RNC chair says the D-Day anniversary should be about celebrating Trump/America - Polidicks

It is so common that even has a page in TV Tropes: America Won World War II

Or Teddy Roosevelt Jr., who led the charge on D-Day with a cane and a pistol.

reminder that this man compared avoiding getting sexually transmitted diseases to vietnam

No today is about remembrance, remembrance of all the people who died to fight fascists. Millions of soldiers died, millions of civilians died, parts of the world were utterly crippled. It shouldn't be about any president, or any countries achievements. It should be just about the men who died on the beaches. It is a tale of men all over the world from various countries and cultures united under one banner with one goal in mind.

While the Soviets were certainly a big part of the victory in WW2, I think Jonathan Boff and Daniel Todman (two historians) bring up an important point in these tweets https://twitter.com/JonathanBoff/status/1136613793906274307 https://twitter.com/daniel_todman/status/1136618853335805952 https://twitter.com/JonathanBoff/status/1136621001624752129

I wouldn't compare the boomers and military types of today to the GI/Silent generation. I mean, as far as generation similarities go, they would probably be more like us. They had to grow up in the aftermath of a global economic depression/recession, supported more progressive policies of popular politicians (Bernie/FDR), witnessed the rise of fascism in their time, etc. Boomers were born into a world where the US was on top because it was relatively untouched by the World Wars with the exception of Pearl Harbor, they literally had it all- booming economy, all sorts of opportunities, no true understanding of the struggle their parents went through.

To be fair, if it weren't for Allied Lends Lease support, the Russians simply would not have survived. The Russians were already receiving food aid during Stalingrad and even then the average soviet soldier's diet at that time consisted as little as 400 calories of bread and that's it. If it weren't for the Allied materials being supplied at that point, there's no way the Soviets would have been able to fully equip and supply their soldiers, and likely many would have starved, causing the Germans to win the Battle of Stalingrad, which was just about the only way the Germans could have won WW2 other than attempting a southern thrust during the winter of 1941 rather than one towards Moscow, as they'd then have the actual resources to fuel their war machine.

It's a bit ironic to say that the allies were fighting for liberty and democracy when they were the ones with the biggest colonial empires at the time. I think we can all agree that the allies' motives were a bit more complex and less idealistic than that. Also IIRC the Soviets were worker councils that didn't have actual power anymore by the time Stalin was at the helm. Kind of weird to claim that the most democratic structures under early Russian communism wanted to destroy democracy, especially when they were no longer relevant.

I'd suggest not just skimming what gets posted. even if they did not always embody them in ideal form. It’s what makes Roosevelt and the US alliance so important for the British Empire. It's better to have an imperfect democracy than a totalitarian state. And even if that democracy doesn't embody its ideals 100% of the time it's still preferable and they can still fight for freedom. It's common shorthand for the Soviet Union/USSR. You're reaching for a point that doesn't exist.

the allies may not have been perfect but it was kind of obvious that they fought to liberate the countries that were invaded, occupied, and genocided by germany and japan and to at least try establishing a more democratic form of government afterwards. if they weren't, then both (west) germany and japan wouldn't have remained free democracies for the longest period of time in their respective histories after the war ended

If by "imperfect democracy" you mean "somewhat democratic" in the imperial state and totalitarian in its colonies I'm not so sure we had such a moral high ground. Calling the British empire, which committed massacres in India in the same era as WW2, or the French empire, which butchered Algeria for the sake of holding onto it less than a couple decades later, "imperfect democracies" is a heck of a euphemism. Mainland Frenchmen and Brits may have lived in a democracy around that time but you couldn't say the same for the rest of those empires' denizens. Even if the entire USSR was under totalitarian rule at that point I wouldn't be so sure that they subjected more people to such a rule than the rest of the allies in 1944. Considering the US only got involved militarily once they were attacked themselves, I wouldn't say that this was the sole motivation for them. Whether to go to war was a rather divisive issue before then. The rest of the allies were either under direct threat by the Nazis or already occupied by them, so their motives were more defensive or about regaining sovereignty than ideological. Regarding genocide, the Holocaust wasn't really known before very late in the war, so I can't see that being part of their motivations. As for the US specifically, claiming that "liberating" countries and "enforcing democracy" were their main motives is rather naive considering they did nothing but fuck with foreign democracies by interference or by backing coups the second they didn't like the results during the cold war. What they wanted was allies against the communist bloc and trade partners, they didn't care whether those respected democratic institutions or not.

