World War I & II topic

I have not seen this show. I really wish we would put the big public film making groups of the UK, USA, and Canada together and make something that really covers the gambit.
 
I have not seen this show. I really wish we would put the big public film making groups of the UK, USA, and Canada together and make something that really covers the gambit.


I guess we can take what we can get ... so far at least, I think it was pretty well done and at least is the History Chanel doing history instead of Ice Road Truckers and all the "America was founded by Martians" crap they have been airing
 
Last survivor of Enola Gay crew dies

ATLANTA — The last surviving crew member of the the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan during World War II has died.

Theodore "Dutch" Van Kirk died of natural causes Monday at a retirement home where he lived in Stone Mountain, The Associated Press reported, citing his son Tom Van Kirk. Theodore Van Kirk was 93 years old.

Van Kirk was the navigator aboard the Enola Gay, a B-29 Superfortress bomber that dropped an atomic bomb called "Little Boy" on the Japanese city of Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945. The bomb killed 140,000 people. Van Kirk was 24 years old at the time.

In a 2010 interview with WXIA, Van Kirk said he had no second thoughts about his part in the historic event.

"You have to understand the Japan we fought was significantly different from the Japan in later years," he said.

Tom Van Kirk said he and his siblings are fortunate to have had such a wonderful father who remained active until the end of his life.

"I know he was recognized as a war hero, but we just knew him as a great father," he said in a telephone interview with the AP on Tuesday.




I remember that as a kid
, I was told that the people on Enola Gay all subsequently went insane. What can I say, people like to tell children fairy tales.
 
WWII experts, I have a question. To preface, something I found on Wikipedia:

At the end of the Pacific Theater of World War II, the Imperial Japanese government accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. In 1945, the unconditional surrender of the Empire of Japan was formally confirmed aboard the Allied battleship, USS Missouri (BB-63). Once the formal documents were signed, General Douglas MacArthur, representing the Allies, was named the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers in Japan.[1]

Emperor Hirohito let it be known to General MacArthur that he was prepared to apologize formally to General MacArthur for Japan's actions during World War II—including an apology for the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.[2]

Apology rebuffed[edit]
In one version of the formal apology, Emperor Hirohito, the Japanese monarch, is reported to have said to General MacArthur: "I come before you to offer myself to the judgment of the powers you represent, as one to bear sole responsibility for every political and military decision made and action taken by my people in the conduct of the war."[3]

In a second version of the formal apology, Patrick Lennox Tierney, claims that he was an eye-witness when the Emperor came to the Allied Supreme Commander's headquarters to present this apology. Tierney was in his office on the fifth floor of the Dai-Ichi Insurance Building in Tokyo. This was the same floor where MacArthur's suite was situated.[2] Tierney reported that when the emperor arrived, MacArthur refused to admit him or acknowledge him, and the pivotal moment passed.

Many years later, Tierney made an effort to explain his understanding of the significance of what he claimed he had personally witnessed: "Apology is a very important thing in Japan. [...] It was the rudest, crudest, most uncalled for thing I have ever witnessed in my life."[2] Issues which might have been addressed were allowed to remain open, and unanticipated consequences have unfolded across the decades since then.[4][5]

So here's my question: I've heard MacArthur was similarly rude to the Japanese at the surrender on the Missouri. What was his problem?
 
WWII experts, I have a question. To preface, something I found on Wikipedia:



So here's my question: I've heard MacArthur was similarly rude to the Japanese at the surrender on the Missouri. What was his problem?
He had just seen his successor in the Philippines. General wainwright for the first time. Saw how he looked and learned the fate of the soldiers that were under his command. So yeah .... he was pissed and rightfully so.

Look up the Bataan Death March for a example. The Japanese treated their prisoners and civilians terribly. As bad and in some respects worse than the Nazi or Soviets
 
I get that he was pissed and had every right to be. So why not stand there and accept an apology? My impression is that once they surrendered, the Japanese genuinely turned over a new leaf and tried to play nice. It sounds to me like MacArthur exercised his grudge on the Japanese in a bad way, and I was hoping there was a better reason than personal anger. I'd like to know if there's any good reason for what he did, because I actually want to respect the guy, instead of just thinking he was pointlessly vindictive.
 
