I don’t watch CNN. But all of those battles* are featured regularly on WWII retrospectives such as the ones shown on the History Channel and Military Channel. There was a show specifically dedicated to tank battles which featured Kursk.
The fighting for Berlin gets lots of coverage in particular.
In a related matter, complaints about how the Soviets bore the brunt of fighting against the Nazis should be tempered by the knowledge that Soviet complicity with Germany (their 1939 pact, followed by the carving up of Poland) was a major factor in enabling Nazi aggression.
*I think there was only one major battle for Stalingrad/Leningrad.
It IS remembered. It’s just not something that the average Hollywood film studio (or the average Huston game company) thinks there is enough of a market for to make a major movie or hallmark game for. We didn’t really see a lot of Hollywood movies about the British, and that’s a much more sympathetic and less conflicted subject that the Soviet Russian story in WWII.
WWII is complex wrt the varying contribution of each power. Yes, the Soviets were a major factor in the war and certainly did the bulk of the dying. However, relative contribution to actually winning the war isn’t just about who had the majority of their soldiers killed. If you want to discuss this in more detail then we can, but wrt YOUR OP the answer is simply that the major companies don’t think that they can make the most money by making films or movies from a Russian perspective. It’s as simple as that.
There isn’t a single Chinese viewpoint of WWII and the reality of it will never be acknowledged by Communist China. There was a war against Japanese aggression and another civil war between various Chinese groups. Today’s China whitewashes its history. Where are the films about Tianenmen Square?
I’ve never thought much of that concept. I mean you could arguably draw rather more parallels between between the Franco-Prussian War, Seven Weeks War and WW I, than with any of those and WW 2. WW I and II are linked, but the regime, ideology and goals were substantially different.
Might as well argue with that logic that the War of Devolution and the Franco-Dutch War of the late 17th century were ‘the same war’. I don’t much hold with lumping. And yes the Hundred Years War is a misnomer and was at least three separate wars( ETA: and nonetheless thematically far more coherent than WW I and WW II ).
I think it was Churchill who said that WW1 and WW2 were so linked together that they might as well be part of the same war, with WW2 being a continuation of WW1. Churchill was involved in all aspects of WW1 for the British government, and as first lord of the admirtalty.
I think Churchill thought of WW1 as as his main legacy to British history, how suprised he must have been that he would play an even great part in WW2 only twenty year later.
But Churchill always thought there would be a sequel to WW1.
Exactly. A Chinese viewpoint of the war would entail basically the Republic of China fighting (and losing) against the Japanese, with the CCP fighting in the background, as much against the Republic and other faction groups as the Japanese. But the heroic party of Mao really mainly sat on the sidelines allowing the Republic to do most of the fighting and dying, and waiting until the Republic was so drained as to make another go at civil war viable. Mao himself said the Japanese had helped the CCP immensely to gain a final victor over the Republic and finally defeat them completely (well, except for Taiwan).
There is no way the CCP would allow that story to be told, so it would be a lot of propaganda horseshit about the valiant CCP fighting the Japanese (which is what a lot of their current war movies are like) and doing a lot of really silly things like knocking down Japanese fighters with grenades or really over the top 80’s action movie gun fights with equally over the top evil Japanese villains (as if the real evil Japanese weren’t bad enough).
Equally there is no single American or Soviet story. But it is still correct to say “the” Chinese story of WW2 has been told far far less in mass media than “the” American or Soviet story.
Others have touched on the difference between the subjects covered by history and the subjects covered by pop culture. There are plenty of history books, published in America, that cover the Eastern Front of WWII. I can remember as far back as the seventies seeing authors “apologize” for writing another book on such an overdone topic or “complaining” about trying to find something new to say.
Now if you want a neglected WWII topic, you’ve got the land war in Asia.
Um, no. There isn’t a single Chinese story because it happened at a time when there was also a Chinese civil war going on…and the weaker side that did the least against the Japanese ended up losing. A real Chinese WWII story would be about the Republic of China and the US alliance with them (though mainly that they pretty much fought alone at the same time they were beleaguered by other factions as well as the Japanese) as well as the perspective of factions like the CCP that fought the Japanese AND the government, but that story won’t be told because the CCP doesn’t want it to be. There is zero that is similar between the US and Soviet ‘story’ about WWII and the fragmentary Chinese perspective on the war. Your analogy was just bad and you’ve made it worse by this post.
:smack: I meant the weaker side that did the least ended up winning (i.e. the CCP was able, in the post war world to capitalize on enhanced Soviet support and a very much weaker Republic of China as well as on the overall poor morale of the Chinese people to win the civil war by 1949).
You must be a very young Pole, then, or you else you would realize that your premise reflects a particularly narrow and modern American (or at least Western) point of view.
Go watch the sort of films and read the sort of books that were commonly available in Poland and its fellow Eastern Bloc countries from the end of World War II until 1990. You will find no dearth of war stories covering the Eastern Front (and almost none covering the Western Front). In fact, such books and films have continued to be produced since the dissolution of the USSR. Russia produces a lot of them, but even the former Warsaw Pact countries and their successors (yes, including Poland) are continuing to churn them out, albeit with a different political bent. Wikipedia has a list of World War II films since 1990 that you can browse.
I’m too young to remember Poland before 1990, however my father who lived in Poland when it was occupied by the ussr has told me that when he tried to study history the books were heavily biased, basically glorifiying the communist party instead of trying to be an accurate history of the war.
I would trust a good western historian over any of the crap books that came out over the east bloc in the period 1945 to 1990.
This is certainly true. However, that doesn’t mean that Western portrayals aren’t guilty of exactly the same sort of bias and self-glorification at the expense of historical truth. See U-571 for a particularly egregious example.
Another “side” which a lot of people forget about were the collaboraters. Japan set up puppet regimes in China to give the illusion that they were forming an alliance system in Asia rather than just conquering territory.
Hmmm so the story of China in WW2 was a super complicated one featuring millions of people with different viewpoints and can’t be completely told by simple “goody vs baddy” Hollywood tropes. So COMPLETELY unlike the story of the rest of the world in WW2 then.
Not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or you really don’t get it so I’ll, again, spell it out. In short words. It’s unlike the rest of the world because the CCP won’t let it be told. Hollywood won’t tell it because the CCP won’t allow it to be told and Hollywood doesn’t want to lose out on that sweet, sweet Chinese audience money…plus, of course, outside of China there isn’t a really big market for Chinese perspective WWII movies. The only story that will be told is the CCP version, which is about as realistic and conforming to history as the worst Rambo movies (which are actually better movies from an action and story perspective). I’ve watched several with my son’s partner and his family, and the only thing going for them is the camp hilarity value.
The Soviets had real stories to tell, even if many of their movies were propaganda pieces. The Chinese have real stories to tell too, but sadly the regime that won is not the one that did most of the actual fighting and dying during WWII, so those stories won’t be told. Instead what has been made and will undoubtedly be made in the future are pure fantasy with no history at all. This stuff doesn’t even rise to Braveheart levels of historical accuracy.
