Dispatches on War (Part VI)

Re: fuzair # 32

Whether, this is a copout is your opinion. In my opinion, you seem to have a better grasp of the issues and facts and I think, that your article would generate a healthy debate on the issue. As to my mistakes, I do not deny them, but again; this was not supposed to an article on par, with the rest of the series of the articles. I will never compare or hold this article on a same level as the articles, which have preceded this one. The idea was that if Hollywood can take liberities with the historic truth, why should such a right be limited to the Americans only?

The point, which you may have overlooked, was to mock the levels of the Americanization of history in a sarcastic sense and not to state the sarcasm used, as a barometer of judging history itself, as you seem to be doing.

Incidently, if this article was a pure and simple trash, in your opinion, why did you dignify it with a comment? lol

Ciao

Re: # 24

The most of the comments and information as given by you is agreeable.There was general collapse at eastern front initially but later at end of two years german army was defeated at gates of Moscow, Leningrad ( siege was broken ) and stalingrad/Kursk.
The german had advantage of battle hardened 3 million men along eastern border and surprise attack and initiative on there side. The main thurst was north for Leningrad, Arcangel, Murmansk, It did not develop as needed in time, though the objective of encirclement was achieved. South its went reasionable. The main thrust was at center towards moscow and had best units. As communication center for whole of Russia moscow was prize.
The reason for vicory was management of moving army and type of fighting. Gen. Meinstein, Rundstand, Kluge they were masters of mechanized warfare and had perfected the system which other generals have not studied or considered. The bulk thrust of Warmacht was tanks moving in formation like packs of wolves and had no infantry to protect. The russian tanks in small numbers were followed buy big infantry. It was troublesome and ineffective and led to cannon fodder for german tanks. Germawn generals studied main ideas from Lt. Bessel Lidelheart of British army.

but soon russians generals studied why germans have such mobility. Old fashioned ``cavalary`` generals like Marshall Buddeny were fired and new leaders were in action who understood the game. They began to follow same tactics and frustrate germans. Russians also started mounting tank units workinhg mostly independently of infantry with good results and many times when they got break through became great torment to german infantry. At beginning of 1943 at central front at moscow front German advance came to hault as russians began to mount tank attacks as enemy and the standard T-34 tank proved to be more fast and more strudy and can take direct hits and still continue. Also too heavy tanks seems to be getting bogged down fast so they completely abandoned monster but ineffective Kirov-Voroshilov Tanks and T-34 became queen of battle field.

German group North and south did better as russians decided to put gaurd armies and eastern siberian units at central/ moscow front to blunt main thrust. Once Russian generals got essense of moving mechanised armies they also became experts. They were able to launch winter counter offensive aginst german offensive. ( Both did not succeed but russian objective was achieved). gen Timoskenko, Yeremenko were able to restablish defences on modern lines once first 6 months were over and major change in doctorine of mechanised were formalised and used.

The german successes were due to better tactics and use of tanks as major fighting force. When opposite site learnt lessons the stalement statred and soon all initiative was lost and clouds of defeat began to surface in german generals.

All generals including Halder noted after 1943 the war was lost. There were no major supplies from any where and red army was on roll and had overcome miserable days of 1941,42 1nd 43. Last german effort was at Kursk and they were defeated solidly and first time russians had superiority in tanks, airmachines. Then after Kursk it was all slow retreat. The war for germany was lost even before soviet receiving any meaninful aid from AngloAmericans. German writer Paul Elrich, other Alexzander worth all write after talikg all major players the war was lost in 1943 when german armies came to standstill and defeated at gates of Moscow, leningrad and Stalingrad.

My study shows extraordinary management efficiencies at german army, in advance and retreat. It is amazing to see how quickly bridgehead were used to be established and individual initiative at mush lower level. They really new how to move and mobile army.

Some body made earlier remark about indo pakistani general. It unfair when you look at tank units available to them or ordinance or fuel supplies. In given situation they work and carry out orders. Indian army was very inovative in E. Bengal of jumping pockets of resitance and reaching Dacca and it was quite good speed achievement. Same can be said at Akhunar by our side. Lessons are always learned. One such notable general on Indian side was K. Sunderji and has put much emphesis on coordination of mechanized forces and made practice of it. Present Chief JJ Sing though officer of Maratha Light Infintry has given again same stress as K. Sunderji. Pakistani general have also made great strides in coordinating mechanised forces. There can not be of tanks in Kashmir. But in future wars betwwen Desi armies will be south of RahimYarkhan is my feeling. Due to modern aircraft can tank battles in flat lands will be decided by how fast and how accurately those can be targetted? who knows but airmachines can change all.

