Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here's some ideas to throw in the mix:
Is it the defining event of the 20th century (because of the emergence of the USA and the eventual use of atomic weapons) or does that moment belong to 22nd June 1941 - the invasion of the USSR

Why do conspiracy theories abound i.e did FDR know and not let on, as he wanted America in the war.

Why does Hollywood not make any good films on the subject anymore? Where is the modern day Tora! Tora! Tora! Battle of Midway, Hell in the pacific, John Wayne training the marines, and my favourite: the one with Errol Flynn in it

What about the moral and legal ramifications of locking up Japanese-Americans? Why were'nt the Italians in NY slung in jail?

I would definitely say the defining moment of the twentieth century was a nice summers day in June of 1984 when one sexy sumbitch backflipped his way into the world, but I may be biased. The only answer I can provide definitively is why Hollywood doesn't make 'good' war films any more; is that all Hollywood movies now a days are character centric - our society is so celebratized that you can't make a movie about events, you have to make them about people. Since movies about wars or battles are by nature going to have to be about events, and will usually not provide the elements necessary to make any sort of arc for the character or the simplified story format that is bread and butter to hollywood, you see crap like Pearl Harbor, because we as viewers apparently need to see our protagonists win something. I guess.

You're in Britain so I guess you're a few hours ahead We don't commemorate for another 3 hours.

Is it the defining event of the 20th century (because of the emergence of the USA and the eventual use of atomic weapons) or does that moment belong to 22nd June 1941 - the invasion of the USSR

Hmm. Pearl Harbor no, Atomic Bomb maybe. What other options exist?

Why do conspiracy theories abound i.e did FDR know and not let on, as he wanted America in the war.

Because people are paranoid and would rather live in their own fantasy world than the one the rest of us are in? FDR wanted the US in the war. The US knew about a potential and imminent attack (and even planned for it) for a long time. The attack succeeded because the US was complacent and the Japanese got lucky.

Why does Hollywood not make any good films on the subject anymore? Where is the modern day Tora! Tora! Tora! Battle of Midway, Hell in the pacific, John Wayne training the marines, and my favourite: the one with Errol Flynn in it

A very good question. Most recent budget film I can think of is Pearl Harbor, but that movie was not so great -_- Tora! Tora! Tora! was an awesome move.

What about the moral and legal ramifications of locking up Japanese-Americans?

I doubt you'd be able to find anyone legitimately arguing it was morally right or legal. The first in a line of black marks on what could have been America's finest hour.

Why were'nt the Italians in NY slung in jail?

They were white, the US was less paranoid about Italy, and the US has a long tradition of disliking Asians. I do feel we should point out the 442nd IR, a segregated Japanese-American infantry unit that remains one of the most decorated units in US military history if not the most decorated.

Didn't Mr Miyagi (can't remember his real name) get locked up as well?

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Didn't Mr Miyagi (can't remember his real name) get locked up as well?

The actor or the character?

Pat Morita was detained. He was 10 I think.

I think the biggest reason we do not talk about the Japanese enternment camps is they resemble or arguably were concentration camps. Now they were not death camps but by design they did concentrate a group of people who could have very well been spies. There were Japanese in Hawaii who did help with the coordination of the attack. Not a very proud moment for our Nation but they were given the option to leave the west coast and away from any Pacific Naval instalations. Those who chose not to got put in the camps. I am pretty sure the US Govt payed out the ass in the 80's when Mr. Sulu (not sure of his real name) sued the hell out of the Govt.

mstersmith3 wrote: Mr. Sulu (not sure of his real name) sued the hell out of the Govt.

George Takei my good sir.

The defining moment of the 20th century? that's arguable but it is certainly the defining moment for America in at least the second half of the twentieth century. It was the moment when the Axis powers said America "Put up or shut up."It was one of the nation's darkest hours, one where the people of the US were scared, confused, unsure, and vengeful.

