If you haven't seen these there is something seriously wrong with your country's educational system.

Use the enemy's own films to expose their enslaving ends. Let our boys hear the Nazis and the Japs shout their own claims of master-race crud—and our fighting men will know why they are in uniform.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rFs0uVY_4rE/SjTEO-aMqKI/AAAAAAAAGAU/vNqnoeDcpdU/s320/why_we_fight1.jpg

Links to the 7 original films and a few extras.

Why We Fight is a series of seven documentary films commissioned by the United States government during World War II whose purpose was to show American soldiers the reason for U.S. involvement in the war. Later on they were also shown to the general U.S. public to persuade them to support American involvement in the war. Each of them is in the common domain having been produced by the US government, available online, and linked below the fold:

Most of the films were directed by Frank Capra, who was daunted yet also impressed and challenged by Leni Riefenstahl's propaganda film Triumph of the Will and who worked in direct response to it. The series faced a tough challenge: convincing an only recently non-interventionist nation of the need to become involved in the war and ally with the Soviets, among other things. In many of the films, Capra and other directors spliced in Axis powers propaganda footage going back twenty years, and recontextualized it so it promoted the cause of the Allies.

There is something wrong with our education system...especially the whole college thing (far to expensive).

There are a lot of students that get excited when a history class gets to war because (and I quote) "war is cool!"....yep....but they cant name even the YEAR WW2 started or even the major belligerents. In short, they know very very little of any of the historical wars. The thing is, curriculums today do not leave enough time to discuss these world altering wars. They leave enough time to cover Martin Luther King Jr for a week...but covering a war that started the Cold War, killed 60million+, devastated several countries, hosted multiple genocides, was a clash of political ideals, advanced technology faster than anyother single event, and turned the US into a super power....nope, WW2 is no where near as important. Heck history classes talk about the hippies more than all of the major historical conflicts together!

Hopefully that does not happen to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars...if it does, there will be hell to pay!  >:(

I should mention my views on the grade school system are heavily skewed:
Spent most of my grade school in a rat hole of a school that was a cross between a ghetto and hick-ville...plus 2 administrators screwing around with the cheerleaders, 5+ faculty members arrested for some sexual offense, and the idiot that called in the bomb threat DID IT FROM THE LOBBY PAY PHONES OUTSIDE THE OFFICE ON A HALF DAY before the LAST CLASS with the intention of "getting out early"...yep, real winner of a school  ;D
Orchard View Public School: they got some new faculty, admins, and a new building after I left

Every fight is about:
Menings and/or belief!

Ironic that we have to harp back to films that are 60 years old. Between the UK and the USA we could choose from;

1945-1946 War in Vietnam
1945-1949 Indonesian National Revolution
1946-1954 First Indochina War
1946-1949 Greek Civil War
1948-1960 Malayan Emergency
1952-1960 Mau Mau Uprising
1953-1975 Laotian Civil War
1954-1959 Jebel Akhdar War
1955-1975 Vietnam War
1956-1956 Suez Crisis
1962-1966 Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation
1962-1976 Dhofar Rebellion
1965-1965 Dominican Civil War
1965-1966 United States occupation of the Dominican
1967-1975 Cambodian Civil War
1975-2002 Angolan Civil War
1979-1989 Soviet war in Afghanistan taking the side of the Taliban
1982-1982 Falklands War
1983-1983 Invasion of Grenada
1989-1990 Invasion of Panama
1990-1991 Persian Gulf war
2003-Present Persian Gulf war Mk2
2001-Present Afghanistan

Matt

2003-2011 Present Persian Gulf war Mk2

The Iraq war ended last December.

Since the only goal of the war was to kill Saddam Hussein there was no reason to continue it for more than five years after his death.

Over the weekend my son and I watched the original version of the movie Red Dawn, about a Soviet-Cuban-Nicaraguan invasion of the United States, a Cold War version of World War 3. One of most memorable scenes to me is when a downed Air Force pilot is explaining to young resistance fighters what might have caused the war to begin.