Ah the old "Tu-quoque" defense. It didn't work at Nurmeberg, fyi. But more importantly, lets actually address what was going on in the British colonies (since that's my specialty) in the 1920s/30s: Two of the biggest things that happened was that the Commonwealth was created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations and that there were attempts at getting India at least more "home" rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1919 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1935 A few other colonies as well gained independence in this period. As to your massacre comment, you're likely referring to the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre (also known as the Amristr Massacre). While a tragedy, let's not forget what happened to Dyer However he was widely criticised by liberals in the House of Commons and in July 1920 a committee of investigation set up by the British Parliament censured him. No penal or strict disciplinary action could be given because his actions had been approved of by his military superiors, but he was disciplined by being removed from his current appointment, being turned down for a proposed promotion, and was prohibited from further employment in India. As such, he was forced to retire from the army and returned to England, where he died in 1927. Even Churchill had described the massacre as "monstrous". Colonial rule is inherently racist and violent, and it's all the better that the world has moved away from it. But being a colonial power does not put one on the same level as the Nazis or Soviet Union, and nor does their status somehow invalidate the fights they did engage in for the good of democracy. The will to fight was based on the fact that the world was faced with a number of Fascist and totalitarian regimes hell bent on destroying democracy wherever they went. It's pretty much the reason the West fought. His action shows convincingly that there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force, and we and France are today, in fulfillment of our obligations, going to the aid of Poland, who is so bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked attack upon her people. We have a clear conscience. We have done all that any country could do to establish peace. The situation in which no word given by Germany’s ruler could be trusted and no people or country could feel itself safe has become intolerable. [...] Now may God bless you all. May He defend the right. It is the evil things that we shall be fighting against – brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution – and against them I am certain that the right will prevail. Neville Chamberlain in his declaration of war against Germany, September 3rd, 1939. It was very much being couched in ideological terms. No, the Holocaust was known of in 1941 (that's when the actual "Holocaust" had begun). Knowledge of German massacres were known even before then. It was a motivating factor for the Allies. And that has little to do with the administration during WW2, which if I may remind you, occurred before the Cold War. And even furthermore that Tu-quoque isn't a very strong basis for an argument.

"But the Western Allies fought to promote liberty and democracy" Yea, sure, that's why you ignored Spain and Portugal then, right? Like come on, we get the allies were "the good side", but no one really had good intentions with respect the other countries rather than take advantage for themselves.

That's because the democratic powers naively thought that they could contain fascism by appeasing Hitler and letting the Spanish Civil War play out as it did. It doesn't help that Republican Spain was made up of mostly Socialists and Anarchists which were hot topics in the much more conservative nations of France and the UK. Remember that happened before the war with regimes in the UK and France who hearts weren't entirely in it and does not include the USA. By the end of the war there was very much a sentiment of "We're going to restore liberty to the world."

The First World War was still fresh in the minds of everyone, and the last thing the Governments wanted to do was involve their country in another World War. France was also worried that direct support would lead to a civil war, according to Wikipedia. But beyond that, many of the "International Brigades" were in support of the Republicans, interestingly enough...

I always remember the story of Jesse Owens https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/172/99a4aa92-0a0d-478b-b0ec-bc7c57a39acc/image.png The popular version goes something like this: In the 1936 Olympics, held in Germany, Hitler sought to prove, once and for all, the superiority of the aryan race. Against all odds, a young black man from Alabama went on to become the most successful athlete in the competition, obliterating the führer's racist myth in front of the whole world - and it pissed Hitler off so much, he refused to shake Owens' hand. And it's true, Owens' achievement was a moment of real heroism. He was, all around, a remarkable athlete. Only a year earlier, he had set what's known as "the greatest 45 minutes in sports", breaking 3 records and tying another under an hour. No one has ever managed to equal this feat. What's also true is that Hitler looked at the Olympics as an opportunity to propagandize Nazi Germany to the world, and was annoyed at success that wasn't his own. But here's what isn't true. First, and it goes without saying that this isn't much of a point for Hitler (lemme tell ya, I heard some real bad stuff about that guy), but apparently, he didn't refuse to congratulate Owens. It's said he wanted to shake the hands of only the German athletes, but was told he should either do it for everyone, or nobody, and chose the latter. In fact, Owens later recounted that Hitler waved at him from the stands. Curious, but does little to change the story until you hear about the second part, because there was one leader who did refuse to shake Owens' hand. Not Hitler, but his own president, FDR. Owens was not invited to the White House, received no honors, not even a telegram. In one occasion, he was forced to ride the hotel's cargo lift in order to get to a reception held for him. As a black man, he was also forced to ride in the back of the bus. Denied the same housing and the same spaces as whites. Tried to earn some money from the Olympics success, had his amateur status revoked, and his career as an athlete ended. Was targeted by IRS investigations which never touched white sportsmen. In 1939, declared bankruptcy. Jesse Owens did, eventually, find some stability as a speaker promoting sports around the country, but he was never able to capitalize on his success. There was no opportunity, as per his own words, "no television, no big advertising, no endorsements back then. Not for a black man, anyway." So yeah, if you ever want to know how whitewashed and glorified US history has been, consider the fact a black man like Owens got treated worse by his fellow Americans than he did by - literally - Hitler

The facade of American exceptionalism is the only thing holding the country together, besides sheer momentum.

I meant more during and after WW2, since everybody went with "oh shit we can use the fascists at the Iberian peninsula to contain the reds", but ye, everybody played chicken at the beginning. And then the civil war on Greece And the manipulation on the left parties of France and Italy so the conservatives would win after the war And Operation Gladio...

