I am perplexed. I know this article was written almost 9 months ago in August 2007..
But the author, the writer... I am suprised you said "how much more can people be aware of WWII?" "Who doesn't know about WWII since Tom Brokaw...etc"? You are a journalist and you made that comment? In my opinion, is that a littlt bit 'ill-concieved'? The reason why.. is b/c in today's generation you will encounter countless children, adolescents and adults who say "who's Hitler" "huh, I never heard of the holocaust? What's that?" "it wasn't 6mm jews killed, it was like 250k" "
I am really dumbfounded.. now whether it is b/c these people just were not educated, or the more probable reason.. that we need to maintain awareness now, and for the foreseeable future to raise all awareness not only about everything about WWII, but all wars!!

Some points I agree about the good side, bad side of war etc. And the USA itself has committed some of the worse evils in history as well. But, whatever country it is, whatever war it is.. we must always remember.. the good, the bad and the ugly. We must not take sides of who won the war, but who lost..b/c in reality, no one wins and we all lose.. Thankfully tho, Nazi's did not take over the world and neither did Stalin. Even more so, maybe we should be raising more awareness about WWII AND Stalin, cus in fact, Stalin and his reign is with out a doubt, the most murderous, trecherous regime in all of human history. Accounts of 30-60million people died under his watch!! (and Stalin was a victor of WWII - so just b/c we was with us in winning WWII..doesn't mean he deserves it..)

Most of your points are valid nonetheless, especially with what is going on today.. I always wonder... "what if Hitler never made the decision to attack Russia?" And, what that outcome would of meant for the rest of us?

The central point is that WWII was set off by the unfairly harsh peace imposed on Germany after WWI. That harsh peace was possible only because of US intervention. By the end of 1916, all parties were on their knees and had it not been for US intervention, which seems to have occurred for totally dishonourable reasons, there would probably have been a negotiated peace in 1917, more or less on equal terms.

Think what that means: no Hitler, no Holocaust, no Israel, no Communism, no Stalin, no Warsaw Pact. Viewed in that light, the US declaration of war on Germany in WWII was not just a botched attempt to clean up the mess the US made in Europe in WWI, it actually made things worse!

Thornhill: I do recommended Ferguson's most recent book (along with his earlier Pity of War), though I agree that he deserves extra scrutiny. He is very much a defender of empire and global capitalism, with all the baggage that comes with that. However, his history books are solidly written and he often includes many details that obviously don't fit his Weltanschaung, which not all historians are willing to do. His most recent book is an excellent overview of many of the major events in WWII and the historians' debates regarding them. Of course Fergusson's works are slanted, but, as Zinn would say, "You can't stay neutral on a moving train." It is always a good idea to assume that the writer of any history is biased and read works on the topic by other authors whose biases are different. The truth is usually somewhere in between.

One of the problems with recommending books about the world war(s) is that there is so much historical ground to cover that even the the weightiest tomes have to grossly oversimplify things and/or focus on one tiny piece of the puzzle in order to reach a publishable length. That's also the problem with puncturing the myth. The mythology surrounding WWII is as easy to follow as the plot of a summer blockbuster. The reality is a Gordian knot, mesmerizing in its complexity, but completely insoluble. Most people have little patience for such.

As none of us have seen the film by Burns on "War," then all is guess work. However, I take this bet. Burns' war will likely start with 1) Pearl Harbor, America's ostensible 'start' in the war, 2) will likely make no mention of the "war" as regards Japan prior to December 1941, and 3) will make absolutely NO mention of the fact that had there not been financing of the Nazi Party by American corporate interests, primarily, there would not have been a substantial Party, nor a Second World War, as we understand it.

Burns will surprise me if he eschews the "if it bleeds, it leads," fashion of storytelling. This PDF book below, from 1976, is one ideal way of reconfiguring our understanding of war/s. (And, this is huh-way beyond the recent FOIA expose of Prescott Bush. The Union Banking Corporation was just one among many American banks and business interests, after all.)

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler - Anthony C. Sutton

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2007/02/125049.pdf

Unhappily, this will almost validate Russ Kick's demagogic title, though pretty accurate, "Everything You Know Is Wrong."

An even easier way into this deep, deep pit of vipers, one that continued vigorously following the war's presumed end, and continues to this day, is DeNiro's recent film, "The Good Shepherd." Just morph the word Commun-ism or Nazi-ism until it becomes, Terror-ism. Samey-same. So too with American financing.

Always remember - "Old Wine in New Bottles."

A little PS - Mention is made in this discussion of Niall Ferguson. He deserves extra scrutiny, not because his mentioned book may not be fine, but because when I asked him on a C-Span BookTV show in 2004, after years of unconfirmable swirl about Prescott Bush's and Averill Harriman's backing of the Nazis through the UBC, all he could say was to dismiss such 'clear temerity' with, "that's reeeeeeeeally a long shot." And this fellow was flacking for his new book on the banking industry, for God's sake! With his comment, it makes everything he states dubious, at the least. For me, he immediately goes into the category of Liar or Fool. But, maybe he didn't see this, as all the big, primary American newspapers refused to publish this. The European press, though, was all over it.

http://www.nhgazette.com/?page_id=80

And, more "Everything You Know Is Wrong" by a non-arrogant (like Ferguson), humble, acolyte of Howard Zinn.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3Jo8o3P2CHg

Great comments. A point worth repeating is that the conflict conventionally known as WWII cannot and should not be viewed in isolation from the conflict conventionally known as WWI. It was really the same conflict, especially in Europe, as many historians have pointed out. Versailles laid the groundwork for the full scale resumption of hostilities (though they never truly ended in some areas) and the escalation of brutality on all sides was a self-perpetuating cycle. In reality, the main conflict was over whether the Germans and the Japanese would be allowed to partake of the colonial pie that the other great powers had carved for themselves over the previous centuries. Hitler followed the American model of "Manifest Destiny" with his "Drang nach Ost", including the elimination of the existing peoples. The Japanese, as a naval power, went for more of a British model. Their efforts to achieve very rapidly what it had taken centuries for the other empires to achieve led to a brutal compression of the imperial death toll into a much shorter time frame. Previous comments have indicated that the Germans had already lost the war before the Americans even entered it. This is very true as neither Germany nor Japan had the resources to compete with the combined might of the three largest empires in the world at the time. Anyone who looks to the lands that the Axis had seized as a source of resources should look no further than the oil revenues coming from Iraq right now to know that, rather than representing assets to them, the conquered territories were often a drain on the resources of Germany and Japan and for similar reasons.

In addition to Mickey Z's "Saving Private Power" recommended above by James L., I would recommend "The War of the World" by Niall Ferguson, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy, "Der Brand" by Joerg Friedrich (in German if you can, the translation is imperfect), "The Origins of the Second World War" by AJP Taylor and any book you can get your hands on by Howard Zinn. Those are all good ones to make you think, even if you might not always agree with the author's conclusions. There are many, many more.

In the end, the world war(s) is probably the best example in history (mainly because it is so well documented) of the immorality of war in general. No power ever engages in war for purely altruistic motives, nor is there a method of modern warfare which precludes the slaughter of innocents, which, if not often openly admitted as the main goal, sure happens frequently enough to make a person suspicious.