Darryl Bates: What started it?
Col. Andy Tanner: I don't know. Two toughest kids on the block, I guess. Sooner or later, they're gonna fight.
Jed Eckert: That simple, is it?
Col. Andy Tanner: Or maybe somebody just forgot what it was like.

expat wrote on Sep 17^th, 2012 at 11:06am:

Ironic that we have to harp back to films that are 60 years old. Between the UK and the USA we could choose from; 1945-1946 War in Vietnam 1945-1949 Indonesian National Revolution 1946-1954 First Indochina War 1946-1949 Greek Civil War 1948-1960 Malayan Emergency 1952-1960 Mau Mau Uprising 1953-1975 Laotian Civil War 1954-1959 Jebel Akhdar War 1955-1975 Vietnam War 1956-1956 Suez Crisis 1962-1966 Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation 1962-1976 Dhofar Rebellion 1965-1965 Dominican Civil War 1965-1966 United States occupation of the Dominican 1967-1975 Cambodian Civil War 1975-2002 Angolan Civil War 1979-1989 Soviet war in Afghanistan taking the side of the Taliban 1982-1982 Falklands War 1983-1983 Invasion of Grenada 1989-1990 Invasion of Panama 1990-1991 Persian Gulf war 2003-Present Persian Gulf war Mk2 2001-Present Afghanistan Matt

You forgot Korea 1950 - 1953.

Military action should not be mistaken for war.  The United States has declared war only 5 times in its history.

War of 1812
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War
World War I
World War II

Webb wrote on Sep 17^th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Military action should not be mistaken for war.  The United States has declared war only 5 times in its history. War of 1812 Mexican-American War Spanish-American War World War I World War II

Which is why the school system needs to remind students how often weapons are used in anger and soldiers die even though its not an official war: 2 big points: Korea and Vietnam.
On the side, all the little spec ops campaigns around the world (central and south america)

The Korean War was a civil war.

The United States wasn't officially a party.  It send military forces under the United Nations back when people thought the UN could actually do something and it wasn't openly hostile to western democracies.

This of course has no relation to a series of films produced between 1942-1945.

Webb wrote on Sep 17^th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Military action should not be mistaken for war.  The United States has declared war only 5 times in its history. War of 1812 Mexican-American War Spanish-American War World War I World War II

Many mothers who's sons died due to the whims of politicians would argue is a fine line.....

Matt

War is merely the continuation of policy by other means.

People die in wars.

Webb wrote on Sep 17^th, 2012 at 10:58pm:

War is merely the continuation of policy by other means. People die in wars.

Sad truth. Other sad truth, war is not leaving human society anytime soon. Which is why I support further weapons development. By having high precision bomb delivery for example, we went from HUNDREDS of bombers in WW2 to area bomb a city just to take out a factory to ONE fighter dropping ONE bomb to take out just that building. Obviously it should not come to dropping that bomb, but going from dropping thousands of 500lb dumb bombs to dropping ONE 1,000lb JDAM I would say that is a worthy improvement.

Why didn't I just put this in Movies and Entertainment?

Classic series from the director of "It's A Wonderful Life" examines America's reluctant entry into World War II.

Hagar wrote on Sep 17^th, 2012 at 4:06pm:

You forgot Korea 1950 - 1953.

Worth adding the events in the former Yugoslavian states between 1991 and 2000. Under the auspices of NATO, that was very close to being much bigger by the time they got to Kosovo (and bombed the backside off Mr Milosevic and his Serbian forces). The Chinese got a nose bashing too. Entirely accidentally too. :P

(As the wonderful American fighter pilot band sing:

But the bombing of the embassy in Moscow broke the ice,
Now that was just an accident and it happened only twice

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess what inspired those lines. Even if it did only happen once.) :)

Webb wrote on Sep 16^th, 2012 at 11:04pm:

If you haven't seen these there is something seriously wrong with your country's educational system.

Nope nothing wrong with our educational system. We just don't care much for propaganda movies...

Webb wrote on Sep 16^th, 2012 at 11:04pm:

If you haven't seen these there is something seriously wrong with your country's educational system.

But... why would ITALIAN educational system contemplate making see these films? Beside to scholars of recent history, I mean... and even then, as Carlo rightly said... we have done SO much to stop OUR propaganda to be shown everywhere (with mixed success, seen we aren't able to stop Berlusconi to make a hash of things), why should we start following the propaganda on another nation? 70 years old propaganda too, by the way...

You MUST keep in mind that the internet is not USA-only. :P

wrote on Sep 24^th, 2012 at 1:05pm:

Webb wrote on Sep 16th, 2012 at 11:04pm: If you haven't seen these there is something seriously wrong with your country's educational system. Nope nothing wrong with our educational system. We just don't care much for propaganda movies...

If the Dutch had seen this Anne Frank might have survived.

