The 5 Most Widely Believed WWII Facts (That Are Bullshit)
They say history is written by the winners, but the truth is even stranger than that. In reality history is often written by popular opinion, or wishful thinking, or crass politics.
That's why so much of what we hear about an event like World War II--whether from textbooks, movies or something you overheard a smart-sounding guy say--is just plain bullshit.
#5.
America Won the War Single-Handedly
Claimed By:
Hollywood, WWII-shooters, Cold War politics and chauvinists.
Sixty years of World War II movies, and a decade of WWII video games, have made one thing clear: If it wasn't for America, you'd all be speaking German right now, baby! U-S-A! U-S-A!
How America fights a two-front war.
Why it's Bullshit:
Because it's like thinking that while many X-Men contributed in their own special way, defeating Magneto really came down to Iceman.
Cool party!
There are two radically different histories of WW II, the one that was actually fought, and the one where the US kicked everyone's assess. Guess which one Cold War-era classrooms were allowed to teach? Here's a hint: It's the same one Hollywood chose to film.
World War II wasn't just a clever name. It was a global conflict that included epic acts of heroism by non-Americans like the storming of Madagascar, the Battle of Westerplatte, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Kursk, the epically badass Kokoda Track, the pilots of the Polish Underground State, the details of El Alamein or the HMS Bulldog. Of course, Americans never hear about any of those unless, as in the case of the classic submarine film U 571, the characters are just straight up switched to Americans. To quote George S. Patton: "Americans love a winner," which you know because you saw Patton, the film that portrayed Field Marshal Bernard "Rommel-killer" Montgomery like a buffoon simply because he was British.
Cheerio, guv'na!
However, there is one Zangief-sized elephant in the room that America loved to leave out of conversation until the end of the Cold War: the Soviet Union. The "Great Patriotic War" as they called it was the single largest military operation in history, and home to perhaps the biggest turning-point of the war: the Battle of Stalingrad.
Understand, the Russia versus Germany part of the war wasn't just a little more important than the part the USA was involved in. It was "four times the scale" of the whole Western front, larger than all other phases of the war put together. The Soviet military suffered eight million soldiers dead, more than 20 freaking times the number of U.S. casualties.
Suck it up, Damon.
Sounds pretty brutal for a John Wayne movie? Try figuring in another 13.7 million dead civilians.
It's tragic how many kids in the West never heard these stories growing up. One platoon leader in the Red Army named Yakov Pavlov personally rigged a Stalingrad apartment building with enough landmines, rifles and mortars to hold off half the Nazi army. The building was under fire day and night and even had some civilians in the basement, but the fortress never fell. Pavlov himself picked off one dozen tanks from the beast.
Our history books should not have been denied such awesomeness.
#4.
Winston Churchill Was the Universally Beloved Leader of the Good Guys
Claimed By:
Biographers, [English] historians, skewed opinion polls and people who have never heard of British Raj
Why it's Bullshit:
Churchill was great at giving wartimes speeches, and no doubt was an effective cheerleader for England while the Nazis were bombing the shit out of London. But his popularity didn't extend very far beyond a psychological concept called the "rally round the flag" effect, which significantly reduces criticisms of a character/government post-crisis. Remember when George W. Bush's approval ratings shot past 80 percent after 9/11?
It didn't last, and Churchill immediately was booted from office just months after Germany surrendered. Why?
Churchill suffered from an insatiable urge similar to "bloodlust" in Warcaft to keep fighting WWII for as long as he felt like it. Since this meant millions of men would be dying for his ego, it made him quite unpopular within the British military. Churchill's craziest scheme: A preemptive invasion of Russia on July 1, 1945 with the help of re-armed German forces. Yes, he wanted to start World War III before we had even started shoveling the rubble of WWII. It was his aptly-named Operation Unthinkable, and even his closest supporters thought it was batshit insane.
As for Churchill the Prime Minister, Brits began experiencing a bit of an "oh shit" feeling when it hit them that they might be stuck with the nutcase in peacetime. Winnie didn't make this anxiety any easier for himself, calling his Labour opponents "Gestapo" even though they served key posts in his war cabinet. Thus Britons promptly responded in 1945 by kicking his enormous ass out of office in one of the most spectacular electoral defeats in history.
Nevertheless, Churchill did enjoy high approval ratings from his people... that is, if you ignore the 400 million inhabitants of British Raj, present-day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and, the big one, India. By Churchill's own standards, these people were part of the British Empire (including all those poor villagers in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom), yet he was a fierce opponent to any kind of Indian autonomy.
The country was forced into World War II, and its leaders arrested if they protested. Churchill even took a hard-line against Mohandas Gandhi, going so far as to advocate" letting Gandhi starve to death" during his hunger strikes.
Fuck you, Gandhi!
#3.
If The Nazis Had Just _________, Germany Would Have Won The War
Claimed By:
Just about everybody.
The idea is that Nazi Germany was a military juggernaut for a brief period in the 40s, and that the entire planet would have collapsed if it wasn't for one or two minor blunders.
If only he remembered to put oxygen in that helmet...