WW II was a world wide attempt at genocide against all who were not Aryan. Saudi Arabia has recently purchased the rights to several American publishinig companies and have donated to PBS and others- not just the Bush family.
Obviously, the Saudis are attempting to smear WW II successes of the US in order to make us compliant with their oppressive wahhabi way of life. Germans did the same thing through Bush's grandfather and Neville Chamberlain pre-WW II and we almost fell for it.
The Russians, like the rest of Europe and the jews were taken by surprise- why didn't you address the millions of Germans raped and killed? The only other race not effected by the Nazis were arabic muslims who modeled their own regimes after Hitler after WW II.
Before you go off criticising American pride in their WW II successes, think of who is paying for the program. WW II also brought into the American educational system the plitical correct way of toelrance toward everybody to prevent white people from getting out of control like they did in Germany. This is ironic since the only people who have become feminzed and weakened have been American and British white males- the very races that assisted in defeating Germany. Out of some fantasized guilt over Hitler, they initiated their own destruction two generations later- because they were afraid all white men were like Nazis. God are we stupid.
The Russians have learned from WW II and they have a healthy paranoia we should respect. Don't ever overlook the fact Russians got their revenge and more after that.

Just look at the statistics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

USA suffered only 2% of allied millitary casualties of World war II, while the Soviet Union suffered 64%.

For anyone who thinks the good 'ol US of A and Our Boys won the war single handed, I suggest they watch a movie called "Enemy at the Gate". It is a depiction of the Russian defense at Stalingrad.

When I was in high school, when we studied WWII the Russian contribution was mentioned almost as a footnote.

Also kudos to the Brits in 1940-1941 during their "year alone". They could have easily thrown in the towel and saved themselves alot of grief. But they stood firm.

To anyone interested in uncovering all these 'myths' of the so-called good war, I highly recommend Saving Private Power, by Mickey Z. One of the most clearly well-written and researched books on the subject which really deserves a wider audience:

http://tinyurl.com/2xa6jh

All of you can debate the myths of war to your hearts' content. Instead, I plan on watching Ken Burns's new film "The War"; and even more so, looking forward to submitting my father's WWII story to my local PBS station. My dad served with the 192nd Tank Battalion, HQ Company, Philippine Islands; Japanese POW, Bataan Death March Survivor; Liberated from Fukuoka #23 Branch Camp,Japan, in September 1945. These are facts r/t my dad's WWII experience, but I wanted to tell more of his personal story, how his war experiences influenced the rest of his life both negatively and positively, and how blessed I was to be his daughter; it's the least I can do. I hardly ever comment on articles, etc. I've read on the internet; but I think I will just wait to make my judgements until after I see the film.

While sympathy for the Russian losses during WWII should not be disregarded it is also necessary to remember Russia conspired with Germany regarding the invasion of Poland. Germany invaded from one side of Poland, and Russia the other, and the spoils of war (Poland) was taken by two countries with imperialistic intentions. Russia also supplied the Nazi regime with war materials & supplies even after Germany was at war with Britain for almost two years. Is it any wonder the Allies were suspicious of the opportunistic Russians following the war?

eshu,

A tremendous amount of resources have been used by predatory capitalists to make and disseminate the argument that the fall of the Stalinistic Soviet Union proved that socialism is not workable. That is preposterous for at least two reasons. One is that no theories can be proved to be valid without rigorous experimentation, which is standard practice in the hard sciences but impossible to do with regard to economic/political systems. There are innumerable uncontrolled variables and unbounded complexity is involved. The other reason is that there are theoretically an infinite number of possible versions of a socialist political/economic system, with Soviet Stalinism comprising just one.

So we can just look at the evidence available concerning the welfare produced generally by various economic systems, noting that some sort of penalty should be applied according to the amount of use of nonrenewable resources (unsustainability), the use of resources (including the brain drain and stealing oil) resulting from unbalanced transactions because of power differences, and pollution created and not addressed.

I think to most progressives the evidence points to the conclusion that corporate capitalism is unsustainable, uses resources inefficiently with regard to the welfare produced, and does poorly at providing for stability (causing more instability through threats, humiliation, and deprivation) and security (from internal or external threats). However, it is jim-dandy at providing superior war machines, threatening others, plundering and pillaging, mass murder, developing and disseminating propaganda, and producing a very small elite class of extremely wealthy and powerful people.

Ken Burns belongs in a nursing home, along with the entire PBS executive staff---for the most part, senile, timid, bought and paid for, on their knees to Biblical and WASP cultural values (the SHAMEless archaeology programs for ex. that always fluff off lack of evidence for emotion)---They are completely uninterested in anything from the "public" except its money. Burns and Tom Rockjaw-Brokaw should be equally ashamed of milking the WWII generation for "emotional experiences"---who the hell is going to DISagree with such a dishonest and exploitative premise, that they were a great generation? What decides PBS programming is hobnobbing snob-wannabe's at cocktail parties. "Non-commercial"? THere are more corporations named per hour now than ever in the last 30 years (NPRadio the same, UNLISTENABLE). And guess what, the donating corporations have NO say in what can be said?

Just remember, the next terrorist attck is inevitable! Just like the Rapture.

Oh, here we go. You know, you can tell the difference between liberals and progressives by the way they view the experience of world communism, which, like it or not, was a stumbling block for western imperialism for a long time, and if it served no other purpose, was worthy in that respect if in that respect only. Without getting into the usual body count tirades, i.e., "Stalin killed more people than Hitler", itself a vastly simplistic overview of what happens to the infrastructure of countries that are trying to recover from decades if not centuries of foreign dominance, let's just try to remember the following:

The Soviet Union, Stalin be damned, held off Hitler's armies, and took the brunt of the casualties during the Second World war, over twenty million, or close to a third of the global total in that conflict. The infrastructure created by the communist party, defective though it was, and criminal though the manner in which it was created was, armed the soviet forces to such a degree that they played a more then decisive role in holding back Hitler's troops. Further, when it was all over with, Russia had something, Germany had nothing, because fascism in all its variants does nothing but loot and rape. Stalinism was defeated absolutely within forty years of that war, fascism went underground, and snuck its way back into the front of capitalist governments everywhere. Which is worse? A state which collapsed when confronted by the anger of its people, or a system that uses material goods to seduce them into thinking self immolation is in our own best interests?

That evil empire shit is more reactionary then my uncle Maurice, who was a fucking D.I. in the Marine corps. Stalinism was a giant splotch of blood and grease in history, but it does not invalidate socialism or communist promise, which is what we're expected to believe when we swallow that evil empire bullshit. Fuck "evil empire" thinking and the little Ronald Reagans that go around parroting the phrase, heedless of the real backwardness of western imperialism, or the origins of their childish philosophy.

It's most sad to me that most of the discussion, study, debate, and programs about WWII focus on the "war". What we really need to learn and teach in school is how the German people were hoodwinked into supporting the regime. Then to learn how not to fall for leaders who spread fear, greed, propaganda, jingoism, bigotry, and "justification" for conquest.

Thomas Moore: You have used the same fallacious argument the fascists use. "There you go , blaming America Again!" The right wing corporate rapists who suck out the resources of third world countries while enriching only the top 1% of the population (who keep the other 99% in line) ARE NOT AMERICA!!! They steal and pillage in our name and use our military as a tool of their economic policies. They pretend
the "other side" is a threat to you and me so we will join in the brutality, but those people hate the corporate robbers (not our "freedom")...ask them, they'll tell you...oops...that's right...we don't talk to "terrorists." It is the classic tactic of the manipulator to keep people from talking to each other thereby making themselves the only communication link between factions. Then they tell one group one thing and another group something else. As long as we don't talk to each other they win. They ensure that we all think only in their terms. Yes, America has made alot of mistakes, but the biggest one is allowing ourselves to become convinced the interests of the right-wing corporate thieves are synonymous with the interest of the American people and they are not!

