcomber]

Spot on Lew. And how many morons who derided and persecuted Marge drove and continue to drive Hitler's "People's Car" more commonly known as Volkswagon? Inspired by Henry Ford's Model-T and the only American Hitler paid tribute to in "Mein Kampf"... VW was Hitler's positive contribution to posterity, but never mentioned.

[Becky Eliza Potter]

I know the Bengals did a lot better when Marge was the owner. That's is a damn fact!

[Lew]

Becky-

I think this thread is deep enough with mentions of the likes of Hitler and Stalin. I don't think we need to take it to lower depths and bring up the uber-A-hole, Mike Brown...

GL-

you and I have a similar view of history, but the majority doesn't share our view and that's why they aren't as smart as we are. I'm all for throwing everything into the pot, and letting the reader (or student) make their own analysis based on as much information as possible.

You mentioned Henry Ford. You have to include him in the history books. He was ahead of his time when it came to taking care of his employees. But he was also anti-Semitic. The advent of the assembly line and its impact on the world cannot be understated, but as is the case with most everyone, he was a complex person and the reader should know the whole story about him.

Milton Hershey....I mean, like Ford didn't invent the car, Milton didn't invent the chocolate bar, but he found a way to mass produce it and ship it all over the world. He, too, had a progressive vision of his factories and their workers. But when you read about how he was into "purity," they aren't just talking about milk chocolate. The school he founded was first integrated in....that's right, 1968. The great railroad barons of 19th and early 20th centuries....Hill, Vanderbilt, Gould, etc. They were ruthless a-holes to whom a working man was lower than whale manure. But, without their leadership, the railroads would never have been built (or at least not built properly) and the west wouldn't have developed as it did.

My wife got on me last year at Mt. Rushmore for pointing out that Gutzon Borglum had been in the Klan for awhile. I take nothing away from his skill in creating Mt. Rushmore. It is a moving place to visit. And I'm not judging him as a person. But if the sign is going to give us the spiel about this hard-working Danish immigrant who came to America and had a vision for a way of paying homage to this great land....well, ok, if we're going to get that spiel, then let's here the rest of the story, Paul Harvey. And, while I like visiting Mt. Rushmore, let's keep in mind that the Lakotas have a somewhat different take on it. Doesn't necessarily mean one is right or wrong, but it behooves us to learn as much as possible, not as little.