|
Page 1 of 4 pages 1 2 3 > Last › |
Eric The Lumberjack
|
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 | 11:29 AM
You know? This is potentially very true. It is true that if you read the American's view on WWII and the German's view on it, they would be very different stories, only with the same outcome. If you read both the American and Russian histories of the cold war, they would also be very different. |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 | 11:51 AM
I've found that texts that have propaganda purposes tend to be sloppy, and their objective shines through. Whereas my textbook, at least, does not seem to hide the injustices of America or any other country, and doesn't really seem to glorify anybody.
Eventually though, you just have to put some trust in the system. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 | 12:00 PM
That's why I was homeschooled. What's better than being brainwashed by your parents?? |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 | 07:43 PM
I'm self-taught, so I read all sorts of history books printed by all sorts of nationalities and factions and whatever. Even the most "objective" books give some particular slant to history. They'll concentrate on certain things and ignore others, or give weight to only one side of an issue. I wonder if it's even possible to write a truly objective history? Everybody has their own prejudices and blind spots. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 | 07:43 PM
I suppose you have to decide which version of history makes you happiest. |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 | 09:14 PM
Oh please. Don't you know that history is always written by the winning side? I mean, how horrible would it be learning 20th Century history (which I did here) in Germany?
Two years of history classes, four different countries, all I remember is the russian revolution occured in 1917, the brits sat on a neighbouring beach while the aussies got slaughtered at Gallipoli, Hitler was an art student, and the Japanese stole a lot of culture from the Chinese.
And we did WWI from all four perspectives. WW2 from three (Russia was left out since that particular unit was on the revolution.)
Okay, so I'm a little bitter about my schooling... |
Nettie
in Perth, Western Australia
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 01:49 AM
At least governments will sometimes try to fix their past mistakes. Like Aussie kiddies are now being taught about the injustices to the Aboriginals when the Brits first landed here. When I was at school we were taught that they were a backwards people and it was the right thing to do by civilising them. And this was while I was at a small school in the Pilbara where 90% of the kids were Aboriginal! That must have really sucked to be one of them!
But it is true about history being written by the winners. That's where you have to actually use your brain and start thinking for yourself. |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 08:55 AM
I agree with Nettie. The best tool for learning history is your brain. When reading any book, it's a good idea to note who wrote it, what are their qualifications and what were their motivations for writing it.
Even a book full of falsehoods tells us something about the past. There has to be a reason why the person wrote it that way (i.e. they are hiding something). Thus is doesn't matter what you were taught in school. I have found many of the things I was taught in school were wrong because I didn't stop learning when I got out.
As for WWII, there is no excuse for not knowing the true story. Many people from that era are still alive and are not censored. The fact that Leo now knows Sikorsky invented the helicopter is proof his theory is incorrect. |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 09:06 AM
History is the lies that historians agree apon. |
Nigel
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 09:43 AM
My advice? Take the same information from several different sources, throw out about 90% of it, and whatever remains, accept as the truth. |
Winona
in USA
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 09:44 AM
An American friend of mine & myself have had a long running argument about who won the war of 1812. I don't care really, I just like driving him nuts. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 11:46 AM
Nettie...I thought the Aboriginal problems were still going on into the 70s...similar to the U.S. civil rights movements in the 60s.
It's difficult to find a book that shows an objective point of view. Because even if the auther themselves is objective their research material may not have been. |
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 01:36 PM
What war of 1812? |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 01:47 PM
That was the one in which the British burned our White House. Of course, we had burned a government building somewhere in Canada before that.
And Winona, I'll give ya the War of 1812. You Brits needed to win at least ONE war on your own.
:cheese: |
Evildream
in You mamas house
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 03:17 PM
to break the the tone of pillosophy
poop
:lol: |
AqueousBoy
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 04:25 PM
Absolute objectivity is impossible. In a way, everything you read is propoganda. |
Nettie
in Perth, Western Australia
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 06:44 AM
Maegan, the problems are still occurring over here but the government about ten years ago decided that they should make some sort of attempt to fix the past. There was a lot of giving back traditional land and an official apology to the stolen children.