One aspect of World War Two that isn't spoken of is how the Western diplomats tried to use Hitler to invade the USSR and how Stalin tried to deflect that strategy with the Nazi-Soviet peace pact. Ultimately the West won the maneuver when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union on advice from Martin Boreman, which doomed Germany to defeat in a two front war they lacked the resources to win.

Another fact behind the scenes is how upper class Nazi sympathizers in England and the USA liked Hitler and helped to finance him because he outlawed labor unions, conveniently unaware of the World conquest and atrocities he was plotting - and how Communist sympathizers in the West favored the ideals of Soviet socialism, unaware of the Stalin's mass murders. After the war was over, of course, all those embarrassing blunders were ignored and hushed up.

Today we appear to have better information so, for example, Haliburton's relationship to the Cheney/Bush Administration and the whole parade of no-bid war contractors and mercenary armies are widely discussed, and the American drift into fascism is openly debated here. But we seem no better able to prevent it than the German people in the 1930s. Impeachment is the obvious solution, but a bought-and-sold Congress is waiting until the next terrorist attack and the resulting Bush/Cheney dictatorship make it impossible. Then what? World War Three, of course!

I know it's a cliche, but I can't think of any such thing as a "good war". The only thing war is good for are the elites that run the show. Working and poor men go and kill other working and poor people.

That's not to dishonor those who have served. My father served in Vietnam and my grandfather fought in WW2.

People forget or don't know that Hitler was backed by American financiers, people like Prescott Bush and Henry Ford. Many people also forget that Pearl Harbor was provoked.

And before people call me unAmerican, I'll have you know that I've told the America bashers where to go also. America has its underbelly like every other nation on Earth. However, we're the ones with all the wealth and power, and therefore it's our responsibility to stop throwing our weight around and making other nations resent us.

Dissent is as American and rock and roll. Only shallow patriots follow their nation's leaders blindly.

thanks for the discussion everyone. in my opinion, germany & japan were late arrivals to a european dominated colonial system, a system ruling most of the world from 1914-1945 (and before and ever since). they wanted in on the action, to exercise imperial greatness as the other powers did, and the other powers went to war over maintaining their hegemony. thus, there are NO good actors in this system. it was always for all actors involved a war for world supremacy. they all of them propagandized their populations about the morality/virtue/necessity of the war, and all of it was BS. our propoganda survives b/c we deluded ourselves that we "won".

additionally, as for those "concentration/extermination" camps of the nazis, the horror of western leaders was not that they were done, but that they were done IN EUROPE. Europeans exported labor camps everywhere they went: africa, asia, and certainly n & s america. they reached a particulary brutal stage under nazism thru advanced industrialism and other factors, but they were nothing new for europeans. nazis were continuing northern, white, european policies, applying them to the "lesser" peoples of europe (slavs, gypsies, jews of course.)

this is not true per se when it comes to exterminating Jews (and others), a decision that was not made until 1941, btw. but even here, nazi eugenics were only different in their extremity from other european theories, and most of what the nazis theorists did they copied DIRECTLY FROM THE EUGENICS THEORIES OF THE UNITED STATES. this is indisputable.

the great war (1914-1945, w/ a little hiatus in the middle) is a wound from which the world has never recovered. there were upright individuals among ALL parties involved (even in the nazi apparatus; if you don't believe that, you are stupid.) but the leadership of ALL parties involved were despicable human beings (incl. FDR), though not all equally despicable.

Proof: the world did not reject war after ww2. why? b/c ALL THE LEADERS INVOLVED LOVED IT. they immediately set about manufacturing new enemies and new wars, and it's never stopped.

Good God, here they go again.....we are the problem for the world, America is the cause of all the suffering, the good people are under our heels, Russia and China were really the hero's of WW2. Better ask the rest of the countries who they wanted to help them. Russia/China or us? You won't like the answer.

You will believe any Anti-American crap spewed forth by people that have never done anything.
Better read your hero's service record before accepting his evaluation of WW2.

It was horrible, war is always horrible, but if you step back you will find that the rest of the world is always waiting for America to step up to correct injustice. If we weren't bogged down in Bush's war do you honestly think we would let those poor folks in Darfur die without our help?
Step back and you will find that for all our faults (which are many), for all our mistakes (which are too numerous to mention),for all our bad leadership (not as much as suggested here) we are still the best thats come along so far.

I'd suggest that just once all the critics and Anti-Americans select the country they would replace us with or give our power to and put it on this post.

I've never been any place I thought was better or more compassionate to the rest of the world, if you have....where is it? Who should be leading the world?

And if you would say there should be no leader, the world should be as one, etc......please don't, you are too childish to post here. Its a noble thought, but only that.

Excellent article. The mythological legacy of the "Good War" has burdened our society with the extremely dangerous idea that military force can be used to protect human rights in foreign countries. The idea that US soldiers put a stop to the Holocaust is a dangerous myth. In fact most of the death camps were liberated by the Soviet Red Army. The idea that the USA won WWII is a dangerous myth. In fact the USSR was already winning the war in Europe by the time the USA joined. One thing that facilitates the propagation of these myths is the fact that most North Americans are unaware of the fact that most of the casualties of WWII were borne by the USSR and China. If the North American masses knew the truth about Soviet losses they would see their own losses in proper perspective, and be less inclined to believe that they had won the war on their own. The USSR would have defeated Germany even if neither Canada nor the USA had not entered the war. More awareness of that fact would give us some much-needed perspective on our place in this world, and from that would come the quality which we most desperately need - humility.

Mark Marshall
Toronto

War is just a phase of humanity, face it. It's not the evil rich megalomaniacs at that initiate wars who die, it's the poor folk who follow or are forced to follow.

The truth is that WWII started with the mastery of the industrial revolution and the next evolution of the propaganda machine...which boils down to some very nasty and manipulative people getting very, very rich while the rest die or suffer. It's always been the same. Greed.

Nazi's were only the bad-guys for their social segregations. Anybody who benefited from Nazi Germany's rule of Europe is still very rich and powerful today. Isn't that right George W. Bush??? Admit that they also brought science and technology ahead by leaps and bounds

The individual's struggle make nice campfire banter or bedtime stories, but when it comes to Big Daddy getting rich due to your racial or religious intolerances then boom-shakalaka-boom. He's always going to be smarter than you and always be able to manipulate you.

Screw the people who suffered because that was sixty-plus years ago because it will just happen again.

Smarten up, or rather, let's go to war and kill of another generation of dummies.

Everyone has forgotten the fifth myth of WW2 and the one which best illustrates what the article (and mr. wood?) were talking about... John Wayne.

A PBS series on WWII? Now?

What was that song by Bruce Springsten.....went something like,

"Glory Days,
They'll pass you by glory days
the wink of a young girl's eyes glory days.
Glory Days"

If there were any positives to WWII they were most all the people United and sacrificing their own comforts for their soldiers,
We seemed to have forgotten all the Americans big and little buying war bonds to give their army everything they needed.
We have also forgotten what the stay ay home families faced many rationings of almost everything with few wimpers. Then there were wage freezes for the common person and price controls for the industries. They all grined and beared it for the cause.

It was all American blood shed by us . It might have mattered about the color of your skin whenit came to troops sitting doown and eatting with each other ,but just the same many Ethic and non whites died for that same flag.
And yes the Native Americans contributions to WWII. They fought hard and proudly and those that came home never got the credit,much like the blacks that served od even the Japanese Americans whose families were tucked away in camps with Our flag flying over them.
The Spanish Americans knowing we white folks the way I do I am sure they were not equal either except for the blood they shed with the whites.