Might as well ask why conspiracy theories abound about anything else...Why are there theories about JFK or the landing on the moon? It was a big event in history that still has some unanswered questions and people think up their own stories or use half evidence to fill in those holes.

There are plenty of good movies on the subject, personally I don't think the newest movie should be unincluded...it was decent...definitely OTT but still good.

The internment of the Japanese citizens during the early days of WWII was a tragedy. The reasons for it were confusion, misunderstanding, and rampant fear. The population was scared of the fanaticism that the Japanese military displayed and due to how the human mind works anyone who looked of Asian decent were the subject of ridicule, fear, and bullying. It was one of the dumbest mistakes the US government has made and it is one that it cannot make up for.

Time and again Japanese Americans vindicated themselves as ardent patriots. There was a unit of all Japanese soldiers known as the "Purple Heart Brigade" or the 442nd infantry, they fought with valor and the unit recieved a presidential citation for its conduct...

I'm not certain I'd say the attack on Pearl Harbor was the defining moment of the 20th century. The roots of the attack go back to Sarajevo, 1914 (the assassination of Archduke Fedinand that kicked off Big Mistake I) and the earlier Russo-Japanese War of 1904/5. These two events pretty much made Big Mistake II inevitable.

Maybe if the Allies hadn't been so dead set on bankrupting and humilating Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, WWII could have been avoided. But they did, and so wounded the German soul - not to mention their economy - that when a charismatic leader came along and said 'Let's pay them back in kind!' the whole country went more than a bit insane. And if Hitler hadn't had England so tied up, the Japanese wouldn't have been so eager to press their own territorial desires; it is highly doubtful they could have taken both the American Pacific Fleet out of Pearl AND the Royal Navy out of Singapore.

And the Russo-Japanese war proved to the world that the Japanese had brought themselves out of their feudal past and into the modern industrial world, and then some. It demonstrated their ability to take on another major world power and win, something the western powers hadn't seen in centuries. So Japan saw the English Commonwealth, Spain's overseas posessions, America's overseas territories, etc, etc, and wanted some of their own. Thus, Pearl Harbor.

Vulcan wrote:I'm not certain I'd say the attack on Pearl Harbor was the defining moment of the 20th century. The roots of the attack go back to Sarajevo, 1914 (the assassination of Archduke Fedinand that kicked off Big Mistake I) and the earlier Russo-Japanese War of 1904/5. These two events pretty much made Big Mistake II inevitable.

Pearl Harbor has little to do with anything related to WWI, or even the Russo-Japanese war. Pearl Harbor goes back to the Spanish-American War when the US began an empire in the Pacific which came to be in opposition to Imperial Japan.

And if Hitler hadn't had England so tied up, the Japanese wouldn't have been so eager to press their own territorial desires;

England wasn't in the way of Japan, the US was. They were at war with China and we stopped trading oil. At that point Japanese interests shifted southern (Prior to our Oil embargo they were interested in Northern expansion, which didn't bring them into conflict with Britain). The Japanese were fighting the British unofficially long before Hitler began WWII.

it is highly doubtful they could have taken both the American Pacific Fleet out of Pearl AND the Royal Navy out of Singapore.

The Royal Navy's presence in Singapore was minimal in the late 30's, and Japan had the best navy in the world.

Thing is, Pearl Harbour only really committed the US to defeating Japan, and in the months following Pearl Harbour that didn't even look that likely, as the Japanese then went on to route the British in Singapore and the US in the Phillipines. In hindsight, once Roosevelt committed to focussing on Germany first and Japan second, then we see what Pearl Harbour inevitably led to, but even then, the US had to get the job done. And that job was no means inevitable at the time, not after the above mentioned defeats, and only really once the Japanese got hammered at Midway did that become the case.

So, really, I'd pick Midway over Pearl Harbour as the definitive moment of the Pacific War. In terms of the war as a whole, you just have to look where most of it was fought, and that was on the Eastern Front of the European theatre, and that war had two decisive moments - the Russian counter attack and subsequent encirclement of the German 6th army in Stalingrad, and the decisive defeat of the Germans at the battle of Kursk.