Good 2006.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. What a copout, Feroz. Why don`t you fix your own mistakes? Or are you suggesting that they aren`t mistakes?

BTW, the badly mauled Americans, and they did get their heinies kicked, managed to hold off the German advance beyond Kasserine. Now, its entirely possible that these advances were simply a recce-in-force and not a real attack BUT its still to the credit of these troops and their commanders that they stood and fought and didn`t cut and run, as say, the oh so sophisticated, cultured and worldly wise Italians and French would have done.

I am far from an American apologist. As I`ve said on more than one occasion, the real objection I have to the Pax Americana is that it`s run by idiots. However, I also object to criticism that has lost all perspective and is simply a pointless rant. I expect much greater sophistication and clarity of thought and logic from you. This article is just trash, pure and simple.

Chowk: How about some quality control here?

Re: HP # 7

HP, at the present, I am bit sick and tired of writing long historical articles in this series and this one was a nice, refreshing change of pace. I am surprised that people on Chowk took this rant and rave so seriously. There is a point in defending the American view point, but the Americans are not above criticism, as most interactors seem to think.

This article was in that vein; Stuka was more apt in his observations and I agree, with him on my failure to mention ``The Quiet American``.

Being an Americanophile, I still think that most of the Americans are ignorant of history. As to the estimable think-tanks, you mentioned, if I recall correctly - they all were, in majority, in support of the Iraqi invasion and seemed to have bought the lies of the administration line, hook and sinker. Anyone, who places his faith in the wisdoms of the experts, will soon rue his/her decision - we in Pakistan know all about expert advice and what that advice has begotten us. ;)

Ciao

Re: Dost-Mittar # 9

Yes; I believe that that Canada declared war soon after the British and though my memory is foggy, I think that it might be before 1941. In fact, I think that the year 1940 seems more probable.

Ciao

Re: # Fuzair 23

Thanks for the information. Instead of me re-writing this article, I think that you should write one and in the process, share your historical knowledge with the rest of us.

Ciao

Since I am free from the LUMS-LAS Model UN, I will gradually post replies to all of you and again; thanks for your patience.

Ciao

hindvi: Wasnt Yamashita the general who took Singapore? That was indeed a smart move - he had 65,000 men vs. over a 100,000 british (including british indian) troops. But the brit general in charge (I am forgetting his name and am too tired to google) could also be faulted because he barely put up a fight and surrendered (despite churchill`s demand for Singapore to be held to the last). That said, the fact remains that Yamashita was a piece of Shita :-) After all, if his side and won, all the indian and pakistani babus on this site would have been slaving away as illiterate laborers on some farmland or something for the benefit of their japanese masters, rather than writing intellectual stuff on the internet about how great the japanese and their nazi buddies were and how dumb the americans are.

Correction Matsushita should read Yamashita, I erroneously typed the name of the Zaibatsu

To All The Interactors:

Thanks for your all posts and I will reply to them as soon as I have time. Presently, I am busy with the LAS team for Model United Nations event, which is being held at LUMS. It is a whole day event and I am there from 8 am till late evening. Hence, I have no time to post a reply.

One point, which I must make is that this article was written in a spirit of jest and as a mockery of Hollywood`s attempt at historical perspectives. The aim of the article was to, sarcastically, scoff the ``Americanization of history`` and laugh at it. :)

ciao

with out US industrial might the eastern front would have bogged down into a stalemate despite the doggedness of the Russian soldier, the Americans transferred not just tanks, trucks but industrial machinery, food, ammo etc. It was a deliberate policy on the part of churhill and roosevelt to delay entry in the European theatre so that the two principle opponents of The western allies would wear themselves out, after the initial barbarossa scare they were confident russia would hold as long as Japan didnt attack it in the rear.

