Misconceptions of World War II

[AmateisGal]

I'm doing some research for an article I'm going to write, and thought I'd pose my question here because I know I'll get some great answers.

What do you see as the most popular misconceptions of World War II? What, in your opinion, do the history books get wrong?

 

[David Conwill]

Off the top of my head? That U.S. anti-communism was already going full bore by the end of the war. My understanding is that it took a few years to really ramp up, and that initially we were more concerned with self-determination for those liberated from the Axis (much like Wilson's concerns in the Great War).

-Dave

 

[dhermann1]

Probably the greatest one I'm aware of is that if the RAF hadn't won the Battle of Britain, Britain would have been invaded by Germany. Several stories have come out lately pointing out that if the RAF had been entirely wiped out, the Royal Navy was so overwhelmingly strong that any invasion fleet would have been annihilated. That, on top of the fact that Germany never had anything like a realistic plan for the invasion, make it pretty certain that Britain would have been safe.

 

[Atticus Finch]

That Hitler's doddering staff, who failed to awaken Der Fuhrer on the morning June 6, 1944, prevented Panzers, poised for the kill at Pont-a-Celles, from being quickly mobilized….and that this one terrible error prevented the Wehrmacht from driving the invading Allies headlong back into the English Channel.

As if the Panzers, crawling along in bright daylight, beneath waves of Jabos and other Allied air cover...could have ever finished the trip.

AF

 

[Undertow]

Here's a misconception from the Axis side.

Hitler was under the impression that America would take a cue during the annexation of Austria, and in turn annex portions of Canada for their resources. When American didn't do this, Hitler thought at the very least, America would be sympathetic to their actions. Hitler also felt betrayed when America entered the war, as he and his staff made a gross underestimation of American intentions.

It's also worth noting that although the Poles did have mounted cavalry at the time of the blitzkrieg, that was not their sole form of resistance. The Polish troops were simply outnumbered and outgunned, not necessarily "backwards and old fashioned" as often remarked. Even the Germans still used horses to move some gunnery, etc.

 

[Cobden]

The old stand by "If Hitler had only *insert pretty much anything here* he would have won", assuming the anything else is remotely realistic. The chances of beating the Soviet Union were pretty much nil - it was too big and too populous.

 

[Atticus Finch]

Here's another: That German scientists were mere weeks away from inventing a functioning nuclear weapon when their experiments were halted by Allied bombing....and thus the world was saved.

Actually, Germany never even was able to gather enough material to build a functioning reactor...much less a nuclear bomb.

AF

 

[Cobden]

The German's were technologically superior to their enemies; again, doesn't stand to scrutiny. Most of the items they had that their allies didn't have more due to them being rejected as useless in modern warfare than due to them not being good enough, or not having them in sufficient numbers. In fact, in almost every thing they were surpassed by other nations; Russian tanks being better then German, Britain being fully mechanised in 1940 which they Germans never achieved, British bombers, American transport 'planes, and both British and American fighter aircraft, general logistics, British and American uniforms and infantry equipment - pretty much everything the Allies had superiority often in quality and later on especially in quantity.

Another one is that the Italians were cowards - they're deficiencies stem more from small numbers, variable leadership and poor morale rather then a deficiency of courage

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Another one is that the Italians were cowards - they're deficiencies stem more from small numbers, variable leadership and poor morale rather then a deficiency of courage

The bulk of the Italian forces (and indeed the Axis forces) in North Africa were old-fashioned Fanteria (foot infantry) divisions with minimal motor transport. Unlike their more fully-mechanised bretheren-in-arms (both German and Italian) who could retreat to fight another day, the foot-bound Fucilieri had no other option but to surrender when overrun. The vast number of Italians captured by the British in the desert campaigns contributed to the unfortunate "surrender monkey" stereotype.

 

[LizzieMaine]

That the need to defeat Japan was a mere footnote to the "real story of the war," the need to defeat Nazism. Ten million dead Chinese would disagree with that.

 

[Guttersnipe]

That the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact represented a truly cynical Machiavellian move which came out of nowhere. Stalin, Molotov, and the Red Army leadership were deeply reluctant to the prospect of fighting Nazi Germany without allies. So, when Britain and France backed down during the Czechoslovakia crisis of 1938, Soviet foreign policy shifted from a proactive position to a reactive defensive stance. Consequentially, they signed the fore mentioned cynically Machiavellian deal with the Devil out of a sense of being isolated and vulnerable rather than because of cartoonish, mustache twirling, villainy or sheer political expediency.

According to Montefiore, in his biography on Stalin, the Soviets apparently would have gone to war in 1938 over the German occupation of Czechoslovakia had Chamberlain and Daladier been willing to do so too.

 

[Shangas]

I think one of the bigger misconceptions about WWII is that America was raring to go and charged in at the last minute to save us all from Judgement Day or whatever.

