'World War II Won in Less Than 5 Years' … huh?
-
badwithsports — 16 years ago(March 02, 2010 09:54 PM)
yeah my beef wasn't that she got the years wrong but that she compared the two, I remember seeing a campaign commercial a while back that said the same thing. These wars are apples and oranges. Terror is not a country, let alone several countries.
-
Mississippi20 — 15 years ago(July 19, 2010 09:51 AM)
It's actually a stupid comparison.
(Which is why I hated Streeps Character in this movieshe was not at all intelligent)
WWI or WWII are not comparable to any war in the modern era. Moreover, they were really the last wars of Cultural change (he who wins influences the captured, freed, occupied populace).
Virtually all the major wars fought up to the Korean war resulted in occupying a country for gain of your nation. From Alexanders Wars, to Genghis Kahn, to The Napoleonic Wars, to WWII.
The idea of political victory, cultural victory, etc thru war is over. And may never be seen again (in our lifetimes).
Look at Chechnya. 20 years on an Russia is still fighting what it terms "domestic terrorists" - Thru her stupidity of comparison though, comes the real direct point. Which is you cannot win a war like this thru occupation or military victory.
You need a combination of effective "security" (whatever that may mean) and public works efforts. (Schools, Healthcare, Infrastructure). Economically viable countries aren't breading grounds for terrorism because economic opportunities allow young men to work, have families, and seek better lives.
Interesting point, but don't be so quick to call it a stupid comparison..the sole reason why your post raises interesting points is
because
of the comparison to previous wars, like WWII.
If we're fighting a different kind of war now, where the military is only acting as some sort of security force, and the
real
war will only be won through some sort of economic/public work.it raises interesting questions.
We're facing a much tougher enemy - one that is not easily seen. In WWII, and the other wars you mention.it's not like the Nazis were in hiding. They were trying to advance, conquer - it was army vs. army. And things got settled.
Now, we're trying to win this different kind of war diplomatically without the full support of the country..in WWII, the whole country was united. Men
wanted
to go to war. People made sacrificies at home to help their soldiers.
At the same time, if we abandon our efforts, what threat does Al Qaeda pose? Look at 9-11. I think it's the impetus of our efforts. So now what do we do? Can this war be won? What will it take and are you willing to take those measures? Do you accept the consequences of pulling out? Are we on the right course now?
The threat that North Korea presents today is a result of the failures in the Korean/Vietnam wars 40 years ago.
By the way, this is a good movie because it opens up discussions like this, and it makes you think. -
borderboy — 15 years ago(May 14, 2010 04:19 PM)
I didn't like this film for reasons well set out by other posters. But two things bothered me in particular. First, the title. The Robert Redford character recounts how a German general described British soldiers in WW1 as "Lions led by Lambs." It's widely accepted that the quote was "Lions led by donkeys," - but that doesn't look so good on the poster, does it?
Secondly, the Meryl Streep character, discussing the fact that the war in Afghanistan had gone on for six years, says WW2 lasted less than five. No, it didn't. America's (crucial) involvement in WW2 began in December 1941. At that point Britain had already been fighting more than two years, in which time Nazi Germany had invaded Russia, conquered Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Greece and Yugoslavia, and begun shipping their Jews to death camps. Britain had survived Dunkirk and the Blitz, won the Battle of Britain, and was in the midst of the Battle of the Atlantic.
World War Two began in September 1939. It lasted more than six years. Britain was the only that nation that fought from the beginning to the end. Without the US we wouldn't have won in Europe or the Far East: but that doesn't mean the game only started when America showed up.
It's very troubling that a film about engagement with the world and awareness of recent history can get such a basic fact so wrong. -
tom-1674 — 10 years ago(May 20, 2015 10:17 PM)
in 1940 britain stood alone.
Pick up a history book and read about a little known country called Canada. If it wasn't for Canada's contribution in the Battle of Britain, and the huge Atlantic convoys of materiel manned mostly by Canadians, the UK would surely have fallen before the Americans got involved. -
Mississippi20 — 15 years ago(July 19, 2010 09:35 AM)
They're obvioulsy talking about World War II from the
United States's
perspective, since - obviously - this is a film about the United States.
The United States entered WWII after Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. Our enemies surrendered in 1945.
That's less than 5 years. -
niamh-11 — 15 years ago(August 22, 2010 12:04 PM)
I for one take total umbridge with schools teaching that the second world war started in 1941, my grandfathers and many others didnt sit idly by during 1940 1nd 1941 doing nothing. My family in London were bombed constantly almost every night from the summer of 1940 until the end of the war during the blitz and for six years they were under costant threat and bombardment and lost their home to a bomb early on. Far away in America you can pretend it didt start till you bothered to show up and even teach that in school. We are currently living in the States, very nice thanks. When my children bought home papers with the 1941 date on them I corrected them and sent them back with a few notes about the blitz, with pictures and casaulty rates, I got an nice note and they have since changed their date. If it wasnt for the summer of 1940, you lot wouldnt have had nothing to show up for in early 1942, thanks for the lend lease which my fellow taxpayers and I paid back a few years ago but get the dates rightplease. WW1 1914-1918 WW2 1939-1945. Its not much to ask and its just respectful to us, and stop saying that Russia joined in 1942, they were always in they just changed sides in '42!
-
ianprl — 14 years ago(August 16, 2011 07:54 PM)
I will make the point that the views about the "correct" dating of the second world war are what some modern historians would call "eurocentric". They are from the point of view of Europeans.
A couple of quotes here from Wikipedia.
The Second Sino-Japanese War (19371945) (part of World War II) caused around 20 million Chinese civilian deaths.
From 1937 to 1941, China fought Japan with some economic help from Germany , the Soviet Union (19371940) and the United States. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (1941), the war merged into the greater conflict of World War II as a major front of what is broadly known as the Pacific War. The Second Sino-Japanese War was the largest Asian war in the 20th century. It also made up more than 50% of the casualties in the Pacific War if the 19371941 period is taken into account.
In the distant future, everything from 1914 to 1945 may be called "The World Wars" or "The Wars of the Fascist Era". -
IndyCelt — 10 years ago(April 07, 2015 10:12 PM)
The Chinese entered WW2 in 1937 when they were invaded by Japan.
That's difficult to support, since WW2 didn't exist at that timeit was the second Japan-China war. Retrospectively one can make a weak case for adding it to the beginning of WW2 I suppose.
How do they feel when they hear crap like WW2 "started in 1939"?
Maybe the same as the Spanish, whose civil war from 1936-1939 was supported by Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin [among others] on the two sides. How far do you want to go back to add on wars to the beginning of WW2? -
tom-1674 — 10 years ago(May 20, 2015 10:23 PM)
I hate the eurocentric view of WW2.
Canada isn't in Europe, nor is Australia, New Zealand, or a lot of other countries that declared war on the Axis in 1939. Only an ignorant fool would make the absurd claim that WW2 started before September 1939, or after that date.