Why it's Bullshit:
To say that Hitler sleeping late decided the war ignores the fact that he needed supernatural good luck to do as well as he did in the first place. For instance, it was blind luck that he avoided assassination in 1938, before he could even get his war plans off the ground. And it's a pretty safe bet he never would have gotten very far if his father hadn't changed his name from the far less catchy Schickelgruber.
But the major reason Hitler was never this close to making your grandparents goose step through Time Square: The Soviet Union. Today, it's widely believed that Hitler, or really anyone's, chances of winning a war against the Soviet Union were on par with a snowball in a cage match with a chainsaw wielding Mike Tyson in hell.
What 11 time-zones of Joseph Stalin looks like.
Yes, Hitler plowed through Europe and had the UK on the ropes, and could have done more. It didn't matter. Stalin was waiting on the other side, and Hitler was never going to win that war. It was just a matter of how much of Europe he would control at the moment Stalin eventually crushed him.
But had it been through a nuclear bombardment of Berlin or through a continued war of attrition, Joseph Stalin was going to be in the winner's corner of WWII, no matter what.
Behind all those trucks is a battalion of motorcycles to ramp them.
If all of this makes it sound like we think Hitler was kind of an idiot, well, that brings us to our next myth...
Don't know when this article was written, don't care but as a History teacher I think this guy needs to read a book. Let's start where you started. America did not win the war by itself, but it did do more than any other nation. The Russians did a big part they really didn't have to do a lot, they were going to lose, but they knew they had the winter on their side. The Russians have a scorched earth policy during this time and had it before Napoleon invaded. The Russians will retreat and as they do they burn houses and barns, buildings, whole towns if they can, they even burned Moscow down when Napoleon invaded. This policy leaves nothing for the invading army to use as shelter or supplies. They even killed animals and spoiled the meat. America had to travel across an ocean, and bring its materials that way too, Russia was invaded and held out till winter. America was fighting two fronts, everyone else except for a few countries were fighting one. Next one. Churchill was loved, he was a wartime leader and acted as such, he wanted to go into Moscow so did Patton, I see you left that out. His approval rating does not matter since anyone that has done any actual research on this(me) knows that his ratings were polled from returned vets that were no longer able to fight, and women. The women, whom most had a son, husband, brother in the war, wanted them home, and were always against Churchill and the war. These women were scared, being bombed all the time, loved ones away fighting a brutal war. Number Three. There is a thing that if the Nazis had would have changed not just he tide of war but the world itself, that thing is the Sturmgewehr. The Sturmgewehr would have made an impact on this world that we will never know. If they would have produced it earlier like they could have it would have changed everything. The Sturmgewehr would be like an AK-47 Germany against a bolt action Russia, and a eight round semi automatic America. The PPSH-1 and the Thompson lacked the range and the BAR lacked magazine capacity. With that said, the war would have continued if the Germans had this weapon and eventually all sides would have had the nuclear solution so things on earth would be a lot different if they had it. Now we tackle "Hitler the Genius". Hitler was a genius, he had a war planned out and the Russian winter and Japan's early attack on Pearl changed his plans. Hitler looked at the world in a tiered fashion. He saw Germans, British, French and Americans at the top of the race tier, with Italians next, then the Slavs, and Russians. Then the Asian were seen as below them but above Muslims. This is why he did not invade Britain, he wanted them to become part of his master plan and to further his "Arian" race. Do you really think that he was lucky in getting Czechoslovakia without any military action from Britain or France? That's not luck, that is being a good politician. Have you read "Mein Kompf"? I'll agree it is not the best read, but not terrible. Good way to see how he became what he became. I do not know what art school your talking about, but other than kindergarten class art schools are very tough to get into. It is not just how well your art is, but also how well you can show ideas of an imaginative mind. FDR had no idea what was going to happen in Pearl. My only comment on this is the different names you give The History Channel throughout this badly researched article of yours. The History Channel is a profit based network, and so they do shows that please their sponsors. This means that because conspiracy shows are big ratings, the sponsors want them. Now with that said I tell my students that The History Channel can not be taken as fact, just like Wikipedia, but as a stepping stone to do our own research. If something on The History Channel interest you, then take it upon yourself to do some of your own research and make your own opinion on what really happened. After you read this Jacopo you should call all your old History teachers and apologize for writing such nonsense, also if your head hurts after reading this it's because I dropped some knowledge on you, and it can hurt sometimes.
Reply Hide All See All 3 Repliesok I respect your respect for the Sturmgewehr 44 but I see that russia did far more than america. Also, Allied bombing raids killed several times the amount of german and axis civilians. Hear about Dresden? Very inhumane. U.S. killed more innocent civilians, barring russia which killed its own people (terrible but that doesn't mean russians liked it. it was the will of a dictator, to which they had no power to. Many were communistly brainwashed and had no knowledge otherwise)than nearly any other nation as well as the smallest troop:population commitment. Its wimpy. Russia had the highest population:troop commitment and they really won the war. Hear about Stalingrad or Kursk? Those.... were the real defining moments of the wars.
Are you really saying that the US killed more civilians than the Nazis, the USSR, and Japan? That is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard, are you denying things like Stalin's purges, the Holocaust, or the rape of Nanking? Because thats the only way you could come up with the US killing more civilians than anyone else.