I find it quite amusing that soon white Americans will be a minority here .
So what do you think people should the new non white majority treat the white minority the same way they were and still are treated?

Why not? Because all of a sudden the human specie changes. Heffer dust!We have gotten worse now even dragging down our own white skin humans for the sake of pofit for the few.

When you look at where Americans are today .Is there much differance say if Germany and Japan would have won the war?
Maybe in the short term ,but are we much better today? WE now have Germany And Japan as Capitalists states and look at the condition of this world.
Ah the hell with it!

"there was a powerful faction which felt its interests were threatened far more by communism than by fascism, and this group's agenda prevailed"

"Powerful faction"? Who might that be? Nazi-ism = better than Communism..? And we wonder why the Bush White House smells of the same stench. It obviously runs in the family (with documented Nazi business connections going back to the WW2 era). That family is running this country into the ground just like Hitler was going to do to Germany. Soon we may all look forward to having 15-yr old child soldiers fighting wars against "terrorism" too.. J-ROTC anyone? More war profiteering off the blood of children? War is what made the Bush family who they are and gave them all of their powerful political connections and wealth, so why would they stop such a successful enterprise even now? It wouldn't make sense in their world..

Araquin, I agree with most of your comments but your statement, "My hometown was liberated by the Red Army, thank you very much." , puzzles me. My wifes aunt was "liberated" from her hometown in Romania by the Red Army. She was 18 years old and, along with numerous 18 year old women from her village, was forcibly brought to work as a "servant" somewhere in Russia. After 3 years she managed to escape and reached her "liberated village" and never, ever, spoke about what happened to her.

How can anyone say that the Red Army liberated anyone, when it systematically enslaved most of Eastern Europe? It kicked out the Nazi's so Stalin could reign. Now there's liberation!

Thank you!! Visiting the US at the moment, the very thought of this permanent talk about greatest generation and that war makes me SO sick.

This is a very war-mongering nation, very martial in its language, and it reminds me of the general ideology of Prussia pre-WW1, which BTW was dissolved and erased after WW2 even as the name of a province of Germany because American occupying forces deemed it to be the dangerous precursor of the Nazis..and I think that they were right. But they are good at emulating it, I dare say.

I never hear anything about the 20 million (!!!) Russian casualties in WW2, you'd think that the US beat the Nazis single-handedly, if you're exposed to US media only.

My hometown was liberated by the Red Army, thank you very much. And no way would the US have been able to win WW2 without a lot of help from allies they don't want to even mention.

This jingoism and militarism, coupled with total ignorance, all of which exhibited so freely in America, is just nauseating.

Two Points:

The Battle of Midway was the turning point in the Pacific. The US "win" was based almost entirely on luck. If luck had gone the other way, would the US have lost the Pacific? Or would the war with Japan have ended in a draw? No one knows.

The atomic blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were designed to keep Stalin at bay. There is no question he had designs on western Europe and the UK. Truman gauged that his cavalier use of nukes on Japan would dampen Soviet ambitions.

sg ... in all my travels to 'latin america' i actually NEVER saw anyone play baseball ... futbol yes but not baseball. Canada doesnt count ... which pretty much leaves about 4.5 billion people out of 5 billion who dont particularly care. So our 'gift' to the world clearly has no takers.

I'm with Vic Anderson: "Propaganda".

Of course it works, look at all the mental energy distracted here as "The War" moves on unabated.

Oh how honorable and noble we'll feel as we watch flickering pictures of the great American generation as we commit mass suicide.

Care for a nibble of some solent green?

How could anyone in America who hasn't been in a coma since Tom Brokaw coined the term "Greatest Generation" not be aware of World War II? Oh yes. It is very difficult to under misestimate the ignorance of the American public. And as to PBS it would not last two days were it not from the "grants" established by the imperialists of a bygone era. Have you ever seen anything resembling a documentary on commercial TV?

Phooey, I say!

This article totally missed the BIGGEST myth of all - the myth that Hitler was a heterosexual. The truth is, as has been exposed recently in a biography about Hitler, that he was a homosexual liberal who wanted to make all the world homosexual liberals like him. Hitler believed in big government, just like liberals!

It is not so much that we would all be speaking German today if it weren't for U.S intervention to stop this gay madman, but that we would all be speaking German, AND would be gay and would be much more liberal. All men would be wearing funny mustaches too! God bless America!

Why were the Nazis always so well-dressed? Why did Hitler have that mustache? Hitler did not come out of the closet officially, but the Jews KNEW he was gay, and started telling the truth to the world. That's why he had to exterminate them. Stalin was bad too, but at least he wasn't gay, although there is always a possibility. Thank God I'm American!

Now these same gay Nazis that took over Hollywood want to do the same thing. We all know they are gay but they hide that they are Nazis, the reverse of the first time. Even gay jews are in on the conspiracy. These perverts want to destroy America. They believe that only very sexy blondes of both sexes should be allowed to live. Thank God Bush tried to pass an amendment to prevent them from marrying which would allow them to reproduce. I believe very strongly that the president of Iran is homosexual, which is why we must go to war with them.

Thank God America defeated the GAY HITLER!

The classic moral "dilemma" of nuking vs. invading Japan was always a phony choice. Japan had been fully defanged and contained - on the sea as well as in the air. We simply had to wait.

Recognizing their symbolic retention of an emperor could have shortened the wait - or obviated the nuke/invasion "choice".

There is one very big myth that was not mentioned and that was the myth that dropping the bomb saved many American lives. I learned from listening to a lecture by Gar Alperowitz who wrote "The Decision to Drop the Bomb" that it was not necessary to drop the bomb. The Japanese code was broken in 1939, the war in Europe was over and Russia was leaving Europe to fight on the Japanese front. From breaking the code the U. S. learned that the Japanese were willing to surrender if they could keep their emperor. Truman insisted on unconditional surrender and is strongly suspected of trying to intimidate Russia and trying to exclude the Russians from any negotiations in Japan. In addition the bomb targeted largely civilians which is a war crime.

The unlearned lesson of World War II: Centralized government kills innocent people.

Before you scoff, take an honest look at our current system and the fawning, lickspittle media that keeps it in power. What have we learned? Why are we living under a police state supported by corporate industry and the Press?

What fools the revisionists be...

1. Last time I checked, the US was attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on the US, not vice versa.

2. If we hadn't fought when we did, in all likelihood, none of you would be free to write what you do. Last time I checked, neither the Nazis nor the Japanese militarists were big on free speech.

3. While Russia definitely bled the most, had the US not entered, the UK would have had to sue for peace, and there probably would have been a stalemate in the East, until the Germans developed a nuclear bomb.

4. Did the Allies commit atrocities? Yep. Dresden. I'd argue, and have argued that Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more lives than they cost. Dresden was pure evil - Bomber Harris should have joined Goering in the Defendent's Box. But, to compare the position of the nisei to the jews is either absymal ignorance, or blatant anti-semitism. We didn't gas them. And as for the damage in the Netherlands caused by "collateral damage", not the difference between accidentally damaging something and the intentional terror bombing of Rotterdam by the Germans in 1940. Sorry but the "moral equivalence" argument shows either absolute ignorance of the nature of the Nazis or a moral bankruptcy that passes all belief.

Back to the larger point of WW2 myths, and where such exist, blame Hollywood, the pundits and our (over schooled/under educated) literacy-challenged media/culture.

As the most thoroughly documented conflict in human history, the truth is abundantly available. One hopes Mr. Burns is capable of something beyond the over-traveled American perspective of events.