Huh? Pointing out that the nations you claim fought mainly to protect democracy during WWII were awfully inconsistent at that and either did nothing or actively fought against it more often than not is a fallacy now? Not sure what the fuck this has to do with Nuremberg, BTW. Yes, and just like with any decolonisation move at the time, I'm sure this was done out of sheer goodwill and love for democracy, and not because their hand was forced or it was deemed no longer profitable. I'm sure all of these now independent nations are stable democracies and none of them are puppet governments or ruled by despots. After all, Germany and Japan are proof that anything the West touches ends up being a proper liberal democracy. Funny that you left Algeria out, by the way. I suppose France just wanted to liberate them and defend democratic values there, too. A far cry from the punishment German officers faced at Nuremberg for similar crimes, since you think that's a relevant subject. "Just following orders" wasn't a strong defense there either. So the person responsible for a massacre was simply forced to retire and I'm supposed to take from this that the British empire is a stalwart of democracy that would put their own men in harm's way out of sheer desire to defend democratic values? Sending supplies is cool and all but we're talking about the hypocrisy of underplaying the role of USSR soldiers and their huge casualties in favor of depicting the commitment of the western world, and in particular the US despite the fact that they didn't get militarily involved until late in the war. If supplies alone can be deemed evidence that their support comes strictly from a will to defend democracy, then that only brings more questions regarding the west's inaction during the Spanish civil war and the lack of material support against fascists there, all the while Nazi Germany and the USSR supplied their respective allies. OK, and...? Is your strongest evidence there a political speech? Do we take all that politicians say at face value now? If speeches, rhetoric and propaganda are to be considered sufficient proof of a nation's motives then I'm sure we could also prove that the DPRK actually cares a lot about democracy. I'd expect a history major to have a more critical eye about this sort of thing. Actions speak louder than words. Western nations can talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk, well... So, to sum things up: The West did absolutely jack shit as nations to prevent a fascist regime in Spain from taking power, the only support coming from private citizens through volunteering, because they were "scared of another war", then once the French and the Brits declared war on Nazi Germany, they fought an almost exclusively defensive war, against advice from the likes of de Gaulle, and the US was content with only providing material support and only started putting soldiers on the line the moment they were attacked by Japan. After the war, the US made a massive U-turn and started toppling the democracies they couldn't vassalize all around the world, but apparently that says nothing of the US's motives prior to the cold war, because it's a different administration and it's not like the US government is elected democratically and therefore representative of the same electorate that voted for the prior governments. All in all, that means there's only a short few years window during which it could be argued that liberating and democracy were the main motivations of the Western world, and during the time before and after that the West was either apathetic or outright antagonistic to democratic principles on numerous occasions. Pretty odd. Despite all this, we're to be content with patting ourselves on the back for the one time we - supposedly - fought solely to defend democratic principles - and no other motives - 75 years ago, all the while downplaying the contribution of another major actor of the war because they didn't fight for ideologically good values like we definitely and exclusively did? I'm all for celebrating the liberation of countries from the clutch of what can be objectively described as a greater evil, but to jump on the occasion to morally grandstand and congratulate ourselves for having had what's believed to be a mainly ideological drive to do so, when the actual reasoning was most probably much more down-to-earth? Yeah, that's really not my thing. I'd rather not idealize history when even to this day we're still a long way from the paragons of liberty and democracy that we continually purport to be.

https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/446369/a51a6730-a1ec-43cf-ae93-911a6cfe4c6c/pv8jldq9uq231.jpg looks like we knew at one point the USSR was more significant to the war effort than america until the american exceptionalism propaganda machine kicked into full gear

Not to discount american propaganda but the soviet union didn't exist by 1994. I don't think that's a very good graph at all.

Uh, what. Just because it stopped existing 4 years before doesn't mean people suddenly forgot it existed during WWII.

I think it's weird to not include 1946 -1993 in some fashion though? it's a big jump in polling there

Yeah that seems odd to me as well, but I don't think the USSR recently disbanding had much of an effect on the 1994 results.

I can confirm that here in Belgium and France, the general sentiment is that Americans won WW2. "Saving Private Ryan" is a very popular film here. A lot of people nowadays don't even know the Soviets were in WW2. They don't teach us very well about WW2 in school for some reason.

popularity shouldn't determine how much a country "contributed" to ending ww2, but that's also the problem with propaganda. tangentially, america also should've been really unpopular after ww2 but our propaganda machine is really powerful.

I'm just trying to say that maybe the soviet union being a totalitarian regime may not have helped things.

It certainly hasn't but by the same logic the US propping up fascists during the cold war shouldn't have helped either. If anything both the US and USSR doing shitty things should've propped up the UK significantly by comparison, and yet that didn't change much in 70 years.

politics aren't just "USSR = evil totalitarian regime" and "US = brave country that's made a few missteps working with former nazis and installing fascist dictators in a few countries throughout the decades." you have to consider why the US's perceived involvement in ww2 has only gone up and it's not because everyone slowly came to the same conclusion that the USSR is evil.

Y'all are acting like I'm praising the US but I'm not. I'm just saying there is a broader context than just propaganda.