I'd pick one of those two as the decisive moments of WWII.

As for decisive moments in the century, well that's a pretty impossible question... One thought that pops to mind would be the Potsdam conference. It didn't impact the war, but it was the point at which it became clear the world wasn't going to roll from one world war into another, as the allies set up enough of a position that both sides were happy enough with not to start fighting over Europe. Everything since WWII came from that meeting.

Vulcan wrote:I'm not certain I'd say the attack on Pearl Harbor was the defining moment of the 20th century. The roots of the attack go back to Sarajevo, 1914 (the assassination of Archduke Fedinand that kicked off Big Mistake I) and the earlier Russo-Japanese War of 1904/5. These two events pretty much made Big Mistake II inevitable.

Sort of. Sure they were major causes, but they didn't make it inevitable. Countries had been humiliated by treaties before Germany (Germany had previously humiliated France, afterall), but they hadn't necessarily handed power over to a lunatic. And when such a loon has gained power, more often than not he's been decisively beaten, but the shockingly rapid defeat of the French and British forces was a major surprise, and by no means inevitable. From there an immensely bloody end result was inevitable, but not before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Why do conspiracy theories abound i.e did FDR know and not let on, as he wanted America in the war.

Because that's a much more exciting world to live in. Think about it in terms of movies, how many films do you see where things happen because of hard to understand reasons based around broad systemic failures, and how many films do you see where the key moment is a betrayal?

The latter is much easier to fit into a narrative, and that's how most people think about events. Which makes it easier for them to believe conspiracy theories that make no damn sense.

Why does Hollywood not make any good films on the subject anymore? Where is the modern day Tora! Tora! Tora! Battle of Midway, Hell in the pacific, John Wayne training the marines, and my favourite: the one with Errol Flynn in it

Good question. Even when they make war movies these days they don't cover military operations, but instead focus on the stories of individual soldiers. We're likely to get more stories about war along the likes of Saving Private Ryan, and hopefully they'll be as good as that film, but I don't think we'll ever see stories about military operations again. No more Tora! Tora! Tora!, no more A Bridge Too Far.

It's a shame, a story on the sinking of the Bizmarck with modern technology would be absolutely amazing.

What about the moral and legal ramifications of locking up Japanese-Americans? Why were'nt the Italians in NY slung in jail?

Nor the vast numbers of Americans with German heritage. Because racism.

Its unlikely Hollywood will produce any "strategic" war films, which means we are stuck with celebs tonguing each other whilst Arnhem burns. However, there is a huge selection of war films from other countries with plenty of huge war effects that are much less character driven. Some of them don't make a lot of sense without a fair grounding in the relevant culture, but people have been watching Anime for years with little complaint and that never made much sense.

Also, the ability to produce stunning FX with minimal budgets means we are much more likely to see war films done "properly".

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Its unlikely Hollywood will produce any "strategic" war films, which means we are stuck with celebs tonguing each other whilst Arnhem burns. However, there is a huge selection of war films from other countries with plenty of huge war effects that are much less character driven. Some of them don't make a lot of sense without a fair grounding in the relevant culture, but people have been watching Anime for years with little complaint and that never made much sense.

Also, the ability to produce stunning FX with minimal budgets means we are much more likely to see war films done "properly".

GOOD! Maybe they will finally make Prokhorovka.

The only thing you have to be aware of is that the films of certain foreign powers can be a little heavy on the "Aren't we glorious?",
Not that Pearl Harbour and Shaving Ryans Privates aren't just huge expensive back-slapping operations, but some of the Chinese films (Axis of War) can be really unsubtle.

A nice little film by the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16063511


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The reason why conspiracy theories abound is because a certain kind of mindset cannot accept that sometimes “gak happens”.