Perhaps he did not believe the sincerity of the apology at the time. There was a issue at the time of the emperor being tried as a war criminal or not.

MacArthur ended up letting him off the hook there
 
It sounds to me like MacArthur exercised his grudge on the Japanese in a bad way, and I was hoping there was a better reason than personal anger.
There was no way to know that the Japanese meant they were sorry. To be honest, we still had no idea exactly how extreme their war crimes were. There's a huge difference between being sorry because you lost and sorry because you want to change. We found that out after 1919.
 
Perhaps he did not believe the sincerity of the apology at the time.

There's a huge difference between being sorry because you lost and sorry because you want to change.

Now that makes sense. Still seems like he could have at least let Hirohito say his piece - why not spare five minutes to keep the local figurehead happy? - but I get why they might have not taken it seriously.
 
There is an excellent book by Dower called Embracing Defeat (1999, won the Pulitzer Prize) ... very well written and gives a good understanding of Japan from 1945 to 1955. If you are interested in the subject, I would recommend it pretty highly. It has a ton of information, but reads like a novel
 
A WWII U-Boat was found off North Carolina

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/21/us/north-carolina-u-boat-wreck/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The link has pics

(CNN) -- A World War II German U-boat, sunk during the Battle of the Atlantic more than 72 years ago, has been discovered off the coast of North Carolina, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Tuesday.

The German sub, the U-576, was found at the bottom of the Atlantic 30 miles off Cape Hatteras and just 240 yards from an American merchant ship, the merchant tanker Bluefields, which was part of a 24-ship U.S. convoy heading from Virginia to Key West, Florida, on July 14, 1942.

"This is not just the discovery of a single shipwreck," said Joe Hoyt, chief scientist of NOAA's Office of Marine Sanctuaries expedition, which found the vessels. "We have discovered an important battle site that is part of the Battle of the Atlantic. These two ships rest only a few hundred yards apart and together help us interpret and share their forgotten stories."

The story of U-576 was is the more tragic of the two wrecks.

Bluefields did not sustain any casualties during the sinking, but all 45 crew of the U-boat were lost.

Commanding U-576 that July day was Kapitanleutnant Hans-Dieter Heinicke. According to documents from the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary, where the wrecks rest, Heinicke had radioed back to commanders in occupied France on July 13 to say the U-boat was damaged and heading back to Germany after a month-long patrol without success against Allied shipping.


As U-576 began that journey home, it ran across convoy KS-520, with 19 merchant vessels and five escorts, on the afternoon of July 14, according to the documents.

Heinicke, who was on his fifth U-boat patrol with relatively little success against Allied shipping, saw a chance for redemption.

"In spite of his damaged ship, Heinicke decided to attack at all costs," a history from the sanctuary reads. "However, at 4:00 pm just before he could fire his torpedoes, one of the Coast Guard cutters picked up a sonar contact. The Coast Guard crew dropped three depth charges, followed by five more 10 minutes later."

But Heinicke pressed his attack, firing off four torpedoes about 4:15 p.m.

"The U-576 sank the Nicaraguan-flagged freighter Bluefields and severely damaged two other ships. In response, U.S. Navy Kingfisher aircraft, which provided the convoy's air cover, bombed U-576 while the merchant ship Unicoi attacked it with its deck gun," the NOAA release reads. The sub sank in minutes.

Two NOAA research vessels, the Okeanos Explorer and SRVX Sand Tiger, participated in the search for the wrecks, which were found and verified in August, NOAA said.

The wreck site is considered a war grave and protected by international law.

"Few people realize how close the war actually came to America's shores," David Alberg, superintendent of NOAA's Monitor National Marine Sanctuary, said in a statement. "As we learn more about the underwater battlefield, Bluefields and U-576 will provide additional insight into a relatively little-known chapter in American history."

Zeroing in on what caused Civil War submarine's sinking
 
After 70 years,"Hitler gets his way". His holiday paradise (a site of 4,5 km length!) approaches completion. Not everybody is happy with it. But I guess it will be a huge attraction nonetheless.