As far as troop to population ratios if you count that the US had half its military serving in the Pacific then there really isn't much discrepancy between them and the other Western Allies. When wars are fought the first to go (and the first to die) are young able bodied males. The USSR burned through that population so quick they lowered their standards for conscription, so much so that by the end almost anyone who could fire a rifle was called to serve (Nazis did the same thing at the end). Just because the Western Allies preferred fighting with brains before blood hardly makes them pussies. You don't have to conscript your whole population when you aren't so eager to see your own troops killed, and you don't kill a generation of young men.
The USSR did kill the most Nazis, but the Nazis weren't the only Axis, and they lost almost twice as many troops as they killed. That doesn't make you a badass thats an inferior Army. No one but someone like Stalin or Hitler would ever think those losses were acceptable. Thats why the US and Britain and France didn't suffer those losses because they saw it as inhumane and it was. The US was a huge contributer as well though. Not as much in the "glorious" way of killing people, but by 1942 the majority of Allied arms were either made in the US or with materials from the US. They didn't shoot as many Axis troops but they provided most of the bullets that did.
Oh and as far as Dresden is concerned the German Dresden Historians' Commission estimated civilian casualties at 25,000. So not anywhere in the league of Stalin or Hitler.
Pearth got hit harder than Pearl Harbor, Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler, Allies bombed civilians too, French surrendered Paris because they didn't want the city to be ruined and in doing so abandoned all the Parisians.
ReplyJust random stuff ive picked up from docos,books and my german grandparents
In "The Holy Virgin Mary", Chris Ofili used elephant dung as a symbol of fertility, which it is in a part of Sub-Saharan Africa (I can't remember which tribe in which country). He's a respected artist, and comparing his work AND Jackson Pollock's to Hitler's is unthinkable and a travesty solely because of how awful Hitler's paintings are. What the hell, Cracked. Learn some art history before you start comparing good art to Hitler.
Replyhe still painted it with s**t which is pretty retarded.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. To me modern art looks like shit. Elephant or otherwise.
This article is pretty wrong in a number of ways. First, the Germans lost the war ONLY because they decided to invade the Soviet Union, and ONLY because of how brutal the Russian winter was, and how far they had to move into Soviet territory.
Reply Hide All See All 5 RepliesFirst understand that even though the invasion failed, the Soviets suffered TEN TIMES the casualties of the Germans. they simply were not very good at fighting the Nazis on a level playing field. on top of that, the Germans weren't prepared for the cold. their weapons malfunctioned, and their tanks and trucks froze in place (no antifreeze). meanwhile, the Soviets knew how to fight during the winter and were completely mobile. the Russians won because mother nature incapacitated the Nazis... and even then, the Soviets STILL suffered huge losses.
now, if Hitler doesn't invade Russia, that's four million more troops he has to fight the Americans and the British. no way does Germany lose on the Western front. and Russia would have no chance of defeating the Nazis if they invaded Germany. if you take away the winter and the supply problems, the Nazis could have held off the Russians indefinitely. if you suffer overwhelming losses while you're DEFENDING, chances are you're going to do much, much worse if you actually try and attack. imagine some huge dude was about to kick your ass. then, inexplicably, he turns around and starts bashing his head against a brick wall until he knocks himself out. well, the huge dude in this case is Germany, and the brick wall is Russia. just because the brick wall knocked him out, doesn't mean it would have been able to hurt him if he'd just left it alone.
There are numerous examples of Russian troops defeating German troops with equal numbers in the summertime.
You're not wrong about how Germany was defeated, but there was no way that the USSR and Germany were not going to war. They were both run by ego-maniacs who were never gonna allow another super power to exist that close to their own empires as long as they could do something about it.
@Thor,
but Germany had already made an alliance with Japan and USSR would have had to fight a War on 2 fronts.
@Article
No one but Americans Beleive point 5
Churchill being a D!ck is the Reason Australian changed it alligence to the USA over the UK so point 4 is again only beleived by Americans.
*sigh* The actual number of Axis soldiers killed on the Eastern front is about 5 million. The number of Soviet soldiers killed is about 10.5 million. Already, we are way beyond the bullshit 10:1 ratio and closer to 2:1. But it doesn't stop there.
The number of troops that died is a combination of two numbers: soldiers killed in action plus those that surrendered and died in captivity. Both sides took about the same number of prisoners throughout the course of the War: 5.3ish million. But whereas only 800 thousand Axis troop died in Soviet captivity, a staggering 3.6 million Soviets died after being captured by the Germans.
Subtracting those values from the casualties above we get 7 million Russians dying in battle versus 4.5 million Germans, closer to a 3:2 ratio. Not too shabby for bearing the brunt of Axis war machine at its prime, after getting caught with their pants down.
Next time you decide to pull numbers from your ass, take five minutes to glance at Wikipedia.
part of the nazi rise was to fight off communism thats a big factor to why they wanted to over throw Russia.. and well Adolf wanted all of Europe under his rule
Its hard to say how much of the Nazi's success was due to Hitler, but saying he's a moron of a leader because he wasn't good at art is... really goddam stupid.