Some people have a psychological need to find rational, controllable causes for events. The conspiracy gives them a satisfying explanation.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:The only thing you have to be aware of is that the films of certain foreign powers can be a little heavy on the "Aren't we glorious?",
Not that Pearl Harbour and Shaving Ryans Privates aren't just huge expensive back-slapping operations, but some of the Chinese films (Axis of War) can be really unsubtle.

That's an understatement...anyone seen any of the Russian's "films" on the subject?

You mean the four part series about how awesome the Russians were and how the Germans were vile butchers of civilians being defeated by the righteous Ruskies who could do no wrong? Certainly left all their war crimes out on that one eh

LordofHats wrote:You mean the four part series about how awesome the Russians were and how the Germans were vile butchers of civilians being defeated by the righteous Ruskies who could do no wrong? Certainly left all their war crimes out on that one eh

Its a two part film called "The Fall of Berlin" and its 151 minutes of unfiltered Soviet propoganda...naturally Stalin is the hero...Hitler is babbling evil villian (seriously, sometimes he is laughing maniacally and rubbing his hands together)

And of course the film follows a group of soldiers who are good and valiant little servants of the state, who can only sing Stalin's praises and toot all their collective horns about the glory of the motherland...

But that's not the worst thing about it...

Any time they have a chance to redeem the film with a fight scene they screw it up with horrible acting...watch it...you'll see what I mean...

my guess is that they couldn't find any of the real soldiers that were there to be in the film because they were too busy locking them all up in the gulag...

In my mind, my defining moment of the 21st century is the day that the Germany declared war on Russia in support of Austro-Hungaria against Serbia. I believe August 1, 1914?

That said, I didn't hate Pearl Harbor the movie. I must be a bad person.

WARORK93 wrote: Hitler is babbling evil villian[ /quote]

Well, yes...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/kamikaze-swimmers-finally-reach-pearl-harbor,21147/

Kamikaze Swimmers Finally Reach Pearl Harbor

World War I wasn't the pivotal anything to the 20th century: it was a nearly inevitable consequence of 100 years of gamesmanship between the Great Powers, mixed with modern technology that made nearly known strategy futile. It was going to happen, one way or another.

World War II was a massively traumatic event that shaped the rest of the century. But... that war was far more preventable. Or, if not the war itself, the length and breadth of the war. The decision of the Western Allies not to immediatly attack Germany when they invaded Poland allowed the Germans the time they needed to actually build the war machine that rolled west in 1940.

You can argue possiblities, but the French opted to dig in and let Germany attack rather than seize the initiative. A very long, very global war could have been averted in a few months of hard fighting before the Nazis sued for peace.

Or alternatively it could have resulted in a worse defeat for Britain than even Dunkirk. A war of maneuver against the 3rd Reich was generally a poor idea. Plus with briatain's army engaged, potentially in a longer war before losing-it might have lost even more RAF capability, such that an invasion of Britain becomes a real possibility. Its a much bigger who know's? than realized. Germany and the USSR may never have gone to war, in which case you have Nazis and Communists controlling Europe and a good portion of Asia.


Might it eventually have ended with a different war - USSR/Germany against the USA/greater Japan, but this time with nukes?

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Here's some ideas to throw in the mix:
Is it the defining event of the 20th century (because of the emergence of the USA and the eventual use of atomic weapons) or does that moment belong to 22nd June 1941 - the invasion of the USSR

I'd say that the Nuremburg Trials were far more defining than the surprise attack at Pearl Harbour or the invansion of the USSR.

Nuremburg finally brought to the world's attention the true horrors of what Nazi Germany stood for and their insane vision for the future of the 'perfect race' ruling the world. The trials also solidified all the greater powers of both sides to take a unified stand on crimes against humanity. (hell, most nations still work together even now to track down WWII war criminals!)

Even the majority of German citizens had no idea what had truely happened in the death camps, and it was a true shock for them when the allied forces had them walk through the rows of mass graves of those who had been murdered by the Nazi party.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Why do conspiracy theories abound i.e did FDR know and not let on, as he wanted America in the war.