Strategic Retreat wrote on Sep 27^th, 2012 at 12:30pm:

Webb wrote on Sep 16th, 2012 at 11:04pm: If you haven't seen these there is something seriously wrong with your country's educational system. But... why would ITALIAN educational system contemplate making see these films? Beside to scholars of recent history, I mean... and even then, as Carlo rightly said... we have done SO much to stop OUR propaganda to be shown everywhere (with mixed success, seen we aren't able to stop Berlusconi to make a hash of things), why should we start following the propaganda on another nation? 70 years old propaganda too, by the way... You MUST keep in mind that the internet is not USA-only. :P

Umm, Italy was the enemy.

Do you even know who was involved in World War II?

Supreme Leader Benito Mussolini and Führer Adolf Hitler in better times
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Q074A9V3p7k/T5uf8w3kdzI/AAAAAAAAB10/pVXEGUf9o6k/s1600/hitler+with+mussolini.jpg

If you haven’t seen these there is something wrong with your education system.

The World at War


Quote:

If you haven't seen these there is something seriously wrong with your country's educational system.

I try to steer clear of American propaganda. I find some Axis ones are more truthful.


Webb wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:37am:

wrote on Sep 24th, 2012 at 1:05pm: Webb wrote on Sep 16th, 2012 at 11:04pm: If you haven't seen these there is something seriously wrong with your country's educational system. Nope nothing wrong with our educational system. We just don't care much for propaganda movies... If the Dutch had seen this Anne Frank might have survived.

How? :P

The Dutch offered no resistance to Nazi invasion.

Would they have offered resistance if they had foreseen the consequences?

Anne Frank died 2 weeks before Bergen-Belsen was liberated.

Webb wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:59am:

The Dutch offered no resistance to Nazi invasion. Would they have offered resistance if they had foreseen the consequences? Anne Frank died 2 weeks before Bergen-Belsen was liberated.

I don't know where you find your history but the Netherlands did put up a fight before capitulating & forming a Government in exile.

the Battle of the Netherlands

The main problem was that the Dutch Army was Ill-Equipped & Ill-Trained.

Also those films weren't produced until 1942 & the Invasion of the Low Countries was in 1940. :P

There is surely some misunderstanding/misinformations going on in the world today, expecially when talking history a "few" years ago :o

Webb, I suggest you go back to school, take some history lessons instead of watching US propaganda movies. We did put up a fight against the Nazi invasion. Problem was that the Dutch Army was indeed badly equipped and trained. Because of the fact that we stayed neutral in WWI, we still had a fighting force on the level of before WWI. Although they fought bravely and hard for 5 days, they couldn't begin a thing against the overwhelming German troops. Outnumbered 10 to 1 even the US Army would have given up.

During the war, there was a huge resistance movement against the Nazis. Bombings, sabotage and killings were a daily business for them. Although there also were a lot of people supporting the Germans. They all got their share after the war. Even now, people don't want to confess that their (grand)parents were in support of the Nazis.

Anne Frank. It's unfortunate that she died. Remember that during the war no one knew who Anne Frank was. She only got famous after the publishing of her dairy. In the 1950's....

So before you start talking nonsense again, go take some lessons in history, instead of believing everything in movies...

Webb wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:40am:

Umm, Italy was the enemy. Do you even know who was involved in World War II?

ITALY WAS THE ENEMY? YOU ARE HAVING ME ON!!! :o

::) ::) ::)

Of course I know the history, even if I wasn't part of it at the time (was born 25 years too late to, even as a toddler, and at least 40 to participate), but...

Were we talking about sides here? :-?

Nope, we were talking about the suitability to show those films to TODAY'S school-boys and girls.

Now, if the thing would be somewhat arguable in the USA, since it's 70 years ever since those films had any actual contact with reality...

What should THE REST OF THE WORLD care, beside those who have a bare curiosity of wanting to assist to propaganda from the allies against Baldy and Mustachino?

And even more, why should the... BRAZILIAN educational system (just to take a nation that wasn't actually active part of THAT mess) ever care to do a thing like that?

I repeat, Internet is not a USA-only exclusive, so in the announcement "there's something wrong in your educational system if...", please state you're talking about USA educational system or expect some [70 years delayed] flak. ;D :P ;)

I still have to agree that the public education system in the US is a wee bit broken. I graduated from a public highschool in '08 after moving about a couple of times all the while attending PUBLIC schools. I can say all are screwed up: both the well funded ones and the lets just say 'poor' ones....nevermind how they treat special needs children! >:(
My in-laws had to listen to several school officials tell them that their adopted daughter was not bi-polar....even though police have been involved far to many times.

