How much of our WWII history is really just propaganda and myth?

What I'm getting at here is the love affair that the press had with airborne forces and the magnified role they play in popular culture even today. You'd think they won the war all by themselves when in fact they were in England or in rest areas in France when most of the fighting took place through the summer and fall of 44. They performed very well in combat, but compared to the infantry or armored corps they really didn't see very much combat.

 

I couldn't call anyone there overrated. Airborne, Quartermasters, Rifleman, Cartographers, Mechanics, etc... They were all trained to do a specific task. One could not succeed without the others. Whatever the Media and Hollywood types did with WW 2, we have no control over. That's why we're here !

 

I agree, but the point of the of the thread was to examine some of the myth created by the media and Hollywood, and self-serving biographies as well.

 

Blimey KB Your getting awfully close to taking out Easy Coy....Good luck with that one...But yes you have a point.

 

But is it a "love affair" with the Parachute Infantry - I refuse to call it "airborne", because I have seen very little on the glider troops - or is it a "love affair" with money...Some "big names" create a hugely successful 10-part series, and everyone else tries to "cash in" on their success. For that matter, when the book that was the basis for the series was written, there was very little "mass media" follow-up on that. Further, Most present day "mainstream" films are written to be "successful" ie. appealing to the largest audience. "Patton" was written in such a way that it appealed to both "hawks" and "doves", which helped it to become quite a success in it's time. Also, If you recall, back in the early 80's, it was the "Big Red One" that won World War 2 all by itself, as it fought from Africa to Normandy through France and finally into a German concentration/death camp.

As for my two cents the US Marines have always been the perennial "favorites" of Hollywood and the mass media, and likely always will be.

 

As for my two cents the US Marines have always been the perennial "favorites" of Hollywood and the mass media, and likely always will be.

Yeah loved the Marines in Aliens (2) - Before the gaffors, "Space Marines" were instituted by Bush in around 2001 from memory...Not sure if they are still an outfit anymore...cant be much to do...

 

Yet, in reality do only a fraction of the fighting. A example. You hear how well they did in Korea when they were involved only in 15% of the fighting.

 

Let me guess. Because you have read western books that imply all the good Japanese soldiers had been killed by the mighty Americans on those small islands? Ok. You are also going to hold it against the Soviets because they outclassed the Japanese? Typically we(Americans) don't fight unless we know we have a huge edge because our people can't stomach large numbers of casualties.

 

Who? The Airborne, Big Red One, or the Marines...

And what does combat in Korea have to do with combat in World War II?

 

Who wants to watch a movie or a mini-series on mechanics, cooks, supply, or any other "clerks N jerks" kind of unit eh? Maybe MPs patterned after the COPs series, but that would get old after awhile. Maybe WACs gone wild! Other than that it's action on the front line that gets the pix made and sell tickets and popcorn.

 

Just providing a example of the hype the Marines receive.

 

The unit that cb is referring to is the 187 PRCT, the forward element of the 11th Airborne Division that was stationed in Japan, just in case.

 

And more than a few Japanese ones too.

And, you completely ignore that fact that the Soviets far outclassed the Japanese when you called the battle "One of the greatest strategic operations in history." So, yes I am going to hold it against the Soviets...Forgive me if I do not find slaughtering a mostly beaten foe "impressive."

Read up on this thing called the American Civil War...

As to not being able to stomach large numbers of casualties, did you ever think that it is because in the last century, we never fought a major war on our home territory...We always were involved on far-removed shores...The further away from "home" you get, the less likely there will be lasting support for continuing any major war.

 

Well then, what is your source that the Marines were only involved in 15% of the fighting?

 

U.S. tank Battles in Korea.

 

That was still a large Japanese Army. The Civil War does not count. There was no media back then.

 

cbiwv,

You really don't know nothing from nothing do you?

The Japanese had a large, mostly untrained and ill equipped army. The had nothing in the way of modern armor, no effect AT guns, a small artillery park that had few shells, and a aircraft ratio that was one Japanese for every 5 Soviet.

As to your comment that the Civil War does not count because their was no media back then, only highlights your ignorance on the matter. I cannot suggest strongly enough that you do some research into the effect that both the Northern and Southern newspapers had on the ACW.

 

Like the Marines themselves. Mis-used ever since the Pacific...Very much so in Vietnam (IMO). Still being mis-used in Afghanistan too...they are'nt humping grunts...they are shock troops...storm troopers if you will.