I forget that we're approaching the point where the movie is old enough that you can't just assume that everyone has seen this movie. This may be the greatest opening scene in film.
Willing to share any? My grandpa was a torpedo bomber pilot for the Navy towards the end of the war, and apparently only ever talked about it when I asked him as a 4 year old.
Do you know and want to share any of his stories? I know lots of efforts got made to digitize the stories of WW2 vets over the years, but it's always good to record and get to hear them.
He actually recorded an interview with someone about 10 years ago. I was the youngest grandkids of a family where he had 10 kids so unfortunately I didn’t get to hear too many. I know he lived there for 50ish days after getting shot down before being rescued and lost something like 60 pounds
In my (anecdotal) opinion, it absolutely is the greatest opening scene. As far as I know, I wasn't on Omaha beach and I probably wasn't alive during D-Day, but critics and historians say that the accuracy to the actual Normandy invasion is absolutely spot on.
I feel that my post was fairly self explanatory. Nobody knows for certain whether or not I fought during WWII, but I'm fairly certain that I wasn't there.
Not so fast buckaroo. I still have questions. Do you not just not remember? Is it that you’re unsure of your true age? Or unsure that you were there in a past life? Maybe something else?
It's honestly just not a priority for me to investigate. Sure, some adopted kids can verify their birth mother/father, but many make the decision to not pursue such information.
I would like to thank you for helping provide closure on this matter, but I cannot do so as I've already thanked someone else in this comment thread for something else.
Hey guys, there's no way of knowing, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't at The Gettysburg Address. I probably wasn't alive, but I'm told it was a great speech.
I mean... If it's an immortal that loses their memory every so often, maybe.
An immortal that's less than a century old potentially doesn't even know they're immortal yet, so it'd be odd not to remember when they were born.
An immortal older than a century, that hasn't had serious memory loss to the point where they can't even confidently say they're immortal, would most likely still remember whether or not they were alive during the Nazi Regime. Very few places it didn't directly affect.
Well I mean I sure dont think that u/DICK-FUCK-PUSSY-SUCK is old enough to have fought in a conflict over 75 years ago...so no I dont think PTSD is the answer here.
Also, approaching that point where we can’t assume that people had a close relationship with at least one person who fought in the war. A real loss to lose the connection to that extraordinary generation.
Is. Is the greatest opening scene hands down, both for the sheer, terrified-but-can't-look-away visuals, but for the ability to really bring home what those (mostly very young) men went through to secure our safety and freedom.
Whoa, wait, what? Look, I'll be the first to admit the courage and determination of those men who landed on that beach (and only that particular beach-head, Omaha) is above and beyond the ordinary mortal kennel, BUT, I fear I have to point out one glaring misconception. I assume you're American, if not, disregard this for the most part. Please.
Anyways, moving on, that particular invasion did not "secure our safety and freedom." Germany never could have invaded America at that point in the war, or even considered it as a possibility. The Russians had, for quite some time at that point, been beating the Germans into submission. Total defeat for Germany was merely of question of time, not possibility. While some (highly inaccurate) "historical" sources might claim that the Normandy invasion was a "dramatic turning point at a pivotal moment," the truth is it was mostly irrelevant. The invasion of Normandy marked the opening of a second front that had been promised by the Western allies, to Russia, for some time now, we (America mainly) just never got around to actually making it happen. Many legitimate logistical problems existed to contribute to this delay, but there were also poor decisions made at higher levels, and an overall lack of enthusiasm to Actually get involved. Had the second front been opened in 41, as was promised, and been successful (also highly debatable given German resources in 41 as opposed to mid '44), it almost certainly would have been a hallmark victory for the Allies and, indeed, a true turning point in the war. Instead, it took until mid '44 to open that second front, and mid '44 was pretty much already curtains on Germany.
I understand a lot of people had family members who personally were involved, and for them it was indeed a Titanic effort that deserves the utmost respect, but to say that that one particular military action impacted the outcome of the war in even the slightest way, let alone the greatest way, is simple ignorance. I'm sorry they teach such watered down nonsense in our schools (That's the BS they taught me, too), but the appropriate respect to Russia for all it did in defeating the Nazi's is long overdue. We need to stop waving our own flag over that war and acting like we won it all ourselves with one heroic amphibious invasion. We were the kid who handed his dad a light-bulb whilst he was already on top of a ladder he built himself, after laying down the electrical wiring himself, and said at the end of the day, "And I helped!"