The only reason the US didn't show up sooner was because of the rather strong isolationist tendencies that existed in the country at the time. There *were* people (Roosevelt, for one) who knew that if they didn't join the war...the war was going to join them. But too many people insisted that it was a European or Chinese affair and didn't involve them. So they sat on their butts twiddling their thumbs until 1941.

 

[dhermann1]

Great thread. More! More!

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think one of the bigger misconceptions about WWII is that America was raring to go and charged in at the last minute to save us all from Judgement Day or whatever.

The only reason the US didn't show up sooner was because of the rather strong isolationist tendencies that existed in the country at the time. There *were* people (Roosevelt, for one) who knew that if they didn't join the war...the war was going to join them. But too many people insisted that it was a European or Chinese affair and didn't involve them. So they sat on their butts twiddling their thumbs until 1941.

The same thing can be said of the rest of the world, too. Europe had lost an entire generation of young men just twenty years earlier, and were desperate not to see it happen again. It's easy for people today to look at the people who cheered Chamberlain's "peace in our time" as deluded fools who "should have known who they were dealing with," but that attitude fails to take into account the deep, deep revulsion most people had then for the idea of another war. Hitler certainly understood that -- and used it to his advantage.

 

[Atticus Finch]

Here's one from the local folklore of Eastern North Carolina: During the early months of the war, at the peak of the Battle of the Atlantic, German U-Boat crews would "sneak" ashore in rubber rafts and attend movie theaters in Beaufort, Harkers Island, Wilmington and other North Carolina coastal towns.

Actually, those towns were (are) so small and clannish, a person from Raleigh couldn't "sneak" into their theaters unnoticed...nor could a long-haired, bearded, unbathed U-Boat crewman who had no idea of how to speak the local dialect of "Down East" English.

AF

 

[Widebrim]

Another one is that the Italians were cowards - they're deficiencies stem more from small numbers, variable leadership and poor morale rather then a deficiency of courage

This misconception was especially driven by the British, done in the name of propaganda. The Italian cavalry which fought in the Soviet Union, for example, showed itslef exemplary in service, and was praised by its German allies. There were also many Italian air aces during the war, but they are not usually mentioned in general histories, either.

The bulk of the Italian forces (and indeed the Axis forces) in North Africa were old-fashioned Fanteria (foot infantry) divisions with minimal motor transport. Unlike their more fully-mechanised bretheren-in-arms (both German and Italian) who could retreat to fight another day, the foot-bound Fucilieri had no other option but to surrender when overrun. The vast number of Italians captured by the British in the desert campaigns contributed to the unfortunate "surrender monkey" stereotype.

Good points. Many thousands of Germans also surrendered, but it's usually the Italians whose photos are highlighted. Another common misconception is that the Afrika Korps commanded Italian forces; technically, the former was under Italian command.

A good resource on the Italians in general would be the works of English writer Rex Tyre.

 

[ChadHahn]

I read a book once by a teacher at West Point who said that once the Germans were pushed out of Africa they had lost the war. Of course it went on for years after that but there was no way they could win.

Chad

 

[B-24J]

Hi AmateisGal,

In regards to the Italian fighting man in North Africa, see "The Rommel Papers", edited by B.H. Lidell-Hart, the end of chapter XI "Retrospect". Here Rommel says, "The Italian was willing, unselfish and a good comrade, and, considering the conditions under which he served, had always given far better than the average". He goes on to say that it was the Italian's poor armament and lack of interest in the war shown by many leading Italians were the roots of their defeats.

Another area of misconception was that the Germans could have had the ME-262 jet fighter sooner if Hitler had not wanted the plane as a bomber. See "Warplanes of the Third Reich", by William Green where he finds that the Junkers company, who supplied the engines for the 262, had production problems and could not make volume deliveries until September-October 1944. Regardless of the actions by the German leadership, it was just too late in the game.

I sometimes hear people say that the bombing of cities like Dresden and Tokyo were "terror bombings". Actually the Dresden raids were part of a campaign to interfere with German troop movements at the request of the Soviet forces. Daylight raids over Japan often met high winds and target obscuring cloud cover which made for poor bombing results. Also, the long range raids required more fuel (and as a result fewer bombs) to get to altitude with more wear to the engines. The low level night raid of March 9, 1945 on Tokyo saw the B-29s without gunners or ammunition (The tail gunners were on board to act as observers) and were thus able to carry even more bombs.
See "Bomber Offensive", by Nobel Frankland and "B-29: the Superfortesss", by Carl Berger.


Hope this helps,

John

 

[Harp]

I think one of the bigger misconceptions about WWII is that America was raring to go and charged in at the last minute to save us all from Judgement Day or whatever.

The only reason the US didn't show up sooner was because of the rather strong isolationist tendencies that existed in the country at the time. There *were* people (Roosevelt, for one) who knew that if they didn't join the war...the war was going to join them. But too many people insisted that it was a European or Chinese affair and didn't involve them. So they sat on their butts twiddling their thumbs until 1941.

Viewed from a distance, History may be seen with a rather myopic eye.

 

[Shangas]

I don't think I understand that, Harp. What do you mean?