Even more so in the fight against Japan, At its peak the US was producing a carrier/support carrier/merchant converted carrier a week!! For the climactic battle of Japan a 100 carriers of various sizes had been assembled. The US had produced dozens of battleships, a single big gun battleship like the Iowa class can deliver ordinance equivalent to an entire army division. At an average 10-14 days of bombardment by sea and air would precede any island taking, despite this onslaught the US troops hitting the beaches would face dogged resistance from the Japs.

Finally wars are not about bravery and brilliance but about winning and that today is done by technological and industrial might. The US was several times larger than both Germany and Japan and it was the US entry into the war that made eventual Allied victory assured. Churchill knew that once the US industrial complex was fully mobilised for war victory was just a matter of time. Some believe he had advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor but didnt inform Roosevelt on purpose.

If wars were about brilliance then victory would definitely have gone to the Germans they had the best General staff wether in retreat as Guderian, Kesselring, Rommell, Von Manstein and Von Kleist showed or in advance as Rommell, Guderian and Von Manstein proved. With minimum resources their generals repeatedly achieved maximal results despite Hitler`s interference which by Normandy was such that even the movement of Brigades had to be approved by him.

As an example one has to just see the performance of Von Manstein, generally regarded by his peers in the German general staff as the best strategist, he was the originator of the plan to attack france through the Ardennes, a plan which was considered impossible because of the difficult tank terrain of the mountaneous country. At Kharkov, in 1943 by which time the wehrmacht was already severely depleted, he violating Hitler’s orders delayed the closing of the trap on the Red Army until 600,000 troops had fallen into it, he quickly followed it up with another big success, it is said that had the germans had the forces of 1941 at their command to exploit the opening provided by kharkov it would have meant the End of Russia, even this stand alone success was enough . Again the reverse at Kursk was a result of violating his plans, again at Stalin grad his armour spearheads had reached within a few miles of the city and he urged Von Paulus to break out in order to save the remenants of the VIth army, but Hitler had said that where the german soldier sets foot he stays, and had ruled out Von Paulus’s pleas for permission to retreat. Goering who had let the British army escape at Dunkirk again mislead Hitler that he would be able to supply Paulus’s troops by Air, just as he had assured the destruction of the British army.

Kesselring in Italy and Guderian on the eastern front interminably delayed the enemy for years by showing flexibility in retreat. Even that inventor of Blitzkrieg - Guderian was dismissed by Hitler when he insisted on flexibility in retreat when overwhelmed by the red army. Von Kleist who was the only man to receive a Field Marshall’s Baton for a successful retreat over the caucuses in which he brought back almost his entire Army from the oil fields of Azerbaijan, was also finally sacked for having violated Hitler’s direct orders in order to save his troops from assured destruction. Rommell was probably the most innovative user of armour both in France as well as in North Africa where with just two divisions he had made a force several times his size sweat bricks and virtually took the germans to victory, but for oil and a little air cover. Again in the defense of Normandy he wanted to maintain two mobile divisons of armour, which was all that the germans could scrap together from the cauldron of the eastern front, but that too could only be moved on hitler’s permission, so telephone calls had to be placed at 2 in the morning to his retreat on the Obersalzberg.

The outstanding officers on the axis side included that genius of amphibious warfare Matsushita, the inventor of submarine warfare tactics Donitz, the genius of merchant raiding Raider, The head of the german general staff Halder who knew that if Russia wasn’t taken before the first winter it would mean the end of germany and requested Hitler to negotiate a peace once that had happened. and the greatest Grand strategist of the war Yamamoto, who begged his colleagues not to attack the US for he knew in the long term defeat was ensured, but once the decision was taken unfurled brilliant plan after plan, unaware that his codes had been broken before his waterloo at midway.

All these geniuses broke against the industrial might of the Allies and ordinary American and british generals were bestowed victory just by accident of birth.

But India and Pakistan both have liitle cause to complain, their idiotic generals bungled clear opportunities at Khem Kharan and Chawinda.

Feroz,

This article is embarrassing. It betrays a level of ignorance and bigotry that is resonant of the ``ignorant Americans`` you castigate. While there is no denying that, in gerneral terms, you are absolutely correct about how Hollywood portrays WWII in film, and the overall level of ignorance of history in the US, most of the specific details you give are just plain wrong.