All this talk of "Nazi's did this, or the Americans did that, or the Russians did this and the English that etc. etc. etc. points to one very simple observation, Governments are intrinsically BAD and nasty and should eventually be abolished!
It may take a few more centuries, or millenniums, to finally realize that. I wonder if we will survive long enough?

Meanwhile some of us will try to keep the message alive, "pssssst, Government inevitably turns brutal, let's abolish it altogether!"

gyptian said: "Jazz yes but Baseball ??!! WTF ?! Who plays Baseball outside the U.S. … oh sorry … Cuba and … shoot .. ahhh … hmmm !!"

I guess you didn't see the WORLD baseball classic. Who plays baseball outside the U.S.? Pretty much all of Latin America and the Carribbean. Japan. Even Canada. Some of the game's best are from Canada, believe it or not. And whether or not the rest of the world, excepts the "gift" of baseball doesn't mean it's not a "gift."

Ken Burns' documentary series on Jazz was horrible. It refused to go much past 1960, and it refused to properly acknowledge jazz beyond the borders of the USA. It also leant heavily on the beyond-parody arch-conservative Wynton Marsalis for much of its 'editorializing'. Massively disappointing; infuriating even. I have no jazzbo friends who thought highly of it. No doubt his account of World War II will fail to begin in 1937 (when Japan invaded China) and it will carefully perpetuate the idea that it was the USA that brought about the defeat of Germany in the European theatre.

fondis: I'm just saying, it's a very slippery slope, once you start rounding folks up for any reason, nomatter how "noble" or "reasonable."

Let's face it...Russia won the war while we held their coat. We did defeat the Japanese largely on our own but only because they were so much more limited militarily then Germany. They had bad weapons, poor tactics and leaders who believed their own BS a little too much.
All wars are criminal. They are a case of the upper 1% of ANY given society whipping the general populace into a frenzy with lies and half-truths while they stay home and reap the profits. True then...true now.
Pray for their enlightenment!

Or better yet, I bet you would attend the execution of Hans and Sophie Scholl of the White Rose resistance group in Bavaria and say, "You fools! The Nazis are no worse than anyone else. You might as well have remained loyal to the Leader and the Reich. You die only as dimwitted pawns of the American and British capitalists!"

Jazz yes but Baseball ??!! WTF ?! Who plays Baseball outside the U.S. ... oh sorry ... Cuba and ... shoot .. ahhh ... hmmm !!

I can't believe what I've read here. Can posters defending Hitler as a mere puppet of U.S. and British capitalists or whitewashing the horrors of Nazism or positing an Axis victory as no different than an Allied victory even claim to be liberal or left-wing? Neo-Nazis, KKK and skinheads all, you should honestly declare your allegiance. I suppose you would have approached a woman who has just watched her children shot dead at Babi Yar by Einsatzkommandos and who is about to be shot herself, and say, "Your fate is regrettable but my country shouldn't wage war against your killers because its intentions aren't pure, and anyways America is just as bad as Nazi Germany. We killed the Lakota at Wounded Knee fifty years ago, so it's no worse for the Germans to kill you. As you die, cry 'Remember the Pequod of 1636!'"

Japanese Americans were put into "concentration" camps. They all lived. Jews that were sent to Treblinka, Belzec, and Chelmlo "death" camps didn't all die, there were 3 survivors of Treblinka, 1 of Belzec, and 7 of Chelmlo. Of course, the other 1,370,000 did die. Yes there is a difference.

Regarding "concentration camps" vs. "extermination camps." This is merely a matter of semantics.

"Concentration camps" are not set up to help a bunch of people think really really hard about something. Their purpose is to slowly kill "undesirables" through exhausting work, poor/no food, unsanitary conditions, division of families, disruption of commerce and movement, and lack of hope. This can take days, weeks, or years (decades, in the case of the Palestinians).

The U.S. didn't put the Indians in "camps" to help them, they did it to subjugate, control, and starve them out - or at the very least, make them completely dependent on the U.S. and whatever meager provisions they might toss their way. Yes, I too have heard that Hitler was mightily impressed by this.

For a sobering look at the history of war, take a look at the List of Wars page in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars
The list is staggeringly long. We have been at war with ourselves almost continously since the beginning of history and even before. There are no good wars. But are wars necessary? Implicit in war documentaries is the idea that wars are a part of life. It is never questioned. It would be good to see a documentary exploring solutions for the abolition of war. We must question the assumption that war and peace are two sides of the same coin, that we must go to war as "peacemakers" to keep the peace. How insane is that? Isn't it possible to create a world with no enemies, where we all work for the common good? Maybe if we manage to refrain from war for a few generations, we will forget how to fight.

In the words of John Lennon, "you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one"

The Greatest Generation - our grandmothers and grandfathers - were great not because they fought an unavoidable war. It was totally avoidable, like all wars. They were great because unlike the rich bastards who snet them to fight they staved off nazism in a modest and uncomplaining way. It would be easy to say that they would have been greater still if they had stayed home and placed their efforts in a revolution to guillotine the likes of Bush and Rockerfeller, but I was never in their shoes and cannot judge what was right. My grandfathers joined up becuase their country, Britain, was on the verge of being invaded and they lived only 50 miles from nazi occupied territory. As bad as life was - and my parents' families were both poor - they knew ordinary working class people would siffer even more under nazism and its corporate collaborators in Britain.

Like every war in history: rich man's war, poor man's fight.

Let us learn - no more hitler's and no more roosevelts/churchills either - war in totally vested in their economic interests. If no one turned up for the rich man's war then it would not happen. Next time we should let saddam and bush fight it out with duelling pistols.

First of all nobody wins a war, simply put one loses less. It is not like keeping score, getting points etc. Secondly, I am not sure had the Axis lost less then the Allies would things be much different today. Thirdly, for the war period of 1914-1945 is more an accurate picture since the first part did not finish it. The second part may have been simply a plan to get the runined rich people rich again after the world wide 1929 stock market crash. Remember who Hitler's American banker was, yes Prescott Bush father of G.H.W. Bush father of Dubya.
Wars are planned by the elite for the rich where the poor pay the bloody price.
stop all wars
Bill Brown

SG- My problem with the above article is that the four myths are a given, apparently because Mr. Wood says they are.

I hear ya, except that a newspaper column, which is what the author writes, can only fit about 750 words. Not much room for historical analysis. Your critique would be right on, if the author were writing a book. But, it's only ONE column. And I don't think the point is that because Wood (a combat vet) says it, it must be true. It's meant to stimulate discussion about war mythology and how it can distort how people conceive of present day conflicts. I think that's a discussion worth having.

"Of course the most important issue of beating the Nazi regime was real, but in a war, things are not as simple as just black and white. The Americans and Allied Forces made many mistakes and also many dubious strategic choices. The whole myth is about celebrating war and idolizing victory. It is a myth that is common to all wars that have ever been fought."

There are two varieties of neo-fascists: those for whom the myth is sacred, and who constantly nominate new Hitlers that must be resisted (they're currently in power); the others cloak themselves in justified criticism of the US's imperial aims & practices to generate sympathy for Hitler & Mussolini & their would-be heirs.

The former are currently far more dangerous; but the latter aren't fluffy bunnies.

Imperial wars are never wars of liberation; the old anti-Soviet torturers & inventors & spies were perfectly happy to pursue the old nemesis with a new lot of torturers signing the paychecks . . .

Winnetou: "Here in Europe the myth that Americans were our liberators after the Second World War is still so persistent..."