Hitler’s holiday paradise is reinvented as condos, hotels and a spa



web-prora-2-epa-corbis.jpg




.... Without doubt, recriminations of the Third Reich are far and wide in modern Germany, with war-era crime history taught from elementary school onward and a pacifist national identity built largely on a rejection of the past. But the Prora project is highlighting the always-thorny question here of how to deal with the most tangible relic of Germany’s troubled past: Nazi architecture.

In the years after the war, some Nazi-era structures were preserved as monumental testaments to an inhuman regime, while others were pragmatically transformed into offices, army barracks and spaces for other uses. The Berlin stadium built for Hitler’s 1936 Olympic Games is now home to the Hertha Berlin soccer club. The Detlev-Rohwedder-Haus - former home of Hermann Göring’s Ministry of Aviation - now houses a branch of Germany’s Finance Ministry.


web-prora-1-getty.jpg

The massive complex intended as a Nazi holiday camp, pictured in 2011, was steadily falling into disrepair before its new lease of life

Yet opponents in some circles, particularly historians and Jewish groups, are growing increasingly uncomfortable with projects that smack too much of commercialsation or appear to slight history. In Berlin, for instance, a lavish mall opened in September on the site of the former Wertheim department store, a Jewish-owned business whose original owners were dispossessed by the Nazis. ....


(more in Independent article)

EDIT:
Another article from The Washington Post: link
 
part of a growing debate in modern Germany that pits commercialism against Vergangenheitsbewältigung — or the German word for how the country should come to terms with its dark past

Gotta love Deutsch. That word looks like an abomination ... and then I say it out loud and realize that's a badass word. It's at least as musical-sounding as a Steve Harris lyric. :halo:

After the preservation of so many former Nazi buildings, some also are arguing that enough is enough, saying the time has come to let them waste away or, in some instances, consider tearing them down.

This I sort of understand, but I don't think it's very practical. Why let the site waste away? Why not use it? Doesn't sound right to treat it like a toxic waste dump just because Nazis built it. Doesn't Hitler also get credit for the Autobahn? I don't hear any Germans complaining about driving on that. If Hitler picked out a nice resort site, why throw out a good idea just because it came from a bad man?
 
This I sort of understand, but I don't think it's very practical. Why let the site waste away? Why not use it? Doesn't sound right to treat it like a toxic waste dump just because Nazis built it. Doesn't Hitler also get credit for the Autobahn? I don't hear any Germans complaining about driving on that. If Hitler picked out a nice resort site, why throw out a good idea just because it came from a bad man?

This .. There are plenty of companies, buildings, and technology that came from the Nazis (and other horrible regimes as well)
 
I can understand the critics, but I have to say that they don't necessarily have a grasp on reality. Beyond pragmatism, there are more things at work here.

1. These things are huge. As in, megalomaniacally huge. The pictures you see there don't do them justice. They occupy an entire beach on Rügen, and despite it's size, that island does not have all too much in terms of marketable beaches. So the buildings are occupying a very important source of income. Which leads me to the next point.
2. The area is poor. Rügen is a popular tourist destination, but there is not very much in terms of developed infrastructure there. It is part of the poorest state of Germany, which has a small population, hardly any urban centres and high unemployment. They can't just say they'll leave that beach empty if there is not much else in the area that generates job. This 'colossus' is, if anything, a massive job generator.
3. The option to leave the entire beach unoccupied is thus economically and socially stupid. Tearing it down is not an option for two reasons. On the one hand, there's the historical reason. On the other, demolishing them would be too expensive. Nazi architecture is massive and was built to last. It would take years, require too much manpower and cost money all that time.

Nobody is going to deny the history of the buildings or try to forget it, but there's just the thing: They are there, they are blocking important space, so you have to do something with it. The rally grounds in Nuremberg are used for music festivals, the former ministry of aerospace is now used as the ministry of finances, etc etc. You can't turn everything into a museum, not if it's so big and occupying so much space. It's unrealistic and frankly, stupid. Plus, consider that it will draw many visitors who will become aware of it one way or the other. Up to now, it's just an empty ruin in a remote place that hardly anyone goes to look at.
 
Back
Top