FDR was well aware of how dangerous Hitler was and knew that the US wouldn't be left alone if Europe fell. He desperately wanted the country to pull their collective heads out of the sand and wake-up to the threat of a 'Nazi Empire' in Europe, but the US as a whole simply didn't want a repeat of the Great War. (and who can blame anyone for that!)
To the vast majority of Americans, the war was simply a 'European problem' that wouldn't effect them.

Pearl Harbour was simply 'the Lusitania' of it's time...

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Why does Hollywood not make any good films on the subject anymore? Where is the modern day Tora! Tora! Tora! Battle of Midway, Hell in the pacific, John Wayne training the marines, and my favourite: the one with Errol Flynn in it

Becuase there's no decent storytellers in Hollywood anymore?!! At least History Channel gets some decent stuff going though, especially during 'Remembrance Week'.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:What about the moral and legal ramifications of locking up Japanese-Americans? Why were'nt the Italians in NY slung in jail?

It was wrong for the US to do it, and it was just as wrong for Canada to do the same...
Of corse, 70+ years ago, the white man had all the power so it was very easy to marginalise the minorities and strip them of their basic rights without fear of being accused of 'human rights violations'.

Besides, the Italian people on the whole were never really behind Mousillini and his alliance with Hitler's party.

Experiment 626 wrote:Pearl Harbour was simply 'the Lusitania' of it's time...

Someday, maybe, you'll take a Recent History of the US class and learn that the US didn't enter WWI because of the Lusitania.

Besides, the Italian people on the whole were never really behind Mousillini and his alliance with Hitler's party.

Musollini was never much behind it either

The more baffling question is why didn't Hitler just let Italy fail. It probably would have worked out better for him.

Polonius wrote:World War I wasn't the pivotal anything to the 20th century: it was a nearly inevitable consequence of 100 years of gamesmanship between the Great Powers, mixed with modern technology that made nearly known strategy futile. It was going to happen, one way or another.

World War II was a massively traumatic event that shaped the rest of the century. But... that war was far more preventable. Or, if not the war itself, the length and breadth of the war. The decision of the Western Allies not to immediatly attack Germany when they invaded Poland allowed the Germans the time they needed to actually build the war machine that rolled west in 1940.

Your characterization seems a little flawed. More than likely, without WWI, there'd be no WWII (at least not one in Europe). Once the outcome of WWI was set, WWII became about as close to inevitable as one can get. Britain and France had little chance of really defeating Germany in 1940 anyway. They were mobilized or prepared to fight, and they got crushed in 1941 when they were anyway.

If anything, I'd actually advocate that the wars be considered one as their inseparably linked together. Maybe the most appropriate way to put it is "The World Wars defined the Twentieth Century?"

I agree, I tend to look at them as one big World War with a long half-time break.

WWI changed everything.

We only mythologize WWII more than WWI now, because people are still alive who fought in it.

Now onto Pearl Harbor talk- The internment Camps of the Japanese was a pretty black day for the US and the ideal we supposedly champion. I'm glad after 9/11 the internment camps didn't make a comeback.

Flawed or not, it's not the defining event of the 20th century. If anything, it would be the treaty of Paris, not the war itself, that lead to WWII.

Another war was porbably inevitable after WWI, but a war on the scale of WWII certainly was not. Keep in mind how balls lucky the Germans were early on. Any war that ends prior to Summer of 1941 does not involve the USSR or the USA (at least in Europe). The USSR came out of WWII bloody but far stronger than it went in.

WWII is complicated because the Pacific half of the war, really had little connection to the European war except by the Tripartite treaty. There were no mutual goals, strategy, or cooperation in the two fronts. Also, Japan's actions I'd argue were going to happen WWI or no WWI, while Germany 's actions were a direct consequence of WWI's outcome.