Heaven forbid you just watch it instead of spending hours bitching about it.

andy190 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 2:47am:

Webb wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:59am: The Dutch offered no resistance to Nazi invasion. Would they have offered resistance if they had foreseen the consequences? I don't know where you find your history but the Netherlands did put up a fight before capitulating & forming a Government in exile.:P

In the big scheme of things, the polite, but not extended resistance of the Dutch (brought to an end partly by the obliteration of Rotterdam), and then the subsequent Battle of France and Dunkirk evacuation did us a huge favour.

Had they not ended when they did and with the results they did, we'd have been left fighting a war of attrition in the same place as the Great War, with a probable German victory before any  official US involvement. We'd have eventually been stuffed, and had very little (if anything) left to defend an invasion of the British isles, and the consequent ending of any meaningful military resistance in Europe to the Third Reich.

C wrote on Sep 29^th, 2012 at 6:13pm:

Had they not ended when they did and with the results they did, we'd have been left fighting a war of attrition in the same place as the Great War, with a probable German victory before any official US involvement. We'd have eventually been stuffed, and had very little (if anything) left to defend an invasion of the British isles, and the consequent ending of any meaningful military resistance in Europe to the Third Reich.

I seriously doubt, with the advance of aerial power happened in the twenty years between the two wars, that a war of attrition would have happened in the given scenario. More like the Stukas (at the time a more than adequate tool for infantry support. Way better than any other form of artillery) would have had A LOT to say on how the supposed battle was to end... and not well for the UK... but rather quickly, I believe. So quickly that a real war of attrition scenario would not have had a concrete way to realize itself.

Strategic Retreat wrote on Oct 1^st, 2012 at 6:25am:

I seriously doubt, with the advance of aerial power happened in the twenty years between the two wars, that a war of attrition would have happened in the given scenario. More like the Stukas (at the time a more than adequate tool for infantry support. Way better than any other form of artillery) would have had A LOT to say on how the supposed battle was to end... and not well for the UK... but rather quickly, I believe. So quickly that a real war of attrition scenario would not have had a concrete way to realize itself.

I didn't say it would have been a two way war of attrition. We (the allies) would have been, bombed, panzered and overrun by the end of 1940 at the latest. We'd have lost. Comprehensively.

:)

C wrote on Oct 1^st, 2012 at 4:11pm:

Strategic Retreat wrote on Oct 1st, 2012 at 6:25am: I seriously doubt, with the advance of aerial power happened in the twenty years between the two wars, that a war of attrition would have happened in the given scenario. More like the Stukas (at the time a more than adequate tool for infantry support. Way better than any other form of artillery) would have had A LOT to say on how the supposed battle was to end... and not well for the UK... but rather quickly, I believe. So quickly that a real war of attrition scenario would not have had a concrete way to realize itself. I didn't say it would have been a two way war of attrition. We (the allies) would have been, bombed, panzered and overrun by the end of 1940 at the latest. We'd have lost. Comprehensively. :)

In your interpretation you speak of mere months before the Allies' defeat, but by its own definition "Attrition" happens if both sides can hold their own for a while... in terms of war, one year or more, before one of the sides would wear out so badly to cave in. What you described is better defined as a "rout", not real "Attrition".

Not the kind of trench warfare attrition happened during WWI a little everywhere in Europe, nor even the stalemate of the Axis against the Russians on the river Don during WWII, surely. THAT was war of attrition, what you describe... just isn't. :P

Strategic Retreat wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2012 at 9:37am:

C wrote on Oct 1st, 2012 at 4:11pm: Strategic Retreat wrote on Oct 1st, 2012 at 6:25am: I seriously doubt, with the advance of aerial power happened in the twenty years between the two wars, that a war of attrition would have happened in the given scenario. More like the Stukas (at the time a more than adequate tool for infantry support. Way better than any other form of artillery) would have had A LOT to say on how the supposed battle was to end... and not well for the UK... but rather quickly, I believe. So quickly that a real war of attrition scenario would not have had a concrete way to realize itself. I didn't say it would have been a two way war of attrition. We (the allies) would have been, bombed, panzered and overrun by the end of 1940 at the latest. We'd have lost. Comprehensively. :) In your interpretation you speak of mere months before the Allies' defeat, but by its own definition "Attrition" happens if both sides can hold their own for a while... in terms of war, one year or more, before one of the sides would wear out so badly to cave in. What you described is better defined as a "rout", not real "Attrition". Not the kind of trench warfare attrition happened during WWI a little everywhere in Europe, nor even the stalemate of the Axis against the Russians on the river Don during WWII, surely. THAT was war of attrition, what you describe... just isn't. :P

Apologies for my poor use of the English language.

Now I must go and split some hairs... :)