ReplyAnd that one thing that Hitler could have done differently to change how the war went is - duh - not declare war on the Soviets! Granted, that's not a guarantee, and /then/ the US might have got involved properly, but it certainly would've given them a much bigger chance.
The glory of Russian arms!
ReplyI do realize this website caters mostly to Americans, and although I love Glassjaw and some other American bands to death, I most definitely do not have a single drop of American blood in me. I can safely say that from where I live, most people pretty much know that Hitler was a dumb but lucky d!ck and that Russia was the real brains behind WWII. In fact I think you should have made number 5 your number 1 if all American history textbooks do is praise American prowess and valor in the Second World War.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesOk if your not American don't speculate about whats in American textbooks. Not to mention that the American education system varies between school districts and states so much there is really no such thing as an "American education".
Second saying the USSR was the "brains" behind the war is just stupid. If your talking Nazis killed yeah the USSR has the most by far, however they lost more of their own troops than they ever killed.
If you want to talk war time material production however, the US is head and shoulders above the rest. The US production numbers were about 6 times that of the USSR and about 3 times that of Germany. I'm not saying the US won the war single-handedly but it would have most certainly lost without them. Thats where the belief that the US was the most important Ally came from.
let's not go into whether or not the US were the most important ally. Personally, I think that's oversimplifying it, but that's just my opinion and I'm not about to bone up on WWII with a whole website's worth of dick jokes before me. But I have studied Russian history, and frankly, it's ridiculous that you could call Russia the brains of the affair. The massive, bear-killing brawn, perhaps, but definitely not the brains. Hell, Stalin wiped out something along the lines of 80% of his army's top brass (most of which who were tried and true patriots from the Civil War days) before jumping into the Winter War with Finland, and proceeded to get slaughtered. And when they won, it wasn't due to some grand plan to lure Hitler in, but due to the sheer size of Russia (since the Red Army applied scorched Earth tactics, the Germans couldn't reliably hold the territory they gained in Barbarossa due to the fact that "holy s**t Russia's f*****g big".)-which is incidentally, the SAME s**t they pulled against Napoleon.
The simple facts are Europe would be in trouble without
America help in WW2. This anti American web aticle and
American hater has no idea what he is talking about. His
history on his own country is so far off it is laughable. No
average American thinks any of this crap. Say what you want,
most people know the truth anyway. Without the raw materials,
factories and millions of American workers producing Arms,
ships, airplanes, tanks, vehicles of all kinds and the boys
and girls who cared enough about how you were being treated
in Europe would have been screwed.
I know we were such assholes the near half million kids who
lost their life in places they couldn't even pronounce means
nothing because they were just American scum. They deserve to
die. We could have won that war with out any help at all from
them useless Americans. This moron is laughable. The majority
of Americans came from Europe and most were just one
generation away or less from living in Europe them selves. Do
any of you know the history of imigration to the USA from
countries all over Europe?
There are times I wonder who is the most stupid, us for
helping malcontents or many of you for not knowing much of
anything about history even your own countrys. I deal in
facts, not some dumb asses bull s**t he pulls out of his
butt. Not one of his comments comes close to anything any
americans thinks. I wonder who he thinks is running around
saying america is the best at kicking ass, oh yea, we rule,
no one can beat us up, na na na na bla bla bla. No one I know
runs around patting them self the back saying how great we
are for kicking the Germans off the planet. Where do these
morons come up with this crap.
WW2 was a great effort by so many countries I can't remember
them all. America and millions of it's people over here put
together twice as many airplanes for the war effort that all
of the countries in Europe on both sides of the conflict. We
produced ten times as many ships, twice as may tanks and
other vehicles and lost twice an many of our kids than
France. That was possible because we were not fighting on our
turf and we had our own raw materials, labor force and
manufacturing facilities set up and readdy to build what ever
was needed. That may not seem like much of a contribution to
you, but to me if someone puts forth that much time and
caring for others I would never talk s**t behind someone back
who put up that much.
You all seem to forget most of the people in the USA were
only separated one generation or less from living in Europe
them selves and most felt they were taking care of their own
relatives back home. So when morons like this hunk of dog
s**t posts nonsense like this, have the balls to tell him so.
At least take the time to look up the facts your self before
you jump on the band waggon and add to the line of bull shit.
My dad and his eight brothers fell all over them selves to
help and fight for Europes freedoms. Thank God they are not
around to see this kind of hate. It would make them sick.
Because so many of the Europian countries keep records and
they all pretty much match all of the records from other
countries. Look up the preticulars and see for your self. Don't believe meor him, believe your own eyes but make sure you find credible data, not some other nut who is only interested in putting down the USA and it's people. I have read many of the records from the UK, France, Germany and several other countries, and I do not see much of a differance in who did what and who made what in the records.
This kind of hate sickens me. Any time you see something like this regarldless who it may be, if they are putting out some kind of hate, check the data and move on. We do not need any more hate. If you think anything worth a damn will come from this kind of hate you are fooling yourself, there are so many positive things in this world to talk about why propigate more hate.