Don't think it actually changed the opinions of many Australians though. I think most people agree that they were treated roughly in the past, but the past is the past and we should look to the future. I work in a really rough area and I always have problems with the local Aboriginals. We have big groups of them hanging around fighting and drinking and sniffing paint. It got to the point where we had to stop selling spray paint altogether where I work because it got too dangerous for my staff. I find it hard to feel sympathy for these people when they act like that and try and blame it on what happened 200 odd years ago. I'm not a racist, I just believe you can only earn respect once you have respect for yourself.
I'm rambling now and am way off topic so I think I'll just shut it. |
Leo 777
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 09:10 PM
Thanks a lot guys to all of you for participating in this discussion.
Of course the winning side writes the history,especially in the old times,when many nations couldn't even write.How could they express their point of view.
My quistion is to Captain Al.
"As for WWII, there is no excuse for not knowing the true story. Many people from that era are still alive and are not censored. The fact that Leo now knows Sikorsky invented the helicopter is proof his theory is incorrect."
Could you be more specific.Are you saying that Sikorsky didn't invent helicopter or something else.Whose theory is incorrect?
Regards.Leo777 |
Leo777
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 09:40 PM
To Sir Stephen
in Scotland
"History is the lies that historians agree apon."
Well said.I I wouldn't be able to put it better myself. |
leo777
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 09:59 PM
To Winona,Sharruma,Charybdis.
You see how ignorant we all are according to where we were born.
When in 1812 British had conflict with Americans,in Europe the same year one of the the biggest military confrontations in History took place between Napolion's armies and Russia well described by Leo Tolstoy in his novel "War and Piece". |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 10:15 PM
Yes, Leo, but Europe is sadly less important to us than our own history.
For instance - WWII wasn't about Britain, France, Russia, or China. It was all a buildup to America's entry into the war our hauling everyone's asses out of the fire.
Europe and Asia are lucky, though. Africa is only known as "the place the slaves came from". |
leo777
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 10:37 PM
I tried not to touch the religious issues that directly related to the subject at hand,coz' this forum would explode. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 10:39 PM
Wouldn't be the first time, unfortunately. |
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 10:47 PM
I knew about russia and Napoleon in 1812, but I couldn't see how that related to the subject at hand.
Besides, I'd forgotten 😉 |
leo777
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 10:55 PM
To Charybdis.
The thing is that it was not WWII issue.It was 1812 issue.And it would be extremely ignorant on both sides not to know that both events took place in 1812. Have you ever heard of Leo Tolstoy?
The Holywood made a great movie about the events I mentioned around 1958? .I know Henry Fonda was in it. |
leo777
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 11:12 PM
To Sharruma.
Do you read you own messages?
"What war of 1812?"
2 important events took place in the History of the World in 1812.Conflict between British and Americans and conflict between Russia and Napolion's France.
That was a fair quistion.And I'm just trying to help out to resolve it.
Because as Charybdis mentioned the Americans don't care much what had happened in Europe in the past and probably in the present and visa versa when it comes to Europiens. |
Leo 777
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 11:45 PM
To Charybdis.
So you trying to say that Americans were the most important part in defeating Hitler.You really insault British and especially Russians who sucrificied 20.000.000 lives to stop the monster.I watched a number of german movies about WWII and being sent to the Russian front was a death sentence,while going fighting Americans was like going to Summer Camp.Remember an american sitcom "Hogan's Heroes" .
You were watching who would have the upper hand and when the Russians started winning you entered the Europian stage.Yes that is true that you helped to Western Europe.But please don't talk about Russia and Eastern Europe,coz' we were real slaves. |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 12:31 AM
You were watching who would have the upper hand and when the Russians started winning you entered the Europian stage. - Leo 777
Not quite...my interpretation was that the Americans didn't see fit to enter WWII because they didn't want to be involved. The only reason they did was that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour.
But it's true that if they had decided to enter the war at a much earlier stage, it could have been finished at a much earlier stage too, without the need to have resorted to nuclear weaponry. |
leo777
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 12:43 AM
To Smerk.
With all due respect I have to desagree with your opinion about the events of 1943-1945.
The Communism was the main issue.And the spread of it.As a victim of Communism myself I am not taking sides here.But that was the main reason Americans entered the Europian scene,and dropping nuclear bombs on 2 unfortunate japanise sities was a warning signal to Communists(Soviet Union).Back off.And beware. |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 01:02 AM
Hang on. The reason that the Americans bombed Japan is because the Japanese were the last group perpetuating the war. I remember that much from my history classes...From my understanding the Russians were one of the first groups to surrender. This I can't quite remember.