Part of the problem is that in culture, the European war is immortal, and the Pacific is an after thought so Europe gets a lot of the focus and the Pacific and its origins are just tacked on.

Frazzled wrote:Or alternatively it could have resulted in a worse defeat for Britain than even Dunkirk. A war of maneuver against the 3rd Reich was generally a poor idea. Plus with briatain's army engaged, potentially in a longer war before losing-it might have lost even more RAF capability, such that an invasion of Britain becomes a real possibility. Its a much bigger who know's? than realized. Germany and the USSR may never have gone to war, in which case you have Nazis and Communists controlling Europe and a good portion of Asia.


Might it eventually have ended with a different war - USSR/Germany against the USA/greater Japan, but this time with nukes?

In September 1939, the cream of the German army was stomping on Poland. Even when Germany invaded France in 1940, the English and French forces they were going up against had them heavily outnumbered in all categories, including tanks. Had the Anglo-French army invaded Germany right away, they could have taken the Ruhr - the industrial heartland of Germany, located on the WEST bank of the Rhine and easily accessable from France - quickly. This would have denied Hitler and his cronies the industrial strength to continue the war.

Instead, the French wanted to wait with their strength concentrated in the Maginot Line and let the Germans come to them... forgetting that big hole in the line to the north through the Low Countries. Germany, on the other had not...

Edit: LordofHats, I wouldn't use the word 'Mobilize' in conjunction with the AngloFrench strategy in 1939-40. It was more like 'IMmobilize'.

The German army never faced the vast majority of the French forces. The Germans bypassed them entirely and went for the government, which subsequently broke and surrendered. What they SHOULD have done was take French and English mobile units and cut off the German penetration at the border, then it's basically a matter of waiting for the tanks to run out of gas. But they paniced, and reacted irregularly and irrationally, so they lost.

Vulcan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Or alternatively it could have resulted in a worse defeat for Britain than even Dunkirk. A war of maneuver against the 3rd Reich was generally a poor idea. Plus with briatain's army engaged, potentially in a longer war before losing-it might have lost even more RAF capability, such that an invasion of Britain becomes a real possibility. Its a much bigger who know's? than realized. Germany and the USSR may never have gone to war, in which case you have Nazis and Communists controlling Europe and a good portion of Asia.


Might it eventually have ended with a different war - USSR/Germany against the USA/greater Japan, but this time with nukes?

In September 1939, the cream of the German army was stomping on Poland. Even when Germany invaded France in 1940, the English and French forces they were going up against had them heavily outnumbered in all categories, including tanks. Had the Anglo-French army invaded Germany right away, they could have taken the Ruhr - the industrial heartland of Germany, located on the WEST bank of the Rhine and easily accessable from France - quickly. This would have denied Hitler and his cronies the industrial strength to continue the war.

Instead, the French wanted to wait with their strength concentrated in the Maginot Line and let the Germans come to them... forgetting that big hole in the line to the north through the Low Countries. Germany, on the other had not...

Edit: LordofHats, I wouldn't use the word 'Mobilize' in conjunction with the AngloFrench strategy in 1939-40. It was more like 'IMmobilize'.

The German army never faced the vast majority of the French forces. The Germans bypassed them entirely and went for the government, which subsequently broke and surrendered. What they SHOULD have done was take French and English mobile units and cut off the German penetration at the border, then it's basically a matter of waiting for the tanks to run out of gas. But they paniced, and reacted irregularly and irrationally, so they lost.

Your argument doesn't work though as basic French/British strategy didn't have the mobile massed mechanized formations the Germans (and I think Rooskies) had. They were much more of a 40K mindset. Lets spread those tanks around into the infantry formations.

My query above notes the theory that it takes substantially longer for Germany to take out France/Britain. So long and such effort that they reconsider the USSR fun and are just content with Western Central and most of Eastern Europe (and Africa). Sounds pretty vast to me. That leaves Japan and the US, both anathema to the "isms." Again, the world is a weird place. WE could have seen a Japan/US combo.