Some items picked at random:

The Buffalo Soldiers, the US 9th and 10th Cav and the 24th and 25th Infantry, comprised about 1/5th of the US Army in the West. While their military record, when they fought, was exemplary, they were usually relegated to such tedious tasks as convoy protection and often used as pioneer troops. By no stretch of the imagination, even one as vivid as yours, did the Buffalo Soldiers part in the ``taming`` of the West show that the ``...reality of the military campaigns of the Indian wars would prove that mostly black soldiers fought in it and died.``

The Australian troop strength in Vietnam never exceeded 7,000 men, mainly involved in training and not combat. Contrast this with US max troop strength of ~550,000. Total Australian deaths in Vietnam were under 500 (about 80% KIA) versus 58,000 plus for the US. So its understandable if the US ``ignores`` the Australian contribution to the War (better than nothing, I suppose). You would have been on less shaky ground if you had talked about the S. Korean contribution: two infantry divs and a marine brigade plus assorted support units. At its peak, RoK troops strength totalled about 48,000 men and it suffered about 5,000 KIA and 11,000 WIA.

You are correct about there being no ``surprise,`` except to MacArthur and his staff, about the Chinese intervention in Korea but you imply that the Chinese got the better of the US Army. Far from it. After the initial retreat from Chosin, the US took the offensive again and Chinese casualties (their official figure, Western sources give much higher figures) were about 110,000 KIA and 280,000 WIA vs. US 34,000 KIA (42,000 if you count MIAs).

While I yield to no man in my admiration for the BIA, you greatly overplay Slim`s 14th Army`s contribution in destroying the IJA. During the Battles of Imphal and Kohima, the Japanese suffered about 13,500 KIA and 40,000+ WIA vs. about 17,500 KIA & WIA for the Allied (British and Indian) troops. In contrast, the Battle of Okinawa caused the Americans about 19,000 KIA/MIA and 55,000 WIA (Japanese casualties are not known exactly but numbered well over 100,000, including a large proportion of civilians). The US was instrumental in defeating the Japanese in WWII, the same way the Russians were in defeating the Germans.

BTW, during WWII, the US actually suffered more battle deaths than the British.

I think you need to seriously rewrite this article.

Dost-mittar #9: ``On the small screen, the supremacy of American mind is now spread ``Sitaron se aagay`` by Star Trek and its various offshoots.``

Star Trek is one of my favorite shows. However, there is something that has always bothered me about it: It shows the world, around 300 years from today. The earth is all one big united country. In fact, it has united with other planets to form a Federation, consisting of all kinds of strange looking species, which jointly serve on Starships.

Now, the HQ of this universe-wide federation is in San Francisco. Fine, its an American show for an American audience. So I`ll give them that one. The whole crew of all the Starships speaks English. Fine. American show and English is somewhat of the lingua franca, even today. Nearly all the Captains are American. OK. I`ll give them that one also, since they threw in one French guy - Jean Luque Picard.......

But here is the kicker: If you look at the crew, nearly everyone is either from the areas of USA or from another planet! There is, off course the odd Japanese guy - Sulu. Or the odd African - Uhura. Or the odd Korean - Kim. Or the odd Russian - Chekov. Or the odd Scotsman - Scotty. But everyone else is from the USA. White Americans, Black Americans, male Americans, female Americans. There is even a Native American - Chakotay.

Now, one could argue that its for the American audience, hence the crew must be from America (even if the earth is one big country in 300 years). OK. But why, then, are there so many crewmen from other planets! There are more people from the planet Klingon on the crew then there are people from all the countries in South Asia combined! Dr. Bashir being the only South Asian. There are more crewman from the planet Vulcan than there are from all of China! And there are more people from the planet Betazoid than from all of South America!

Based on this, one can conclude that in 300 years, the universe will consist of Americans and aliens from other worlds. The rest of the citizens of the world will have disappeared (or will not be considered worthy of being on a Starship).

P.S. There are even more robots and androids on the crew lists than South Asians!!

It is OK to resent the fact that the US almost always gets it right - whether it is the farmers who ``fired the shot heard around the world`` against kingships; or whether it is the Wright brothers who managed to broke ``the surly bounds of earth``; or it is Amerian econmics that time has proven right. Today, the oh-so-smart europeans and chinese and what nots are all following crying and whining the footsteps of the US.

