BarkellWH -> RE: Late night shop drawings (Feb. 26 2015 19:53:04)
|
You are, of course, correct, Runner, that the Bulge was the costliest battle for American forces. The great battles on the Eastern Front were far costlier in terms of Russian and German casualties. Stalingrad is the most well-known, and many historians consider it the turning point in the war, but there is a cadre of historians who consider the Battle of Kursk to have been the most significant in its long-term effects in turning the war around. The numbers alone are almost beyond comprehension. The battle involved 3 million men, a full eight thousand tanks, and nearly five thousand warplanes, and it broke all records for both the costliest single day of aerial warfare and the largest tank battle in history. Regarding your refinement in establishing any relationship between those who served in the military and who experienced combat under fire and their interest, or lack thereof, in military history, I would offer the following, involving both my father and friends who served in Vietnam. First regarding friends who served in combat roles in Vietnam, some maintain an interest in things military and some do not. Those who are interested in military history, I think, are interested not so much as a function of their military service; rather, they just have a genuine interest that probably would be there whether or not they had served and experienced combat. Those who are not particularly interested in military history have just moved on. They became professionals in one field or another, and, like the general population, aren't particularly interested in military history. My father was with MacArthur's Southwest Pacific campaign in World War II, moving up the line and taking part in the liberation of Manila. He was not one to bring up his experiences in the Pacific War unsolicited, but he was not shy about discussing campaigns with me when the subject of the war came up. I grew up in a household where we discussed history and current events at the dinner table. My father was an avid history buff, including military history. We would discuss everything from Eisenhower and Montgomery's campaigns to the horrible battles on the Eastern Front, where masses of men were just thrown into battle by both sides. I would describe my father as a quiet, learned man who had experienced combat in WWII, but when the subject came up did not avoid discussing it with serious interlocutors. And he maintained a vibrant interest in history, foreign affairs, the military, and national security issues until he passed away. I would make one other observation about Vietnam veterans. I think too much is made of the so-called "walking wounded" and "burnt-out" cases among Vietnam veterans. There certainly were (and remain to this day) cases of Vietnam veterans who could not adjust to civilian life after their military service. The misfits, homeless, and those on drugs were, and are, a fact of life. But when you consider the number of those who served in Vietnam, the misfits, homeless, and drug addicts are a small minority. Most veterans came back, went to university or graduate school on the G.I. Bill, and entered normal civilian life. Everyone I knew who served in Vietnam became a member of one of the professions and led a normal life. The media and certain groups, for their own reasons, liked to focus on those who could not adjust, but in my opinion, they vastly overstated the problem. Bill
|
|
|
|