Running "The War" Thread

Using the term concentration camp, TODAY, connotes death camp. Using it today to refer to the forced relocations of Japanese Americans sounds as if you are making the immoral/moral equivalence of America to Nazi/Japan of WWII.

That's typical of an immature and child-like intellect. Relativism and forced equivalence seems to be the mantra of weak minded left.

 

And mindless repetition of the same inaccurate information seems to be the mantra of the extremely silly nativist right.
You're talking very much like a fool now.
What we ran at Manzanar was a concentration camp in the original sense of the word. You can bellow in outrage to your heart's content, but it doesn't change that simple fact. To say so is not to equate the treatment of the inmates there with the treatment of the inmates in Dachau any more than pointing out that Danbury and abu Ghraib are both prisons establishes an "equivalence" in how inmates in both places are treated.
"Child-like" intellect, from the leader of this board's "The Negroes Stole Our Country" society.
It is to laugh.
Back to the series now, I think.

 

Sorry, 'Yab, but every major dictionary says you're wrong. And if you're uncomfortable with the term as it relates to American conduct in the world, then please don't research our suppression of the Philippine Insurrection.

 

Hell, I think I have a crush on her now. That accent is gorgeous.

 

Ken Burns did a chat on WashingtonPost.com this morning. Here's the transcript:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/07/DI2007090702377.html

 

I know its a lot of ground to cover but by not spending more time on Europe/ Operation Torch it makes Burns timeline choppy for those less familiar with WWII.

As far as tonight I don't see how they could not cover Patton/ Kasserine Pass.

From everything I've read there was a huge debate as to where the U.S. should strike first. Burns just covered that debate in cursory manor.

As far as War in North Africa what's confusing to many is that when we first attacked we were fighting both French and German troops. I hope Burns deals with this .

Rick Atkinson did a terrific job covering in his book on begining of WW2

 

Boom --
You have relatives who fought there? Just curious, because, after he did convoy duty, my father's ship docked in Oran for a spell after Torch.

 

No just a great interest in that part of war. I had 2 uncles killed in pacific - Battan then Mindiano during liberation of Phillipines.

What did your dad have to say about the vichy's ?

 

http://www.amazon.com/World-At-War-Complete-Set/dp/B00005NOOH

 

I had one bone to pick with it from last night and that is the error that was made on the Sullivan Brothers. They were from Waterloo, Iowa, not Fredricksburg, IA. Their friend, Bill Ball, was from F-burg and was killed at Pearl Harbor, which propelled the brothers to enlist together.

Other than that, I enjoyed the first installment.

Pay no attention to Stanley's write up. If you are going to critique a program, at least watch it for what it's worth. Iraq didn't have a role in WWII, and that angle should be left out of it. Let's keep this thread to just the program and Burns only.

 

Haven't seen it yet and can't wait to start watching it, either.
Since this is "The American War", I guess it won't get too much into the true winners of that war (and I say this as a card-carrying RNC member for 20 years whose father and 12 uncles served in the military, some in World War II) — the Soviets. Holy shit - just what that nation went through and its sacrifices through six years. Sure, Stalin is rightly roasting in hell, probably right next to the paper hangin' sonofabitch, but in this country, we historically have never given the Soviet Union its proper due for its role in WWII, from the travails on the Eastern Front to helping pin down millions of Japanese troops in Manchuria for years.