What's the difference?

World War II General WWII Discussion
#21

I think it depends very much upon the context of the discussion and its audience.

A blowhard at a bar, whether in a veteran’s club or just a pub, regaling his audience with tales of derring do (usually special forces or some great deeds of valour) is probably full of shit.

But in other circumstances it will be true, without reflecting any glory on the speaker.

I will always remember a teacher of mine at night (high) school who took me aside after a class I had to attend in army uniform during the Vietnam War because of a timing problem between army and school. He had been in New Guinea in WWII. He impressed upon me the corruption of war and what it does to the men who die, are wounded, and who survive on both sides, with graphic descriptions of the sadness of dead men’s papers and photos of family and loved ones left on the battlefield after the routine examination of dead. He was trying to tell me that it was all a terrbible waste and not to get invovled in it, but to aim for higher things for mankind. It gave me pause for thought but overall at the time had about as much effect as me telling my son to drive carefully. Now I wish more people could listen to him and understand his message.

I have had other veterans of combat in WWII, Korea and Vietnam tell me about aspects of their wars that were appropriate to whatever discussion we were having, but never in any way that made them out to be heroes or glorified their combat experience. The one thing that was always missing was any detail of combat as such, although related issues might be discussed. For example, one bloke told me how he hated having to go out in New Guinea to find and repair the break in a field telephone line which had been cut by the Japanese who were waiting for him and who on some occasions might have killed the bloke who had been sent out before him, but he never said anything about more active engagements he had been involved in.

No doubt there are people who glory in killing others but, as Nick said in his last post, my impression was that there was a regret about having to kill other people and even an unwillingness to admit it. A mate of mine who served in Vietnam assured me on several drunken occasions that he was pretty sure that he had never shot anyone despite having a bloke lined up beforehand in a particularly heavy engagement, but it seemed to me that he was trying harder to convince himself than me that he hadn’t done it.

Against that there is no shoratage of soldiers who have killed and will kill people as part of their job, but it is still not something that a professional soldier necessarily enjoys or glories in, any more than a forensic pathologist welcomes the death of a murder victim upon whom he practises his profession. It’s just something that has to be done as part of the job.

#22

Agreed, big difference in blowing about personal exploits and willingness to discuss the war.

I find that vets are most likely to discuss it amongst themselves, and even then there are levels.
Combat is generally not a top subject.

Some units or organizations have pretty unique experiences and sometimes it is good to find others with similar backgrounds.
I belong to a couple “SF qualified only” boards and we get to share things that we have had to sit on.
As a group, we take a lot of pride in experience and professional atitudes regarding them.
One guy says-“If we try to tell some of this on the outside, people think we are lying.”
Very true.

My family has served in the Civil War, the Great War, WW2, Korea, VN, and in between.
I don’t think much of anybody who never served-a missed right of passage.

Sometimes I hear somebody whining about what a bad day they have had. I think about my version of a bad day but never say anything.
I sure never blow about personal experiences other than a related funny story sometimes.
Even those are wasted on the uninitiated.

Free country, you guys think just because a guy doesn’t hide in his basement crying in his beer he is a bullshitter. go ahead.

We have differing views. I prefer case by case analysis.

Years ago I attended a small town VN Memorial dedication.
A couple of us spent the afternoon the day before the event in a saloon listening to the most obnoxious loudmouth drunken ******* I had ever seen.
He was a VN MOH recipient who was invited there as a personality.
He had written a book about himself and I still got an autographed copy.
He was a low ranking GI who had done a lot one day and liked to shoot off his mouth about himself.

Anyways, Memorial Day coming up, forgive me if I miss the sales and specials.
I do the cemetary salute circuit with other local vets-might even be a few stories told.

#23

This raises a related but quite different issue about the awarding of medals, and the conduct of those awarded them.

I don’t know about the US, but in Australia there was a sort of floating unofficial quota / propaganda system in all wars which meant that a man could be awarded or denied a VC (= MOH) or any other valour award depending upon factors which had nothing to do with the conduct of the man.

Anyone who won a VC certainly deserved it, but there are endless accounts of servicemen who saw comrades do something that equalled or perhaps exceeded conduct of others who won a VC or some lesser award. (And I use ‘lesser’ respectfully for the considerable courage it entails to win an MC / MM and lower awards).

At the other end we have the farce of Lydnon Johnson getting a Silver Star for being in a defective plane which never got near action, but which MacArthur awarded him as a political act in a disgraceful display of the political nature which could be attached to some valour awards.

#24

Great information in this thread, thanks guys!

Rising Sun, do you think that the American soldiers in Vietnam had a different experience than the Australian soldiers did, either through the fighting style or because it seems like the Australian soldiers were serving willingly?

#25

I don’t know if American soldiers got a degree of choice about whether to go, so I couldn’t comment on that aspect.

As to the experience, Australians were generally used in patrol and smaller, often encounter, engagements where Americans were often involved in much larger, and planned, engagements, so they experienced quite different types of warfare at the extremes, although both groups would have had a lot of common experiences.

Differences in fighting style flowed mainly from Australia having a small army which trained for different tactics to those suited to the vastly larger army and resources that America had. Also, American training before Vietnam was focused on a European type battlefield against conventional forces where Australia had focused on jungle type fighting as that was the terrain in our region, and the main or sole experience of many of our training staff who survived WWII.

I’ve read accounts by American soldiers whose tactics and jungle craft didn’t seem any different to Australian ones, so it was probably a case of whether or not specific units adapted to the circumstances or were adequately trained before going to Vietnam rather than any inherent weaknesses or strengths in the soldiers of either nation.

#26

First :Hallo to all of you.

My mothers uncle reached the proud age of 93 this year. He was wounded at the eastern front and later he served in the Africa Corps untill the German troops surrendered . he became a POW . They tried to avoid getting captured by French soldiers and surrendered to British troops. He was a POW somewere in the U.S. Eastcoast for 2 -3 Years.

Now this man is 93 y.o. but I always remember him talking about his expirience in WW2 . He always told us about the war , (and about his dog when he was a boy ), never told us something about the other 80 years of his life . All the things he did , the things he saw or the things he had to go through with his "Kameraden " must have been so impressive that he never could forget it and it was only a short part of his live ! But the worst , it made him cry still in his high age. So WW2 or Vietnam , it`s hell . You will never forget it .

sorry guys for the bad language.

#27

A lot of good points here. Remember too that the Allies, and that included the United States, were fighting for their very existence during World War II. When the war was over, the entire world changed. The centuries-old orders were gone and a half century of an uncertain Cold War began. Vietnam, in spite of its intensity, was a product of the Cold War, as was the Korean War, the '56 War at Suez, the ’67 Six Day War, and the '72 Arab-Israeli War, the wars in Congo, Angola, Lebanon, the Soviet-Afghan War, and a lot of others that I could list if I thought about them for a minute longer. When World War II ended, there was the “appearance” of finality and lasting peace. There was no such appearance prior to or after Vietnam; rather there was anticipation for the other shoe to fall.