Pretty good article except for the part about FDR knowing about Pearl Harbor is BullSH*T. Of coarse FDR knew the Japanese were going to strike, because FDR was waging economic warfare against the Japanese to provoke them into a desperate military strike against the U.S. long before Japan even considered attacking the U.S.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesLook, here's what us "Conspiracy Theorists" know thanks to a thing called the internet:
In the late nineteenth century, Japan’s economy began to grow and to industrialize rapidly. Because Japan has few natural resources, many of the burgeoning industries had to rely on imported raw materials, such as coal, iron ore or steel scrap, tin, copper, bauxite, rubber, and petroleum. Without access to such imports, many of which came from the United States or from European colonies in southeast Asia, Japan’s industrial economy would have ground to a halt. By engaging in international trade, however, the Japanese had built a moderately advanced industrial economy by 1941.
In June 1940, Henry L. Stimson, who had been secretary of war under Taft and secretary of state under Hoover, became secretary of war again. Stimson was a lion of the Anglophile, northeastern upper crust and no friend of the Japanese. In support of the so-called Open Door Policy for China, Stimson favored the use of economic sanctions to obstruct Japan’s advance in Asia. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau and Interior Secretary Harold Ickes vigorously endorsed this policy. Roosevelt hoped that such sanctions would goad the Japanese into making a rash mistake by launching a war against the United States, which would bring in Germany because Japan and Germany were allied.
Accordingly, the Roosevelt administration, while curtly dismissing Japanese diplomatic overtures to harmonize relations, imposed a series of increasingly stringent economic sanctions on Japan. In 1939 the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.” The British and the Dutch followed suit, embargoing exports to Japan from their colonies in southeast Asia.
Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the Americans knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”
ecause American cryptographers had also broken the Japanese naval code, the leaders in Washington knew as well that Japan’s “measures” would include an attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet they withheld this critical information from the commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the tocsin makes perfect sense: after all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the war cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief ... that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.
Soooo, come December 7th, 1941, the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor and it's off to war boys in the South Pacific, Europe and Africa. Never mind that the American people were overwhelmingly against getting involved in another European war like WWI just the day before. It's time to rally around the flag and do our patriotic duty.
The smallest act of war by the Japanese would have been enough for the US to declare war. What advantage did Roosevelt have by allowing something as disastrous as Pearl Harbor to happen if he knew enough to stop it? If you just used a little logic you'd see how most (not all) conspiracy theories are bullshit.
Except, you'know, it's generally a good policy to stop exporting to the people who you think are going to attack you. Roosevelt didn't think "hey, let's wage war on Japan,let's cut economic ties with them.", it was more like "shit, those guys might attack us, let's not hand them any bullets." Also, it was pretty prevalent in those days for any Western Power to want to suppress the development of Asian countries-at that time, a lot of powers were still hoping to establish themselves as colonial powers (Germany, Italy world war's 1 & 2) and the ones which already were wanted to cement their position in the East. Any unsanctioned/unexpected rapid increase in power in an Asian country was a threat against their colonial interests and the security of their nation (coz, you know, colonies have a history for being uppity about taxes, particularly when it comes to Tea.)
LOL The bullshit on this article of bullshit is nothing but bullshit and it's bullshit like this the causes this kind of bullshit in the first place. When bullshit artists do nothing but spew bullshit, everyone else spews their bullshit. And as always when you have one a*****e spewing bullshit then you have to listen to the other assholes spew their bullshit. Out of all honesty there is little in this article with value and to see some of the absolutely inept minds pretending to have a clue about anyone’s history is the part slightly more entertaining than the preparation for a colonoscopy.
The US helped prop up the Soviet Union when it was losing the war through massive contributions through an expanded Lend-Lease program(Which you may remember was a program started to aid the British when THEY were losing the war). The Soviets also lost so many men, (and civilians) due to the atrocious tactics and cordination of their armed forces(and pulling stunts like not allowing most of the civilians in besieged cities to evacuate, such as in Stalingrad). The situation was so bad at one point they had Marshalls and Generals defecting not just to the Germans, but to the Western Allies, and they almost lost Moscow, and action that might have toppled communism and created a vacuum of power that they could fill with their Russian allies, preventing the fight continuing with the eastern divisions. All the Allied nations had some excellent generals and war heroes that made substantial contributions to the cause of Victory. And the USA probably couldn't have won the war by itself, obviously. That all being said, the reason the US is often credited as 'having won the war' is because of the large amount of military might, supplies, and logistics we brought to the Allied cause at a time when not only was victory anything from a foregone conclusion, but defeat seemed possible, even likely. Imagine an isolated Britain, conquered Europe and Indochina, a USSR with its entire Western branch of military all but defeated, a largely German-friendly native populous, including an entire army of anti-communist former Red Army soldiers with weapons, equitment, training, officers, and even a battle-hardened former Red Army General officer to lead them. Now imagine they are camped outside Moscow where most of the Soviet government leadership is. They do have millions of men on the way from the East, but if Moscow fails will they be willing to fight? Everything up to this point is just as it was in history. Except the US had been propping up jolly old England and Red Russia the whole time with vitally needed war materiel and volunteer pilots, and obviously for the sake of argument, that didn't happen. The USA also DOESN'T enter the war at this time, either. I wonder what would have happened? Still think the US didn't contribute to the winning of the war any more than any of the other Allies?
