However two groups of people may remember (and record) an historical event in a very different way. And neither may be wrong (from their perspective).

Cheers,

Trot

Lets find out if you are right. We have a diverse crowd here from many different nations. What is your counry's perspective of WWII for example? I'm curious to see the different points of view.

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

I'm splitting this off to another thread, it's a good topic, but it will sidetrack the thread.

I'll start, as a Finn we have a quite unique view on WWII. I'll save the details but I'll outline it. (hint, it's about the USSR)

- Winter War, 1939-1940, Finland vs. Soviet Union. War of Soviet aggression, after heroic stand by unaided Finns (expect foreign cheering, no help, only cheering) a draconic peace is reached.
- Continuation War, 1941-1944, Finland co-belligerent with Germany vs. Soviet Union. A "continuation" of the Winter War in the eyes on Finns. Common anger at the harsh end of the Winter War, opportunity to right wrongs with the rising third Reich was seen. Emphasis, Finland did not support Nazism, and only worked with Germany for her own goals.
- Lapland War, 1945, Finland vs. Germany, token war, Finland was forced to push the Germans out of Lapland as a part of the armistice with the USSR. 1000 deaths on both sides, but Lapland was almost completely torched.

I could go on, but I won't. (It wouldn't stop)

From a US standpoint, that not everyone may agree with:

After WWI, most Americans were leary of getting involved in European affairs. America's foreign policy becomes more centrist. As the US begins pulling out of the Depression, things begin heating up in Europe. Though we don't get involved directly at the beginning, FDR enacts Lend-Lease. Essentially Americans don't want to fight the war, but are perfectly willing ot make money suplying the war effort. Americans are gradually coming around to the idea of fighting, the Japan attacks. We fully mobilize, sort of luck out in the fighting with Japan and just have way too many resources for the Germans to combat. We drop the bombs on Japan, to end the war quickly and to send a warning to the USSR. I know there are alot more details in between, but you get the jist.

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

I'm curious what you mean by this? We lost a lot of fine americans fighting the island hopping pacific war.

The decisive battle in the Pacific was the battle of Midway. the japanese attacked and may have had us beat, if it weren't for a few bombers who "lucked" onto the location of the Japanese fleet. Once that was discovered we toar to shreads the japanese fleet which held the most of the carriers tha Japanese had left. Without these carriers they couldn't launch the crushing air attacks they had been. If those planes had not "lucked" out on finding them, we may have lost Midway which would have been disastrous to our war effort.

Don't worry KLang, I was not in any way insulting the memory of the war that our boys fought.

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

There is some amount of luck involved in all combat. IMO what really set up Midway was the skill of our code breakers back at Pearl.

Wouldn't it also be considered luck that the German general in charge of defending France (Rommel I think) was away on D-Day?

Yes it was also lick, but not on the same scale. I ws hoping we could get back on topic b/c the original post I thought could be interesting.

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Yes, Midway did involve more "luck" than most battles.

A lot of our bombers were shot down and those that were left had a small chance of hitting the deck or other important part of the carrier.

It essentially came down to where a few bombs landed. Back in those days, it wasn't easy dropping bombs and torpedoes without any guidance equipment under the hail of flak fire.

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"

Yes Rommel was out of action, but the real problem for the Germans was that he was on too short of a leash leading up to the war. Hitler was calling the shots with respect to deployment of the German armored divisions & he sided with the camp who favored keeping the armor back from the beaches. In my opinion, by keeping the armor further back as a reserve, Hitler saved the life of many allied troops. If Rommel's plan had been implimented and the armor had been closer to the beaches, then we would have lost a lot more men.

In many ways, Hitler was the allies' MVP once the war started, because his poor decisions made over the recommendations of an exceptionally capable group of generals often put the Germans at a disadvantage. I am not so sure we could have beaten Germany without the failed military leadership of Adolf Hitler.