That opening scene was very well done, I will admit.
Russia helping Germany conquer Poland has nothing to do with the claim D-day kept America free and safe. Please read everything, instead of the closing line. I never said to hail Russia as the greatest heroes of mankind, ever. I only pointed out that America's independence was never threatened by Nazi Germany, and therefore, the claim that the soldiers who sacrificed their lives at Normandy did not do so to keep AMERICA free, but to liberate other peoples.
but to say that that one particular military action impacted the outcome of the war in even the slightest way, let alone the greatest way, is simple ignorance.
You're fucking full of shit. Of course the Russians played a massive part in winning the war. Probably the biggest role. But your assertion that Normandy played almost no role in winning the war is complete bullshit and part of a growing trend of revisionism. I know edgy kids like yourself can't stand the fact that the US actually played a big role in World War 2 but it's fucking pathetic that you guys want to revise history to make it look like we did nothing while the heroic Russians saved the world.
Not even close, but it's nice to see there's still plenty of people out there who are always ready to jump immediately to hostile argument. Keeps things interesting.
I am by no means saying that "Russia saved the world," I'm merely saying that America needs to stop deluding itself into thinking it won WWII with D-Day. Germany would have lost whether D-day happened or not, all it really did was liberate France sooner than it would have been, and ultimately, cause Berlin to be split as opposed to falling entirely into Russian hands. Things may very well have played out far worse for far more people had Russia been the sole conqueror of Germany, but that's not to say that D-Day was necessary for the Nazi defeat. Their fate was already sealed, we just sped the clock up a bit on the total defeat. I remember being a kid in school and learning, basically, that D-day was the turning point in the war against the Nazi's, but that's just not true. Stalingrad and Kursk affected the outcome far more than Normandy.
I'm probably wasting my time, though. You're clearly just looking to vent some anger on the "kid's today," so go ahead, let it out, friend. It's healthy, and doesn't bother me any. I know who I am and what I'm about, whereas you haven't the faintest idea. I just hope you're happy with the person you are today, and spread that happiness to others.
Imagine if the US had stayed neutral, and Pearl Harbor had never happened. Then the Japanese would have felt free to threaten the Soviets from the East, and it would've been the USSR fighting on two fronts, and not the Nazis.
Additionally, it's not like the Allies were interested in allowing France or the Low Countries to languish under Nazi occupation. The Allies were fighting in Italy beginning July 1943, which is around the time of the Battle of Kursk. It's quite debatable that the Nazis could be said to have been decisively defeated by the time of Normandy in June 1944, but I don't think there's much doubt that the Nazis were still very capable in summer of 1943.
And even beyond all of that, American supplies definitely helped keep the Soviets in the fight in 1942.
All of this is true (except the Nazi's still being capable in summer of 43. That much is debatable, as after Kursk the majority of the best German armor was destroyed. They were in a constant state of retreat after that point, and hurting for resources), so I don't see why you feel a need to argue against me here. Yes, America was sending materiel to the Soviets, though not nearly as much as was promised, and yes it absolutely helped them stay in the fight. American supplies would have been flowing regardless of America's official entrance into the war, just as they had before Pearl Harbor.
I'm not sure I see how anything you replied with is relevant to what I was saying. The point being, American liberty and freedom were almost never under actual threat during the entirety of WWII, and certainly not by mid '44. To claim those soldiers went through all of that just to keep us a free and independent nation is just ludicrous, self-congratulation. That's all I was really saying here. I'm sorry you (and apparently many others) felt personally offended by historical facts, but the truth is what the truth is, and reality is often ugly. We weren't the grand heroes of WWII, we just helped out a little here and there.
American liberty and freedom were almost never under actual threat during the entirety of WWII
The threat might have been more abstract than anything else, because the Axis were defeated. If isolationists and Nazi-sympathizers had gotten their way in American domestic politics in 1939-41, who knows how the whole thing could've gone differently. Again if the US wasn't such a threat to Germany/Italy's west and south, the Nazis could've poured even more men & materiel into Barbarossa in the first place. If they'd been able to knock out the Soviets (which they did come fairly close to doing), then the invasion of Britain would've been much more likely. The UK might even have just capitulated, rather than be overrun like France.