Reply Hide All See All 6 RepliesThe writer didn't say the US didn't contribute to the Allied victory in World War 2 in ways more or less than what most people believe or want to believe (for really we will never know for sure will we?), and in fact where I come from we were given the impression that it was rather unscrupulous of the US to give the Allied Powers what you termed "the large amount of military might, supplies, and logistics" while having not entered the war for real. Don't bust me out for showing a different side of what some people feel about what the US did during WWII, which can be summed as dirty and sneaky or incredibly helpful and generous. Take your pick.
So the leaders of the US supporting the anti-Nazi forces is "dirty and sneaky". The US didn't declare war right away because the American public would never support it (yeah public support is a pretty important factor in politics within the US) unless there was a a real threat, which the Japanese finally posed at Pearl harbor.
"public opinion plays a pretty important factor in politics in the US"
-riiiiiggght. Because that's why Bush won despite having less votes. And why SOPA still hasn't been completely thrown out yet. And how Palin was once considered as a possible VP.
In the US you don't directly vote for president. Your vote is for which group of representatives from your state you want sent to the electoral college. Even then the representatives sent can change their vote (though they almost never do). The American public doesn't directly elect thepresident. Second candidates choose their running mate not the public and she lost anyway so I don't see how thats valid at all. Look how many Congressman have dropped support for SOPA, you'll never get a unanimous anything in Congress because bill sponsors never drop support for the bills they sponsor. Also I said important not the only factor.
Britain was never losing the war we were defending our home lands from a much larger enemy and doing a bang up job about it to. Anyway my understanding of it was that FDR wanted to go to war against the Nazis but knew the American public would hate him for joining a fight that they saw had no relevance to them. The US government knew what was happening in Europe was wrong and wanted to help get rid of fascism so they help with as much support as they could until public opinion was in favour of war.
It was a team effort and we should be proud of the sacrifice are forefathers made.
Britain was never losing the war we were defending our home lands from a much larger enemy and doing a bang up job about it to. Anyway my understanding of it was that FDR wanted to go to war against the Nazis but knew the American public would hate him for joining a fight that they saw had no relevance to them. The US government knew what was happening in Europe was wrong and wanted to help get rid of fascism so they helped with as much support as they could until public opinion was in favour of war.
It was a team effort and we should be proud of the sacrifice are forefathers made.
As an American I can honestly say that it pisses me off when other Americans say that WE won the war. That ignorance is part of the reason international communities hate on us sometimes. Thankfully these kind of ignorant people are few and far between (at least in my experience). Unfortunately the media tends to love loud idiots, so that's the kind of American other peoples are exposed to. Further perpetuating the stereotype that we are all a bunch of arrogant, ignorant assholes.
ReplyI'm not from America and I've never been there either, and I felt relieved as I read your comment, although I do know that not all Americans are loud idiots. Unfortunately, most of the people from where I live think that all Americans are immensely rich and like those unmentionables from Jersey Shore.
Actually, it's even worse. We think America's filled with people who LIKE Jersey Shore.
To be fair, Hitler almost had the soviets, but he was being a f*****g retard and fucked up: when they first attacked soviet russia, they were on their way to moscow, and most soviets surrenderd. hitler, decided to leave moscow, and the soviets rebanded
ReplyHe also didn't listen to his generals who clearly knew what they were doing. It's all good though because thanks to his ego/stupidity the Russians kicked some major ass.
About the Soviet's surrendering: The difference between Stalin and Hitler becomes a lot more obvious when a Gestapo officer points a gun at your face. With the NKVD, it's a gun at you, and your entire extended family and friends' families' collective balls, whilst a bear sodomizes you. The Gestapo on the other hand, don't even want to look at your non-Aryan ass.
To those bitching about why the US didn't get involved in the war until Pearl Harbor. Why would the US get involved in a war half way round the world when Europe was known for being in an almost constant state of war?
Reply Hide All See All 9 RepliesExactly! Why would anyone help innocent people when they're being slaughtered? Why would anyone want to help when millions were suffering? It wasn't America's problem! Hitler was hell bent on global domination, America aren't apart of the world and Hitler wouldn't have touched them obviously. God damn people moaning about America ignoring death and suffering, how dare they! USA! USA! USA!!!
reid82, go take it up with Switzerland
You'll never reach a happy middle ground on an issue like this. If we do nothing, the US is selfish and letting people suffer. If we intervene, we have no business being there. And every American killed is a son or daughter that won't come home. Choose one.
@reid82 after getting out of one European war we didn't have much business being in I can't see why the US should rush back a few years later. Also the severe human rights violations of the Nazis were not widely known outside of central Europe until the end of the war, they're certainly not why the USSR, Britain, or France went to war. You can't have it both ways either you want the US to get involved in foreign countries who violate human rights or you don't. I think you just want to b***h about the US, whatever it does, because you have some inferiority complex. Face it right now the US is the big dick on the block and frankly what country who has been in a similar position of power and has a better human rights record. Its far from perfect but its better than anyone else thats been on top.
Britain's record as hegemon was probably equal to or better than America's. Britain was using its power to abolish slavery around the world when America couldn't even decide if it was a bad thing.