But I'm certain that Pearl Harbour was a major trigger for the Americans to join in the war.
And that the bombings were done to stop Japan, not anyone else.
And another thing, why would the Americans be warning their Allies? Which (after a quick bit of <a href="http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm">research</a> tells me that the Soviets were working with the allied forces) |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 01:07 AM
Well, the dropping of the atomic bomb did bring aggression to a quick stop in the Pacific, at least. Granted, a lot of civilians died, but if the Japanese continued their strategy of "fight until the last man," twice as many people might have died, Americans and Japs, soldiers and civilians, until Japan was defeated. Japan was undeniably war-crazy, like all the other forces in the war.
And, you might note, many cities were devestated to the same degree as Hiroshima and Nagasaki with more conventional weapons. WWII sucked. |
leo777
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 01:14 AM
To Smerk.
Please read the previous messages from other participants.Use your brain,Listnen to what they tell you in school but have your own opinion.
You just said that they warned Allies.Well that is exactly what I said "Beware".Read between the lines.
And why would any country finish the war in such inhuman fashion.Killing 200.000 civilians.Come on man.Give me a brake.Use your brain. |
leo777
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 01:24 AM
To Citizen Premier
It's still no excuse to kill 200.000 civilians(including women and children).It's not noble.There was a message to Russia(Soviet Union) in it.After all it was the beginning of the Cold War. |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 01:32 AM
Hah! Go read my first post on this thread and you'll see my original opinion.
Now, I'm gathering that English is not necessarily your first language, which is why I'm so forgiving of your various typing errors. However, the word "Warn" is to inform someone of a risk while the word "Beware" is used to tell someone to be on guard against someone or something, so essentially, I don't know why you are picking on those semantics.
As for why anyone would stop a war so cruelly, see Citizen Premier's most recent response. I find it hard with my own bias to argue the US POV convincingly. And I don't particularly want to, it's just that I found a few of your points at odds with what I know. |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 01:37 AM
BTW, how many civilians did the Germans kill?
I personally think you may be reading a tad to much into it...funny, my resources say that the cold war didn't start until 1947...fully two years after the end of WWII. |
Razela
in Chicago, IL
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 01:43 AM
I'm sorry to be a bit off topic, but this has been extra annoying me due to the fact that it is printed in bold type:
"History is the lies that historians agree upon."
The noun verb disagreement is horrendous. I should state, |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 01:44 AM
Or "History are the lies that historians agree upon" 😊 |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 01:44 AM
No, wait. Razela's way's better! |
Razela
in Chicago, IL
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 01:45 AM
Oh, and to stick up for Charybdis, I think he was just stating examples of how American History classes are biased, rather than actually saying he believes all that stuff. |
Razela
in Chicago, IL
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 01:47 AM
Yah Smerk, that was my first thought to fix it as well, but after thinking about it I determined that because "history" is a singular you can only use the verb "is," though your way still sounds right to me. |
leo777
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 01:49 AM
To Smerk.
Just a blackade of Russian city of Leningrad claimed 500.000 civilian lives and as many soldiers.
Have you heard about general Patton who propossed the idea for final confrontation in 1945.The winner takes all.
Officially the Cold War started in 1947 when Russians got the ability to built their own nucliar bomb. |
leo777
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:07 AM
TO SMERK
READ THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE. I WAS BORN AND BROUGHT UP IN COMMUNIST RUSSIA.ENGLISH IS MY SECOND LANGUAGE.I LIVE IN THE USA. |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:16 AM
Okay, you missed the point of my throw away question about how many civvies the Germans killed. The point I was trying to make is the millions of jews killed by various means at the whim of Hitler. And that was pre-meditated. Over a long period of time. The US attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaka were two short strikes intended to bring the Japanese to their knees.
And thanks for shouting. I did read the original message. However, you did not state where you were educated or where you are currently living. All you said was that you were born in Russia and various things you were not taught in school (which funnily enough, I wasn't either - perhaps it wasn't relevant to my education?) And I'm not in a habit of assuming peoples current locales or language capabilities. |
leo777
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:17 AM
To SMERK and RAZELA.
How many languages do you speak to redicule the others.How about "I says". |
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:22 AM
I put my last statement badly
I knew 1812 was important for some reason, because of the symphony.
I knew also that napoleon was around at that time because of waterloo in 1815.
