So, let's deconstruct this shall we...? Firstly the teenager on the left (rather ironically) is *clearly* Russian. I REALLY don't think any Russian combat troops 'stormed the beach at Normandy'. Second, I understand that the average age of US combat troops in 1944 was around 28 and not 18. Third, "almost certain death"? Well, the senior brass back in London (including Winston Churchill) fully expected to lose 30% of the first wave which by any standards is a horrendous and unsustainable attrition rate. Fortunately for everyone concerned the actually casualty rate was MUCH lower. Some beaches in particular did indeed take high casualties - but still nothing like 30% and definitely not in the 'almost certain death' category.
This from Wiki: Nearly 160,000 troops crossed the English Channel on D-Day, with 875,000 men disembarking by the end of June. Allied casualties on the first day were at least 10,000, with 4,414 confirmed dead. The Germans lost 1,000 men.
So, 'almost certain death' actually turns out to be - in reality - on average about 2.5%. But don't let facts get in the way of half-assed propaganda, right?
5 comments:
Honestly... with a century of war (and a lot of conscription), generational trauma is not acknowledged enough. The collateral damage of war extends far into the future; there's a reason children and grandchildren of survivors (which many of us are) are suffering mentally and emotionally.
Marian, that reason is epigenetics.
@ Marian: Any sustained conflict - even for those not involved in actual combat - must have an effect on the people involved. How could it not? When things are finally over, the survivors inevitably cope (or not) in their own way. The psychological effect will no doubt linger at all levels up to and including full blown PTSD. Such a psychological impact can't help but be passed on to their children no matter how much the parents try to compensate for it. Wars don't simply end when an armistice is signed in a far off land. The echoes of war can, and do, echo down the generations.
My grandfather fought in WW2 and both my parents lived through the war and I've heard the odd tale/experience from them as children. Seeing, experiencing and worrying about being bombed in the early years of the war must have had *some* impact on their lives and this then must have had some impact on their parenting on myself and my siblings. So yes, your absolutely right to point this out.
@ V V: I think it's much more likely to be from the direct psychological impact of conflict than any epigenetic effects - although there *might* be an element of that going on. Any experience, most especially traumatic ones, changes people and this inevitably changes their behaviour - including parenting behaviour, going forward. I have at least one book on the subject sitting in a pile of science books, so I'll be reading up on it at some point. I'll report back what I find.
They don't understand facts and certainly would not figure out that the soldier is clearly not American.
Knowledge (especially of History) is a very dangerous thing!
Post a Comment