The international slave trade was illegal within the US at the same time. Though slavery was still legal within some states not all. The government even sent a small fleet to Africa to stop slave ships. But at the same time Britain was brutally imposing their rule within India and South Africa, wiping out entire tribes. So yeah equal maybe but sure as hell not better.
1800's: pffftt. It's not SLAVERY if it's not White people.
1940's: pfftt.. It's not SLAVERY if it's not relatively, light-skinned people. Also, Eurasians are hot.
1980's: pffftt..EVERYONE'S A SLAVE! FIGHT THE POWER!
Well Australia, Canada and New Zealand did, Actually every other western settled nation did because we not full of cowards.
And USSR won the war 100% there is not a single US troop in the invasion of Berlin it is Russian troops knocking down the swatstika monumnets is all that footage.
@veya those coutries went to war because they weren't independent of the British, they didn't have a choice. And the USSR's manufacturing was almost stagnant between 1941 and 1944, you really think the USSR was winning the war without the support of the other Allies? The western Allies surpassed taking Berlin because by the time everyone entered Germany, Berlin was nothing more than symbolic. By 1945 there was no manufacturing or concentrtion camps or major army groups in Berlin so they saw no reason to go there. And the USSR under Stalin was hardly better with human rights than Hitler, in fact some would say they were worse. Just because the other Allies didn't lose as many men as the USSR doesn't make them pussies. In fact the USSR lost more troops than they ever killed which means their army was inferior whether they won or lost.
Hitler was also just lucky that he had plenty of brilliant men under him. Some of his own decisions were simply terrible.
ReplyIn hindsight though, it's easy to look at a blunder someone made and think "God, how could they have thought THAT was a good idea!". At the time when you're making the decision, it's a lot harder to predict how it'll pan out.
Great article! Churchill was voted back in a few years later so not THAT unpopular, anyway more to do with people wanting the welfare state. A bit harsh re: India too. The evil murdering bastard tag is a favourite of neo-nazi's!
ReplyThe writer has fallen for a deeper myth too so there should be a #6. li'l ol' Britain didn't stand a chance, BoB was close, was blockaded, nearly invaded, bankrupt, lets ignore the empire/commonwealth etc. Not true if you check the facts, the stats, the resources. Funnily enough it was Churchill's 'the few' propaganda that set the idea off. The whole government was good at getting others involved (fake UK intelligence peace talks to get the Germans to invade Russia sooner, getting the Americans on board before PH). If you ignore the US super-prosperity, The UK ended up economically the healthiest major combatant by far and lost the fewest casualties. The policy worked!
AND you have the fact that Germany had NO experience at amphibious invasions, NO specialized equipment for such an invasion, and that the geography of Britain made a seaborne invasion a potential nightmare. add to that the fact that the Royal Navy still had one of the most powerful surface forces in the world would have made a German amphibious invasion of Britain a complete disaster.
Really enjoyed this article. I get so sick of people thinking that Hitler was some kind of genius when he was, indeed just lucky. And I agree, Mein Kampf is the most boring, badly-written and above all, paranoid book I've ever read. He was a whiny, morose individual with middling-to-lower intelligence who had been given every opportunity to better himself, and chose not to take it. Instead he decided to blame everyone else for his shortcomings, and unfortunately for the rest of the world, was lucky (and vicious) enough to end up ruling an entire country. Well done, Jacopo.
ReplyWait. I lost you from the third line done. We talking about Hitler or Hipsters?
Hitler /was/ a hipster, if you look at his earlier life. We should be careful about insulting them so much - another one might go on another world-destroying rampage soon.
He has written this article as if he was writing facts. Plus, nobody ever seems to mention that Britain was winning (The Battle of Britain)before the USA and Russia were involed in the war.
ReplyOk lets look at facts. The great D-day had 170,000 allied troops vs 10,000 axis soldiers. Losses for allies were Allied casualties were only about 12,000. The battle of the bulge had 840,000+ soldiers for allies vs 200,000-500,000 axis and axis had ALMOST even casualty rates and lost partly due to allied air support which came after the weather cleared up. 80% of the luftwaffe was commited to the Eastern Front. Comparatively, Stalingrad and other battles like so waged war with equal armies (and sometimes uneven) and they were 1,500,000ish strong. Germany had THREE ARMY GROUPS, about 3,000,000ish soldiers on the Eastern front. On the western front they barely had 1, and vritually all elite units were fighting Russians. Russia advanced hundreds, maybe thousands of miles, strategically encircling and annihilating millions of Germans. I'm not saying they were tactical geniuses, as the Russian's often lost more troops (except for some cases like operation bagration) but the point is they killed much more German troops than the allies on scales ten times larger. Just search any World War II battle like The Battle of Stalingrad or Operation Bagration. Look at the death toll, casualties, and army strengths. Compare that to ANY western battle. You will be amazed. Anyways,80-90% of german casualties were to Russian soldiers anyway... The war was lost for Germany long before D-Day.
Reply Hide All See All 4 Repliesand without American and British forces bombing Germany industry and disrupting the supply lines, the Germans would have had even MORE men and materiel to throw at the Russians. had Hitler timed his invasion to avoid the brutal Russian winter, Stalin would have gotten his ass kicked. also, without American supplies of weapons and ammunition, the Russians were screwed. I don't know why this author is such a fan of the Soviets and Stalin, but get over it. if Hitler had just gone after Russia and left the rest of Europe alone, he would've kicked Stalin's ass.