Well, in Western Europe, the Americans WERE the liberators. Your leaders remember it because it happened in their lifetimes (if not yours). I do agree with you that Germany today holds a higher spot in moral standing than the U.S. ...there's no question, the entire world agrees with that! But just like the American Revolution would not have been possible without the help of France, the European liberation would not have been possible without America, Britain, and (mostly) the Soviet Union (though Stalin turned around and created a new evil empire straight away). We all get our bad leaders now and again, but the important thing is to remember that our peoples are connected, related, and friends. The biggest myth is that anybody won. All sides lost so much more than any of them gained.

SG- My problem with the above article is that the four myths are a given, apparently because Mr. Wood says they are.

The myths surrounding WWII require amnesia of the events preceding it. Japan was a supporter of the League of Nations and was a member until 1933, when it resigned based on the league's criticism of Japan's occupation of Manchuria. However, one interesting quote in relation to the League of Nations (which the US refused to join) and Japan is of Senator Chamberlain of Oregon, who had been chairman of the Military Committee of the US Senate during WWI. In response to a proposal that the constitution of the League of Nations forbid racial discrimination with regard to immigration, Chamberlain said that he "would defeat the treaty and witness another great war" with Germany, Russia, and Japan, rather than allow the league to "take away a single fundamental American right," that being the right to discriminate based on race.

War ain't about one land against the next--it's poor people dyin' so the rich cash checks.

(The Coup, "Head (Of State)" from the album "Pick a Bigger Weapon")

The point of the piece wasn't to get caught up in arguing about how precise the myths are but to simply point out the fact that WWII history is shrouded in myth; and to extent that these myths form the basis of U.S. foreign policy thinking, it blinds PRESENT DAY policymakers and war supporters from understanding the nature of warfare in general, and the guerrilla war and occupation in Iraq. It's not about moral relevatism. It's about understanding the hidden assumptions in America's war posture, which is a good thing for both those who want to put an end to this madness and, actually, for those who want to "fight better."

Winnetou: "myth that the allies were liberators"

I guess the Dutch were just biding their time before they threw the Germans out themselves. My Uncle (battle of Arnhem) must have been doing something other than driving the Germans out of Holland. (and paid with his life). Thanks

To understand the causes of the US war with Japan is a complex task and I can make no claims to have a complete understanding. But at first glance, the treaty arrangements made in the 1920s between US/British and European naval forces on one side and Japan on the other seem to favor an imperial agenda by the West. So much so that from the Japanese point of view, they thought they were being set up for domination and withdrew from the key naval limitation treaties in 1936. (The Japanese slogan during WWII was "Asia for Asians.)

Here is an overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty

And the text of they key treaty:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pre-war/1922/nav_lim.html

The overall fact that naval tonnage allocated to the US/UK was a 10 to 3 ration over that allowed for Japan would suggest that Japan didn't even have enough of a navy to protect themselves from the imperial desires of European powers who had already conquered much of China and the pacific, such as the US conquest of Hawaii in about 1900. With French and Italian naval forces considered the European/Japanese balance was nearly 14 to 3.

If the US/UK/French/Italian group had wanted world peace with an umbrella of the global rule of law--instead of empire, favoring them--they wouldn't have maintained an attitude of domination. Perhaps they could have avoided WWII, just as we can now institute the global rule of law with a democratized UN system (but presently resist) in order end the current conflicts with the Muslims and others.

The choice then as now is clear: domination by the powerful or the global rule of law. The former choice is characterized by actions to continue domination as usual with the US and the other great powers ignoring international laws whenever they want to. The latter choice seems wise, given the realities and parities of modern WMD-type weapons, so it is a great time to pursue a framework to prevent war and prosecute those who initiate it illegally.

This discussion is like arguing that slapping a person or blowing him away with a .45 are morally the same. They both involve wrongs against a person after all. The allies (at least the british and americans)WERE the good guys in World War II. They did a few morally questionable things (allowing the Russians to overrun Eastern Europe, locked up japanese-americans, firebombing Dresden, refusing to allow in a greater quota of Jews, ect) Balanced against the 50 million civilians killed by the other side however, there can be no question that the right side won the war. All this moral relativism (Well, they may have killed 23 million chinese but we only wanted the rubber plantations!) is not helpful and not true.

nodupe - "they armed the mad man Hitler to the teeth and set him loose for a while. Then they stepped in and destroyed him according to plans. "

Are you claiming that the USA and Britain had installed Hitler and supplied him with armed?

Can you provide any evidence to support your claim?

And ho would you explain the concession made to Hitler during the The Munich Agreement 1938?

Here in Europe the myth that Americans were our liberators after the Second World War is still so persistent that many European governments don't dare to criticize anything the U.S. government does, even after more than 60 years.
Myself I was not there at the time, but I heard stories that the allied forces have also been fighting a lot against local resistance fighters who were perceived as 'communists', especially in Southern Europe, and of course there are all the stories about former Nazi's whose methods (and some of the people) have been incorporated into the CIA. (I'm sorry that I am not able to provide more accurate references). The city where I lived for many years in Holland had been bombed by the Americans by mistake as a 'collateral damage'.

Of course the most important issue of beating the Nazi regime was real, but in a war, things are not as simple as just black and white. The Americans and Allied Forces made many mistakes and also many dubious strategic choices. The whole myth is about celebrating war and idolizing victory. It is a myth that is common to all wars that have ever been fought.

After sixty years, I must say that the present-day German government is of a higher moral standing than the present U.S. government. Things are changing and it is sad that these myths help to maintain the situation where internationally nobody dares to criticize the U.S. government.

Honest discussion? God's honest Truth? Here we go. Hitler was a creation of British and American bankers in the same way that Saddam Hossein was a creation of the CIA. British and American bankers wanted a new war in Europe at any price. So, they armed the mad man Hitler to the teeth and set him loose for a while. Then they stepped in and destroyed him according to plans. Everything went along according to plans laid out when FDR came into power. Hitler was not an accident, he was not a surprise. He was there to serve a purpose. When his time was up, he was destroyed. Same thing with Saddam. Who won? The warmaker, of course, the USA. Let us be honest with history.

I think the writer and most of the posters are missing the point. The goal of the Axis was to enslave and conquer the world. Please tell me what good came of Hitler marching his army though Europe and Japan trying to conquer Asia? Do you really think the world would have been better if they won the war? The allies DID win the war. Colin Powell said it more eloquently than I could when he addressed the World Economic Forum in Switzerland during January, 2003...
"And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are."

" Sir Melvin Cleophus August 13th, 2007 1:29 pm

It is the "winner" of a war that determines who is "good" and who is "bad" after it is done. What if Germany and Italy "won" WW2? What if Japan claimed victory over the USA and the Americans did not have the atomic bomb, nor could stop them. The world would indeed be different, but one should not judge on whether this was good or bad, because ....

..."

That seems like an okay reasoning in part, but from what I've read, U.S. President FDR KNEW that the Japanese were going to strike, such as at Pearl Harbor, beforehand, and stayed SILENT about this in order to ensure that the U.S. population would fully support the U.S. govt being wholly launched in to WWII; kind of like when President LBJ in 1969 BETRAYED the crew of the USS Liberty when the Israeli govt had its forces launch a strong strike, given it had learned that the crew of the Liberty had detected what Israel had really done or been planning to do against Egypt, and both of these cases being Israeli aggression. President LBJ made sure no US military intervention would come to the rescue of the crew of the Liberty, or at least not in an as timely manner as could have otherwise happened.

It's what I've read, and plenty of sources on the Web provide this information, all of the above.

SO, Sir Melvin Cleophus is hereby mistaken; there definitely were very BAD, evil parties, and ya just need to look in the direction of the White House, as again applies today, and many times before; including the 1999 U.S. gangster war of aggression against former Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic and the people of the Kosovo area. All for natural resources and geopolitical strategizing for "simply" economic predation, OF COURSE.