So, it is OK to resent the fact that the US is the only nation on earth that knows what it is doing. As long as you are smart enough to ultimately do what the US has been saying all along (as the french intellectuals, russian ideologues, chinese commies and the rest of these miserable little intellectuals end up doing). After all, that is human nature.

`` Indeed, the role of the chinese in building the american railway lines is one of the greatest whitewash of 18th century. Soon after eastern and western lines were joined in Utah, there was a legislation passed by the US congress - The Chinese Exclusion Act. This act, by law, barred immigration from China.``

my understanding is that all non-european immigration was barred in US even in canada until mid 60s, i am not 100% sure some one else may shed a light on this.

if it is so easy to get other people to defeat your enemies, why is uncle sam`s surrogate in iraq having such a hard time despite receiving direct and indirect support of the mightiest power on earth? and things were no different for uncle sam`s surrogate in vietnam. and as was the case in iraq and vietnam, u.s. provided substantial financial support to the allies. however unlike in iraq and in vietnam, u.s. role in direct wwii combat against the enemy, germans in this case, was relatively minor. u.s. wwii casualties amount to rounding error when measured against russian casualties. ditto for number of german soldiers killed by americans vs those by russians. in any event, the fate of wwii was decided by the battle of stalingrad which came down to hand-to-hand combat. u.s. aid in this situation would not have been of great use even if it had reached russian soldiers/civilians defending stalingrad against the germans.

so why were the russians able to defeat the mighty germans despite being led by a complete retard like stalin?

combination of reasons including weather, retardedness of hitler and most important of all, determination shown by the russians. the force driving this determination: the same feeling that causes muslims, even non-religious ones, to cheer the death of american soldier in iraq.

for folks interested in learning more about battle of stalingrad, i suggest the following link. i also think if you were to survey average the american, he or she would say more germans soldiers were killed by americans in wwii than by russian soldiers.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/stalingrad/rattenkrieg.aspx

Re: # 7


Still the news , provided it is true , that Clinton or whatever American President watched movies Like
` Jinnah `` , `` Gandhi ` or `` Earth-1947 ` to understand history.....

speaks a lot about american Mindset....

Re: # 7


Still the news , provided it is true , that Clinton or whatever American President watched movies Like
` Jinnah `` , `` Gandhi ` or `` Earth-1947 ` to understand history.....

speaks a lot about american Mindset....

Re: # 11

Mr.Arjun please bear with me.

Americans went in IRAQ so average citizen will know where it is located ?

I read many real americans do not consider desi and arabs as asians ? ( only asians means orientals)

Re: # 11

Mr.Arjun please bear with me.

Americans went in IRAQ so average citizen will know where it is located ?

I read many real americans do not consider desi and arabs as asians ? ( only asians means orientals)

bbabu # 13 writes ``The Red Army committed too many atrocities against Germans and East Europeans to be considered in a positive light.``

Red army was in a role of being the jackhammer that brought down Nazis. They were in the front line. And hence took and inflicted more casualties than the americans and brits. But then again, the firebombing of hapless citizens of Dresden by americans and brits does not have its parallel even with red army. In fact, the firebombing of Dresden is perhaps the only event that is considered a war crime against German people in WWII.

malik99 #1

`` The author has done a fair job de-mythyfying historical events. It is quite true that more so than america and its western allies, it were the hated communist Russians who deserve the label of ``winners`` in WWII. It were them who demoralized and demolished the mighty germans, who breached Berlin defenses, and who took on more casualties than all europeans / americans COMBINED! ``

If Soviets did not get American support the Germans would have overran Soviet Union.

`` While it is true that winners write the history, in the case of WWII, it were the runner-ups who wrote the history. As the author has alluded, after winning the WWII, Russia lost the media war to the western allies. You never hear about the bravery and sacrifice of the Russian soldiers and russian people against the invading Germans. Recent books like ``The Greatest Generation``, which by the way came just in time to whip American public into war frenzy for Iraq invasion, continue to solidify and romanticize american role during 1911 - 1945. ``

The Red Army committed too many atrocities against Germans and East Europeans to be considered in a positive light. Red Army suffered a lot of casulaties because Stalin mounted pretty good purges of its officer corps.