I knew or I should have known what had happened in 1812 at the time I asked but I couldn't think what it was.
I had even wondered if it might have been the battle of trafalgar for a moment, but remembered that that was 1805.
Napoleon's retreat from moscow was one of the key moments of the napoleonic wars. It may well have been the turning point of his initial success. But it's not something I've actually heard or thought about since I left school more than 20 years ago.
What I wastaught tended to be the peninsula war and specifically waterloo. Russia was touched on but only because it was so important to Nappy's eventual downfall. |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:27 AM
I don't ridicule anyone. Well, anyone I don't know to well. And I don't see what my linguistic capabilities have to do with anything? |
Leo777
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:34 AM
To smerk
You know what I just re-red my message.It clearly says that I was tought in Russia.It's no excuse for you to redicule other people,especially on the Internet,because it's an international community.I have a well ejucated friend from Ireland and all his e-mails full of mistypes.
You made up your mind and made up mine on a subject.That is the whole point of a debate.
Good luck. |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:44 AM
Still re-read it. It still doesn't state definitively that you were educated in Russia. You said that you were not taught about a few key Russian people, and then in a separate sentence you mentioned a few other key Russians and stated that it was a deficiency of the Russian education system. That's the same as me saying I didn't learn anything about Ned Kelly. And then saying that things like Waco and the Stolen Generation are never taught in the Australian School system. The two sentences are only related by the fact that Australian (or in your case, Russian) subjects are mentioned. I didn't state whether I was actually educated in Australia.
And I never actually said anything about your education being the reason for your spelling errors. I wondered whether it was due to a language barrier - ie, English is a second language, not the first.
As for the actual debate, I'm lost now! |
leo777
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:55 AM
To smerk
Here it goes:
I was born in Russia during the Cold War.
And you know what,they never tought us in school that a russian by name Igor......
Now I am lost.I need somebody's opinion.Doesn't it states that I was tought in Russia? |
leo777
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 03:01 AM
To smerk.
Sorry for "states" instead of "state".
Usually people don't pay any atention to that.I belong to other forums.You have to read messages from those forums.And they from English speaking countries. |
Leo 777
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 03:21 AM
To smerk.
Don't wanna through a cheap shot,but since got one thrown at me(myself):
Not knowing people that I mentioned in my original message says a lot about you.
Warning doesn't mean beware.
But "Beware" is a warning.That was my point. |
LaMa
in Europe
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 05:26 AM
Going back to the discussion about the US, start of the cold war and Hiroshima;
I feel it was a combination of all things mentioned. The cold war definitely started before 1947, and during WWII, at the Jalta conference etc. The big powers (England, US, Russia) already were dividing up Europe on the map, drawing out new influence spheres. There had been irritation from the Russian side that their request for a second front was not met by the western allies before D-Day. And one reason for the failed British/US attempt to make a quick jump to Germany through operation Market Garden (the failed capture of the Rhine bridges at Arnhem) was an attempt to capture Germany before the Russians would do.
Concerning the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yes, it was done to end the war quickly and because of a fear of immense losses when it would be fought the traditional way. It also gave the Japanese an opportunnity to end the war and go for defeat and surrender with some grace. But at the same time, it certainly also was a show off to Russia.
Especially Churchill has never made a secret of it, that much of the war politics from 1943-44 onwards was governed by concerns about influence spheres in post-war Europe and Asia.
And all sides did this. For example, Russia just halted and stood in wait at the edge of Warsaw, untill the Germans had killed the last of the freedom-minded, non-communist partizans there. Only then they went in and captured it. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 06:06 AM
Wow. Thank you Razela, I was indeed citing examples of common thought in the States and not my own beliefs.
I'll give Leo the cold war one. The roots for it definately started much earlier during the Russian Revolution. Everyone in the West was afraid of the "Bolsheviks". Plus, they didn't trust Russia after Lenin came to power and bowed out of WWI. Throughout all the years between the wars the western world was extremely untrusting and leary of the new Soviet Union. The non-aggression pact Stalin signed with Hitler only made matters worse. When war finally did come to Russia they only became an ally of convenience. There was never any love lost between any of the allies during the war.