There is also definitely bad among soldiers when they know what the laws and conventions applying to them are and wittingly transgress against these laws and conventions. F.e., every U.S. military service member has the U.S. military law which stipulates that the c.-in.-c. is NOT above the Constitution but to be held ACCOUNTABLE to it, and it additionally renders intl laws and conventions supreme to itself, TO BOOT.

" marctileston August 13th, 2007 1:52 pm

Yes to the victor go the spoils and the right to write the hitory. All wars are lost except to the elite who plan and profit from them.

..."

False and true; the first and second quoted sentences, respectively. The first is definitely false for it employs 'right' instead of hegemon's 'privilege' or simply ability. That they have the ability is an obvious fact; while them having the right to exercise that ability is nonexistant, it's instead a WAR CRIME punishable with either VERY LONG prison sentences and/or death.

NO ONE has a right that that person denies to others, so to LIE IS NOT A RIGHT; it's only something people have the ability to do. And if this was not true, then we would have NO grounds for saying that psychopaths are not exercising their rights when they murder, rape, pillage, launch wars of aggression, etc. We only have rights if these are common with others. Privilege is a distinct matter; not the same thing as a right. And ability is also distinct from privilege, although some people have the ability to grant or self-grant privileges. We can't do that with respect to rights, for then psychopaths could claim that they have the right to commit their crimes, given that they self-grant these rights.

" namvet67 August 13th, 2007 1:58 pm

Our myths regarding our wars go all the way back to the Revolutionary War. ...

..."

That's a poor understanding of history, and I'm not historian. The myths regarding U.S. wars date further back, and given that Americans were Europeans, oh, now Americans were descendants of peoples that had been making up myths about their wars for thousands of years, already. Just because these Americans had left Europe to live on a different continent, this did not mean that they had not taken what they had culturally learned before with them to North America.

The same happened in Canada, where First Nations Peoples have had roughly 500 years of being aggressed, subjugated, etc., and there were surely plenty of myths made up and spread by and among the European invaders throughout.

The same surely also happened in Haiti and possibly other Caribbean countries, as well as in or across South America, by again Europeans who have an obviously VERY LONG history of lust for other peoples' lands, natural resources, and BLOOD.

marctileston mentions the taking of scalps from enemies, but I really wonder if this was first done by the First Nations Peoples of the continental U.S.A., or if they hadn't started doing this because it was being done to them and while they were NOT enemies of the invading and ruthless Europeans who committed such acts, either first, or later. That Europeans schmucks started doing this at some point is minimally reflected in the story of Geronimo anyway; when whites massacred First Nations peoples, scalped them, and then sold these, as a way of "earning a living", and supposedly doing it only to Apaches, but doing it to any other and saying that they were Apache scalps.

At least when the FNP did it, it wasn't to enrich themselves materially; only doing it out of strong anger against the slaughtering aggressions against them and their populations.

Quote: "Scalping is the act of removing the scalp, usually with the hair, as a portable proof or trophy of prowess in war. The practice has been known in Europe, Asia and Africa. Scalping is also associated with frontier warfare in North America, and was practiced by Native Americans and white colonists and frontiersmen over centuries of violent conflict.

..."

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/scalping

I think that that should give a good little intro. on the topic. :))

Mastershake, Stilba, Jumperpin:

Good points. Ever since I began to understand how WWII really happened, I've been struck by the irony of the fact that western democracy was on the ropes in 1940, and was essentially saved by the efforts of Communist Russia. There's an excllent book by Richard Overy that makes this point in some detail -- I think it's called "How the Allies Won World War 2", or something like that. Well worth reading. One of the interesting points it makes is that the Soviet Union was the "real" loser of the war -- it just took about 45 years to fall over. Can't say that I miss the Soviets, but it's important to remember how important the sacrifice of the Russian people was to saving our hides.

Also not mentioned:

The Japanese killing of 17 million Chinese civilians, 4 million indonesian civilians, 1 million Indochina civilians, 1.5 million India civilians, 1 million Manchurian civilians, and 500,000 Korean civilians. Other than that, they had great success with their Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Not to mention:

1. the imprisonment of 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps by the US government

2. the nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities filled with civilians

2a. the firebombing of Tokyo and the annihilation of Dresden (again, both filled with innocent civilians)

3. the birth of a new US empire which led to 50 years of cold war and millions dead (most notably from the wars in Korea and Vietnam)

4. the US government failing to halt the genocide against Jews in Europe and turning back boats full of refugees

Here's a more thorough analysis of the myths behind "the good war." http://www.isreview.org/issues/10/good_war.shtml

Benihaha said: "It's also retarded to suggest that there is a comparison between WWII and the Iraq debacle. Iraq isn't even a war. It makes me wonder if Mr. Gonsalves has any clue what he's talking about."

Apparently, you're not very familiar with the column. The author has written repeatedly over the years that comparing WWII to Iraq is ludicrous. But that's exactly what many Iraq war supporters do regularly, most glaringly members of the Bush team. While the above piece doesn't go into detail about China's role in WWII, I think you are misreading the thrust of where this particular piece is coming from.

It's fairly easy to compare countries to one another. With well over 3,000 years of history fairly well-known, man's inhumanity toward man is readily apparent.

The question is, what are we going to do to end the cycle?

Prosecuting all American war criminals and war profiteers would be an excellent place to start.

Peace to you and yours.

Happystead is right. This whole arguing of who is the lesser of two evils is counter-productive.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

(So don't vote Democrat)

No one has mentioned that the Soviet Union was Nazi Germany's key ally and supplier of raw war goods until June 21 1941, nor the fact that the U.S. supplied them with massive amounts of material- without which they may not have survived. We could not have easily defeated the Nazi's without Russia - the same as they could not have defeated Germany without the U.S. and Britain. As far as the Americans and the Nazi's being the same,(concentration camps, ect) I would suggest that you ask someone who lived under both occupations. I doubt you would have many votes for the Germans

Russia and England bore most of the casualties against the German army because they are right next door to Germany. The US was there to ASSIST our Allies in their conflict. Sorry to disagree with you Sean but we DID win mostly on our own against Japan. Where were the Chinese naval vessels during the Battle of Midway? Where were they at Leyte Gulf? Where were the Chinese during the battle of Iwo Jima? Where were they in Okinawa? Chinese helped us out by letting us launch airstrikes from Kunming and Mingaladon as part of a handshake between Chiang Kai-shek and FDR (mostly to help China not America).
It's also retarded to suggest that there is a comparison between WWII and the Iraq debacle. Iraq isn't even a war. It makes me wonder if Mr. Gonsalves has any clue what he's talking about.

marctileston got it right all the rest of the commentary is pretty much beside the point.
One would believe that in the the largest most successful capitalist country it would be second nature to just follow the money - who profited from the/this/that war.

First Nations peoples were slaughtered for their land and the Africans were enslaved to work the stolen lands - that is the history that needs to be resolved and no one appears to have the wherewithall to do so. Certainly not the education system from what I have read above!

How does one protest in a fascist state?

I have often wondered how a great nation like Germany home to the some of the greatest writers, philosophers, musicians, builders of all time could be seduced/extorted/blackmailed into such a relationship with Herr Schicklgruber's
murder party. Is what the USA is doing now the same thing? Judging by the millions of dead around the world it seems to be heading in the same direction. How did the Poles feel as they watched the Germans getting more and more enmeshed in the Nazi web of lies and deceit? I ask of the Poles because they were neighbors to and the largest trading partner of Germany at the time. Sort of like the Canada/USA relation today. Is there cause for Canadians to be concerned? Should Canada start an Atomic weapons arsenal of her own?

mastershake,

"...Russia had defeated Germany before America even declared war on Germany.."