`` Indeed, the role of the chinese in building the american railway lines is one of the greatest whitewash of 18th century. Soon after eastern and western lines were joined in Utah, there was a legislation passed by the US congress - The Chinese Exclusion Act. This act, by law, barred immigration from China.``

Life is not fair !!!

#9 by dost-mittar on November 28, 2005 1:29pm PT


the supremacy of American mind is now spread ``Sitaron se aagay`` by Star Trek and its various offshoots.


Actually the US has ceased to exist in Star Trek..All nations of Earth are now united.


But if the schools are spreading the same message, then one can see how a cynical administration can easily manipulate a misfed citizenry.


This ain`t Pakiland where you need the k-for-kaafir K-12 education to produce the jihadis..

Just scare a bunch of people and they`ll support you war....It`s the lack of education(and interest) rather than indoctrination that makes something like Iraq possible...

It`s the audience.....Average Joe isn`t much smarter than the Jaywalking all-stars...Most people wouldn`t know Utah beach wasn`t in Utah...They probably think the utah beach landing was on the shores of the Salt Lake..

stuka

“European criticism that Americans often lack the historical baggage needed to understand the complexity of conflict and emotions found in countries that have a longer sense of history.”

Do we really have to buy this European non sense?

There is no comparable institution in the whole Europe that devotes as much time and efforts as the US schools do in teaching students about the historical backgrounds of issues and the European perspective about the European problems.

A foreign affairs graduate or post graduate student of the international affairs of the US schools would know more about the European issues than most of the European diplomats. Some young American graduate know more about communism than Brezhnev ever did.

The problem is Europe’s aristocratism; it is their fragile ego that makes them say things that have no relevance with the reality. Europe invented extremism in international politics. They often lack the world view and pursue their policies within the small framework of European politics.

The US has provided a balanced view to the world about the realities that are out there. The European views are constantly rejected by all major countries in the world as Europeans range in international issues is extremely limited, naive and often based on experiences they gained some 100 years ago when they had colonized and suppressed people. Nobody gains any insight by enslaving and incarcerating a whole nation. Petty minded feudal are trying to match the scientific views of the current world by claiming that they have some edge over the Americans because they know history…Sorry they don’t.

They need to pay attention to their problems before the US intervenes to set them right…:)

Hi Feroz:

You have studied well your Hollywood. And, yes, Hollywood has unfortunately played a large role in shaping worldview of history not only for Americans but also of common people everywhere for whom Hollywood is the sole source of information on all all world events. On the small screen, the supremacy of American mind is now spread ``Sitaron se aagay`` by Star Trek and its various offshoots. One can add the whole new genre of ``infotainment`` led by CNN and followed even by the BBC whose very name spelled integrity at one point.

I do not know however to what extent the US textbooks also spread the same myths as Hollyood. As someone pointed out, the US thinktanks and policymakers in Washington have access to the best historians in the world who know a lot more than what we see on the screen. But if the schools are spreading the same message, then one can see how a cynical administration can easily manipulate a misfed citizenry.

BTW didn`t Canada join the war before 1941?

HP:

Though I agree with the basic thrust of your arguement, I would submit that FerozeK`s point is akin to the European criticism that Americans often lack the historical baggage needed to understand the complexity of conflict and emotions found in countries that have a longer sense of history. In that sense, this article would be better served if FerozK had mentioned ``The Quiet American`` as an introverted observation of American idealism leading to missteps in strategic implementation of a benign worldview.

“What Wilson refused to listen to and what the American policy makers do not seem to understand is that they cannot solve the world’s problems, because they do not have the required background to understand its problems in all of its myriad complexities. The Americans see the worlds’ problems through their own unique perceptional prisms (right versus wrong; evil versus good and; us against them) and seek to impose their own imported set of solutions, which seldom take into account the historical and local realities behind the origins of a particular problem.”

Coming from Feroz, it is a major disappointment. This stereotypical view of Yankee appears in some extremely naïve publications and suggest that the Americans are slow witted dumb or don’t have enough education and training to understands the world problems.