As for bombing Japan, only in historian circles do es anybody really bemoan the bombing of Dresden, Germany. While reliable numbers are hard to come by, the total number of dead could very well exceed that of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki so don't whine about poor Japan. There are no "innocent cities" in a country at war and there is NO honor in warfare, so get that sick and twisted thought out of your mind. War is slaughter and destruction, putting an "honorable" label on it deminishes the prices people pay. And Japan's suffering was a pittance compared to EurAsia. Yes the bombing was a warning to communists. Everything America did was a warning. But it also ended the war, a war that Japan started. And there were comparitively few American losses in bombing Japan (yes, I'm well aware of the tragedy of the USS Indianapolis). Even if the cost in Japanese civilians were 10 times higher it would be hard to condem the act because of this fact. I'm also aware that Japan was seriously considering surrendering before the attacks but "good intentions" don't account for much during times of war. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 09:22 AM
Leo, you just showed us that you yourself didn't say you were EDUCATED IN Russia.
You're actual quote:
"I was born in Russia during the Cold War.
And you know what,they never tought us in school that a russian by name Igor
Sikorsky invented the helicopter."
I'm not sure how long you've been in the U.S., but here the term "they" tends to be ANY entity or person, you are unfamiliar with. "They" are the government, the military, whomever you want them to be. Most Conspiracy Theorists refer to they as responsible for all wars, disease, laws, you name it, they are responsible for it.
Personally, I assumed that you were taught in the U.S., b/c why wouldn't Russia teach about Russians?
Just be a little more specific when you use the term "they". |
Razela
in Chicago, IL
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 09:33 AM
Leo, I'm sorry if you feel hurt, but I was never making fun of you or your language skills. I was commenting on something steven said and being nitpicky because I knew he wouldn't mind. Most of that comes from the fact that I live with an English major who is correcting my English all of the time. And by the way, Ani medabaret shne tzafot, aval rok achat tov. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 10:05 AM
Leo, first off, you don't need to get so offended. These people weren't ridiculing you. They were debating with you. There is a difference. Your English is better than most Americans' Russki, and you have my admiration for that because I know from personal experience that English is a tricky language to learn. But your writing is still not entirely natural sounding and so can cause confusion. There were a few things you said that some people needed clarified. I also believe that, due to your not being entirely familiar with English idiomatics, you may have misunderstood the meaning of some of the previous posts and took them as personal attacks against you. They weren't.
Furthermore, when you started this debate, you stated that "what are we tought in schools is a reflection of what our governments and cultures believe in". You were raised and educated in the communist CCCP, and so you would have--as you have stated--learned the version of history that the communist government decided to let you learn. When America's involvement in WWII was brought up, you immediately started defending the viewpoints indoctrinated into you by the former CCCP: that America was sitting in the background waiting to join whichever side was winning, that America finally got involved mainly to stop communism's spread, and that the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was mainly a warning to the communists. All of these views cast America in the role of a villain, which was exactly the sort of perception of America that the CCCP would have wanted its citizens to have during the Cold War. So you do prove your original point about history being determined by the people in power. |
Katherine
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 10:18 AM
Oh my. Arguments, arguments! Don't want to get sucked in, but two things:
1. Citizen Premier, darlin, I'm sure you didn't intend any offense, but just fyi, "Jap" is not even remotely p.c. nowadays. You're among friends here, I hope, but it'll save you a lot of bother if you just type out "anese" at the end.
2. Winona said, "An American friend of mine & myself have had a long running argument about who won the war of 1812." In that context, I think it would be more natural than not for an American (or a Brit? Do they call the war that over there?) to think of the conflict between Britain and America rather than the Napoleonic Wars, simply because the British/American war is actually <i>called</i> "The War of 1812." Not because of ignorance that the Napoleonic Wars existed, but because the association of the name is so strong.
That's all, carry on! |
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 11:47 AM
Er Katherine, I'm a Brit living in the US and until today I've never heard of this war. |
LaMa
in Europe
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 11:58 AM
Yes, but then, I never met a single Brit who knew what Chatham refers to, and that was in Britain itself. Brits only teach their schoolkids their glorious victories, and those defeats that have a glorious aspect (e.g. Dunkurque); not those defeats where they were really humilliated to the bone. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 11:59 AM
My whole understanding of America's waiting to enter WWII is b/c it wasn't affecting us yet...People didn't want to send their sons off to die.
The reprocussions (sp?) of that is that now, we get involved in every war...whether we need to or not. |
|
Page 1 of 4 pages 1 2 3 > Last › |