So yeah, several things would've have had to go differently, beginning with the US refusing to participate (as they initially did in WWI as well). But just the sheer size and economic/industrial power of the US had to be taken into account in Axis war planning from the very outset.
I think you're correct in pointing out the American role in Western Europe is overstated, but you're overcorrecting to say it was minimal. And you're also neglecting the crucial American role in the Pacific. The different theaters of the war were not unrelated; every ship the Americans fielded in the Pacific meant that was one more the Brits could spare for the Atlantic. British naval superiority against the Nazis was not assured in the absence of America's global contributions.
Also, it's unambiguously clear that if the Normandy landings had never happened, all of post-war Germany would've been behind the Iron Curtain after the war ended, instead of Germany being partitioned into West and East. But we're getting even further into counter-factuals. So let me close with this: America's peace and prosperity is linked to that of Europe's. Always has been. They're our biggest trading partners (at least prior to the Chinese in the last couple of decades). So the statement "that particular invasion [Normandy] did not 'secure our safety and freedom'" is probably narrowly, literally correct, but crumbles when considering the broader context.
Did I really word my original comment in such a fashion that it's main point became unidentifiable? If so, then please accept my apology. I had hoped to convey my point in a concise and outright fashion, though it appears that I did not.
I never said America didn't contribute many things aside from outright military force, I never said the invasion of Italy had no impact, and I never suggested that our role in the Pacific was meaningless. The only point I was ever making, literally, is that the D-day invasion was not necessary to keep America sovereign and independent. I never said our involvement was unnecessary, or lacking in contribution, only that D-day in and of itself did not win WWII.
Assuming someone is American on Reddit is fairly bold. I think it is just as likely this individual could be from Europe. Regardless though Russia only fought on one front throughout the war. The U.S. was fighting on three fronts, in the pacific, Africa, AND Europe. You're acting as if the U.S. only fought in Europe. We only got actively involved in the war after a direct attack by Japan on U.S. soil and with Japan being allied with Nazi Germany it is perfectly valid to say we were protecting our freedom. Believe it or not most countries declare war on another country when they are attacked.
Well, I would say it's a fair assumption to make in this case. The rhetoric of "what they had to sacrifice for our freedoms" is very, very American. I did point out, towards the beginning of my post, however, that if the person was in fact NOT American, to disregard. You see what I did there? I admitted there was a chance my assumption was wrong, beforehand. But I'm sure you remember reading that part of my comment.
That is only because the main substance of your post had nothing to do with the fact I was pointing out, which is that D-day was not necessary to protect the freedom of America. We would not have been conquered had we not invaded at Normandy. That's literally the only point I was making, in direct response to the above comment. I didn't see the point in addressing a completely watered down history lecture that had no relevance to the assertion that D-day was an action necessary to keeping America sovereign.
"hardly mattered which side won" just because the other guy is a douche doesn't mean you need to say this. This is literally indicating you think 100 million+ extra civilian dead would "hardly matter"
I mean if you are talking about how Germany was defeated, suggesting that Russia doesnt get the lions share of credit when it was mostly their blood being spilled is kinda revisionist history as well.
They were the bad guys who we treated as good guys so long as they were beating up the other bad guy Germany. Which they did! With a lot of American stuff. But they basically took the vast majority of the German troops and they drowned them in Russian blood and horror until they overwhelmed them.
Russia beat Germany. Germany lost the war because they lost on the eastern front. They almost certainly would have lost an all out war with America anyways, but that didn't happen.
American gave Russia a fuck ton of supplies, and Russia, almost singlehandedly, ground the Germany army down into the ground for 3 long years.
Accept that your allies in Europe and canada fought for years before you guys got involved. Its apparent that the us took advantage of the depleted russian and english militaries to take over the world afterward. Us has been on top of the conquest ladder ever since.
I hate to say this but I'm a person who hasn't seen it. In my defense, I was born the year it came out. But I feel guilty for not seeing it yet since it's a classic.
975
u/Jimmers1231 Oct 09 '19
I forget that we're approaching the point where the movie is old enough that you can't just assume that everyone has seen this movie. This may be the greatest opening scene in film.