I just hope that people would realize that the US as a country has already put in over 200 years, first as a leader and now as perhaps the only leading nation in the world. The US boasts of the best educational institutions in the world and probably conducts the most intense diplomatic activity ever seen in the world since the dawn of life on this earth.

Assuming that the Americans “do not seem to understand” does not even merit a comment. I wish Feroz would just walk in some top US schools and see the caliber of the people that graduate from there. The amount of knowledge they absorb and the amount of discussions they have not amongst themselves but also with professors and other scholars is just mind-boggling.

The arguments that feroz is making would perhaps right away disqualify him for a serious discussion in any top rank US school. The US think tanks only keep the top graduates and have created a plethora of documents and research on various issues that surround the world. I hope Feroz, some day, would have time to visit just a few institutions like Cato, Brookings, AFPC, John Hopkins Foreign Policy institute or the Georgetown school of foreign affairs etc. just to name a few.

If there is any group of people who understand the “Myriad complexities of the world politics, historical and local realities behind the origins of particular problem” that would be Americans.
The American President may simplify issues for various reasons but believing that people behind him don’t understand the issues is really simplistic.

Highly qualified analysts work for the CIA, MIA DEA, and other American security organizations such as the national security agency under the Whitehouse. Speaking about such qualified individuals in such layman terms only shows that most of the historians and political analyst in the subcontinent are still beholden to views propagated by the soviets during the cold war.

``But in the case of these indian soldiers, they fought in a war they had nothing to do with, they fought under the command of a country which was not theirs, and they perished in these foreign lands where their bodies did not even recieve a burial adjacent to the white soldiers. ``

They fought and died because fighting with the chance of dying was the profession they signed up for. The British Indian Army, as the Indian Army of today, was a voluntary force which individuals joined at choice. There was no draft in India. The official racism as it existed was a fact of life. These soldiers still chose to join and acquiited themselves well for the most part. The soldiers who were more politically aware chose to fight with the INA and were looked upon by British Iindian troops as Namak Harams. The value judgements of the time cannot be replicated today.

``The Second World War started on September 1, 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and on September 3, 1939, England, due to its treaty commitments to Poland, declared war on Germany. Therefore, from September 3, 1939 to December 7, 1941, England, aided by its empire, was fighting the Japanese and the Germans alone. ``

FerozeK:

I have a difference of opinion with you on multiple points in this article.

``The Second World War started on September 1, 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and on September 3, 1939, England, due to its treaty commitments to Poland, declared war on Germany. Therefore, from September 3, 1939 to December 7, 1941, England, aided by its empire, was fighting the Japanese and the Germans alone. ``

That is the English version of history. It could also be factually stated that the war that commenced on Sept 3, 1939 was essentially a European War between Germany on one side, England and France on the other. Polish involvement ended by the end of September. Japan was actually not involved in the conflict at all at that point except in its incursion into China that had been carrying on for a few years. Neither was Russia. Hence, calling it a ``World War`` in 1939 would be a stretch.

It was only in 1941 that Japan attacked the US and Germany attacked Russia. Germany declared war on the US after the attack by Japan, thereby making it a comprehensive World War.

HP also brings up the point of the Lend Lease agreements. The industrial and military might of the US was instrumental in winning the war. Malik`s comment about the Commies being the true winners might be satisfying in an emotional sense but does not stand up to scrutiny. Yes, the Russians took the most casualties but that does not constitute victory in itself. Also, Zhukov took Berlin because Eisenhower (a statesman more than a General) ordered Montgomery and Patton to lay off Berlin and capture the most territory in the west.
The Eastern front would have gound to a stalemate without American aid to the Soviets. Ofcourse, in hindsight it may be argued that Patton was right about the need to carry on marching east and fight the Russians there and then, rather than waiting for the evil of Communism to settle over Eastern Europe for half a century.

Bridge over River Kawai is near the Thailand - Burma border. This bridge was built by the british PoWs under japanese command. Later it was made famous by the movie ``Bridge over River Kawai``.

As I visited this famed bridge, I came across a cemetry of the british soldiers. Hundreds upon hundred rows of tombstones in perfect symmetry adorned the lush grounds. I walked through those rows, glancing at the names and ages of the soldiers burried there. Most of them were younger than 25, who came half way across the world to fight in a battle that they perhaps themselves did not understand.