I wouldn't go that far. True, the Wehrmacht was stalled at the outer suburbs of Moscow as the brutal '41/42 winter unfolded. But it was hardly "defeated".

Further, am not inclined to assume that Operation Barbarossa, of itself, forced the Reich's downfall. Tardily launched in June '41, and when then overconfident Germany's economy was still on a peacetime footing, Barbarossa was directed at the Reich's largest, most accessible and most natural adversary.

Had so much of their armor not been tied up in the Balkans in early '41, and had Germany (drunk from fresh victories against far more modern armies) appreciated the ever expanding scope of Barbarossa; history could have easily been very different.

mastershake- As I said before, I agree with most of your points. Including the one about Iran.

"2. Russia had not defeated Germany when America joind the war in December 1941. The turning point was a year later at the battle of Stalingrad."

Barborossa, which includes Stalingrad, is almost unanimously considered the turning point of WWII. My point was, before America even signed on to the war, let alone mobilized over to Africa, Britain/Europe etc Russia was beating back the Nazi's. But yes, what you say is correct STalingrad was 1942-43 (winter).

I always hear that our war against Germany was justified by them declaring war on us.

Okay, they declared war on us. They were so busy fighting Britain, Free French, and the USSR that there was no way they could have fought us at the time!

basically, our public is as stupid, uninformed, and blind as Germany's in 1933-45, and we're just as timid, apathetic, paranoid, fearful, ignorant.

I had a discussion with a co-worker, was about Iran. I explained to her

"Our Government, and the media are now claiming that Iran is supplying weapons to the insurgents in Iraq" (you like that? it's not a resistence, rebellion, revolt, or revolution occuring in Iraq- it's an insurgency- more propoganda from the ministry of information)

in any case I continued to explain the government's story "And as 'Evidence' our government and media is claiming that Iranian labels are on some of the weapons. IN essence, Iran, who our government thinks is secretly supplying weapons to a n Iraq patrolled by the US military, just simply up and "forgot" to take the labels off the smuggled items."

Our government wants us to believe this. The government can't even come up with a rational or logical lie. This shit won't fly, or so I thought...my coworker responded

"How does that not make sense?"

I replied "Iran whose secretly supplying weapons to the insurgents simply forgot to take of the labels bearing the name and source of the weapons?"

and she said "Yes, because they (the Iranians) are stupid."

And it's that level of ignorance, stupidity, and brainwashing that has gripped the American public. When you have 40% of our country believing Saddam was not just involved, but "personally involved" in 9-11, and when you have 50% believing we have proof Iran is supplying weapons to Iraq, truly and quite blatently we are collectively brainwashed, manipulated, and herded like a bunch of sheep.

(source for public opinion www.pollingreport.com, see Iraq, Iran, Terrorism etc.)

mastershake--

Not only was Russia already winning, we didn't even invade Normandy to defeat Germany. It was to make sure all of Europe didn't fall to those evil, godless, anti-American, child-eating communists!

kali--

Hitler also said he admired the American South's Jim Crow laws and modeled many of his anti-Semitic laws off of that.

mastershake - I agree about what you wrote with regard to the USSR. However I have some minor corrections:

1. Germany declaired war on the USA, and not the other way around.
2. Russia had not defeated Germany when America joind the war in December 1941. The turning point was a year later at the battle of Stalingrad.

I just can't wrap my mind around the "good war" concept.

But I can predict that Ken Burns will glorify America the great, and our devine intervention in WWII.

Ed Graham

kali - Fine by me, Don't let me off the hook...
Where exactly did I mentioned in my former post the word "concentration camp"?

I said very clearly "Extermination camps".

There is a huge difference between concentration camp and death camp.

Now who is the "idiot"?

Psst--American big business made money hand over fist supplying both sides of WWII through their overseas subsidiaries!--Pass it on!

Especially the big three auto-makers and IBM.

Vets I am not letting you off the hook on that one. According to a movie called "Broken Rainbow" narrated by Martin Sheen, Hitler got the idea of the concentration camp from what the US did to the original inhabitants of North America. What the hell do you call "the Trail of Tears". I call it ethnic cleansing American style. Look, I don't mind rebuttals to my posts. But you really need to think before you respond, because you come off like an freakin' idiot!!!

Stilba has it right.

By the time we invaded at Normandy, the Soviet Union had turned the tide, totally erased Germany's Sixth Army, tossed the remaining Wehrmacht back hundreds of miles, and was sweeping through eastern Europe.

BTW, one growing and all too fashionable myth among some right-wingers (eg: Pat Buchanon) is to minimize the impact/extent of the German death camps; and to hint that we may have even fought on the wrong side.

Changing the subject, a fresher and more salient lost lesson was the Viet Nam war. How many times had we heard that fighting a war "with one hand tied behind our back" was the cause of failure. But our actual mistake was to fight the same people we were purportedly defending. Obviously, we rejected this lesson.

Also, Russia had defeated Germany before America even declared war on Germany (and Germany on America)... Everyone knew then that Germany no longer had any chance of winning- even without America.
That's another little myth that goes unacknowledged.

30 Million Russians died in WWII, compared with what, 400,000 Americans? The Russians are LARGELY to credit for defeating Nazi Germany.

Operation Barbarossa, and Hitler's stupidity are also to blame for the Nazi defeat. He, like Bush now, didn't learn their lessons of history. Napolean tried the SAME EXACT military invasion of Russia, and it failed miserably. And both strategies relied on caputuring Moscow the capital, which both dictators thought would break apart Russia and dissolve the resistence. Yet in both cases, it only made the resistence stronger, and emboldened them.

It really sounds a lot like today. Hitler and Bush are both delussional, and simply will not listen to their generals- and even fire the generals that don't tell them what they want. They both think their respective militaries are invincible. I'm reminded of the story of the battle of Stalingrad, for months several German divisions (half a million troops) tried to capture Stalingrad, but were met with relentless and stiff resistence. Casualties were heavy on both sides, and even heavier on the Russian side. But the Russians were relentless, and kept on pouring manpower, firepower against the Germans. German generals kept sending messages back to Hitler in Berlin that the German Army was being slaughtered, and could not take the city-let alone hold it even if they were to take it. Hitler, much like Bush, pretty much ignored his generals' requests and gave them the middle finger. Such an ignorant attittude cost Hitler dearly.

And today it really is like watching history repeat itself. You have a disconnected corperate/fascist government in the white house which is convieniently oblivious and ignorant to the situation on the ground. MORE IMPORTANTLY (maybe) and one thing to consider is how our media/news outlets propogandize and keep us oblivious and ignorant to the truth of the situation and the war. And even more so during the lead up to the war, same thing happened in Poland- before Germany's invasion, you'd see headlines "Poland masses an army 2 Million Strong!"

Our media too is owned and operated by the corperate government to spread it's propoganda, brainwash Americans, and manipulate the public just as it did in Germany.

Let's go back to St. Augustine and his views on "just war".

I figure that a churchy fellow had to come up with something, because Augustine's religion was now Official Religion and had to say something nice about the State.

States you see, have the habit of going to war, which entails a lot of killing and Augustine's religion, like so many others, if not most, don't think killing is nice.

Augustine had the brains to put together a nice sop to what rulers are going to do anyway -- so, I think it must be said that there is No Such Thing As a Just War.

There may be wars that must be fought -- but there is no justification for war, no war is right, or just. Never.