And then as I moved towards the exit gate, I looked at a wall with some muslim sounding names. These were the names of the pre-partition indian soldiers who had perished in this foreign land. In the case of the young british soldiers, even if they did not understand the war, at least they fought and died for their own country. But in the case of these indian soldiers, they fought in a war they had nothing to do with, they fought under the command of a country which was not theirs, and they perished in these foreign lands where their bodies did not even recieve a burial adjacent to the white soldiers. This belated board with their names is all that is left of their sacrifice.

Is this a serious article?

I have not seen such a simplistic narration of the history from Feroz before so I am just thinking that he probably wrote the whole piece to poke some fun at the Hollywood movies.

First, attempting to view history from the Hollywood perspective is not for scholars. Hollywood is all about fiction and story telling. Hollywood primarily makes movies for the US audience and I doubt that the every movie they make about some historical event, is backed by some hard facts nor do they claim their version of the history as a hard fact.

Movies follow a pattern and that pattern is having heroes, heroines and villains. Sometimes those villains are Japanese, sometimes Arabs and just a decade ago they were all Russians. They even invented a Russian boxer for the heavy weight contention. In Indians movies sometimes they have Pakistanis as villains and in Pakistani movies zamindars take the rule of villains and sometime Indians are shown to be of heinous nature. Now if someone is so simple that he/she takes the movie version literally then that person is beyond any education. Movies are all about creating heroes and are not made to dispense facts or dissect other points of views. In fact the documentaries too are there to show a certain version of the history that can be challenged by others.

The whole effort here appears to trivialize history in a mammoth way.
If I start to contest every issue raised in this article, I would end up doing a piece as long as this one. I hope Feroz would refer to some regular books from regular historians rather than relying on Hollywood screen writers to score his points.

It is funny to see the attempt to minimize the US role in the second WW. If it were not for the US land-lease program, the British or the Soviets would have come up really short in their war efforts. The physical US entry in the war actually ensured that the war would end in allies’ victory alone. The number of US dead on European and the Asian theatres explains the extent of the US involvement in the Second WW.
I have never seen a serious historian discuss history based on what was shown in the Guns of Navaron.
Will take up other issues in the article later…

If challenging the myths of history is out of fashion in American media, then allow me to say that the Jewish leaders in US did a tremendous job of sanctifying certain ``truths`` and criminalizing others. Let me elaborate.

When you criminalize a version of history by calling it ``revisionist``, you open the door for similar stances elsewhere. David Irving, a british historian is currently in an Austrian jail because he dared to suggest that historical and physical evidence points to the fact that jewish holocaust may not have occured, or at least did not occur as a planned activity on that large a scale. However, there is a law in Austria that criminalizes ``alternative`` view of holocaust! And hence, a historian is in jail because he dared to look at history from an independent perspective, rather than learning it through movies like ``Schindler`s List`` and ``Anne Frank`s diary`` etc.

And when you sanctify one version of history for a certain group of people, then is it any wonder that other groups demand similar rights? And when that happens, then history does not become a collection of facts, rather a result of lobby / pressure groups` interests and hollywood box office. And that is why you have movies like ``DC-911`` legendrazing President Bush as a man of steel trying to rally his people on September 11, rather than a man on the run from one underground shelter to another.

The author has done a fair job de-mythyfying historical events. It is quite true that more so than america and its western allies, it were the hated communist Russians who deserve the label of ``winners`` in WWII. It were them who demoralized and demolished the mighty germans, who breached Berlin defenses, and who took on more casualties than all europeans / americans COMBINED!

While it is true that winners write the history, in the case of WWII, it were the runner-ups who wrote the history. As the author has alluded, after winning the WWII, Russia lost the media war to the western allies. You never hear about the bravery and sacrifice of the Russian soldiers and russian people against the invading Germans. Recent books like ``The Greatest Generation``, which by the way came just in time to whip American public into war frenzy for Iraq invasion, continue to solidify and romanticize american role during 1911 - 1945.

Indeed, the role of the chinese in building the american railway lines is one of the greatest whitewash of 18th century. Soon after eastern and western lines were joined in Utah, there was a legislation passed by the US congress - The Chinese Exclusion Act. This act, by law, barred immigration from China.