The real matter is not if you are a Stalin fan or not , is the rubbish depicted in the Hollywood films and the foolish Anglo-Saxon self-glorifying propaganda ; well, if the winter was a serious problem , why Norway was easily invaded ? or Hitler did not learn about the defeat of Napoleon ?; the main point is 20,000,000 people who never are mentioned in the media and who really saved the world form the Nazi threat..........
The real matter is not if you are a Stalin fan or not , is the rubbish depicted in the Hollywood films and the foolish Anglo-Saxon self-glorifying propaganda ; well, if the winter was a serious problem , why Norway was easily invaded ? or Hitler did not learn about the defeat of Napoleon ?; the main point is 20,000,000 people who never are mentioned in the media and who really saved the world form the Nazi threat..........
Of course Americans will make movies about America because thats what will sell best to Americans. Sorry that the American film industry is the most predominant one in the world. If you have such a problem with the way Americans depict themselves then don't watch movies made by Americans about other Americans. Your complaining that American cinema is too American centric which is just retarded.
hitlers blitzkrieg mainly was successful because the german army was first using synthetical methamphetamine, back then widely know as panzerschokolade, stuka-tabletten and herman göring pillen. methamphetamine was invented by the japanese in 1893 but germans invented mass production in 1934. all german troops had that stuff, not only tank and air force crews. as you are a cracked reader you might be able to imagine the impact on the battlefield. with methamphetamine the german soldiers were able to go on and on for days with only a few hours of sleep here and there. needless to say as time went by many soldiers were facing the usual drug induced psychical problems. easy to see this also became a logistical problem at the eastern front later in the war. many soldiers were writing letters to their families pleading them to send more pervitin (the brand name).
Reply Hide All See All 3 Repliespervitin was first privately used by the soldiers in the invasion of poland. at this time the german tremmler-werke already produced 6.000.000 pills a week. (on a side note, this also maybe helps understanding the führer cheering crowds. just thinking.) in 1940 the german wehrmacht, discovering its huge impact on the battlefield, ordered 35.000.000 more tablets for the war in france. later german leadership actually realized the downsides and dangers of unchecked amphetamine abuse, resulting in getting it officially blacklisted via the reichsopiumgesetz in the middle of 1941, meaning you had to have a receipt to get the stuff. but that was only paper. in reality it was not hard to obtain and german military staff simply ignored this. massproduction was not ceased but increased. at the time when s**t really startet to pile up in russia a single corps of the german army was reported ordering 29.000.000 pills in two months.
at the end of the war amphetamines were also used by the british air force. later it was used by us-troops in vietnam and also were part of some eastern bloc forces emergency provisions (east germany).
because pervitin was produced in such great quantities under wartime, a huge black market for the remaining stocks lasted up till the 1960 in germany.
Young man, go to the YMCA.
Wait, they called meth "tank chocolate?"
Enlil - Panzer means "Panther" (that was the name of the tank model, similar to "Sherman"). The pills were, then, called Panther Chocolate (I have no idea why).
Actually the truth Stalin actually wanted the US to open another front in the war against the Nazi. Not because he lossing, he just wanted a secure victory.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesI lol to the whole Pearl Habor was intended thing. It shows people actually believe anything because it a story they want to hear.
Let's imagine FDR knowing about attack and going like: "Hell, yeah, let Japs have their fun an Pearl Harbor. Who needs all this fleet and American soldiers, screw them!".
Why do these two comments have thumbs down on them? I thought they made sense
Good point about Stalin. In the same way the British wanted Germany to invade Russia and the US to get involved. Why take all the strain and the casualties?
Cracked I enjoy many of your articles, but you are playing hardcore into guided social perception on this one (as is typical of any article or mention of WWII, Hitler, Nazis in any Western language be it English, German or French.)
Reply Hide All See All 5 RepliesHitler was a genius. It is difficult to get into an art school. It's extremely difficult regardless of mental aptitude because every art school requires raw artistic talent, specifically in the genre of art you are applying for. For instance, I tried to get into Musicians Institute for Guitar... the reality is, you have to be a badass guitarist just to get accepted... to include, not only being able to perform at a professional level, sight read and know all the text book music theory... this is part of the application. People who have been signed (aka, professional musicians at that point) sometimes get denied entry to "music school". Nevermind Julian... which every single applicant even if they are denied are only interested in that one impressive notch on their belt...
Visual art school is no different. You should do an "5 myths of artists" article, because the reality is, those "modern art" artists might seem like they aren't able to draw very well because their work seems like a two-year old did it, but they can in fact draw very well... their work is focused and intentionally designed the way it is. A perfect example is higly detailed and accurate Picasso sketches available in some collections that show the man really could draw very well in spite of his typical known crazy style of art he's known for. For this matter, you could also do a "5 myths of rap artists" because a fair number of them, are actually musically inclined and know blue grass, classical and other forms of music; I even ran into an all black heavy metal band who decided they wanted to break from the typical gangsta rap cookie cutter template most black musicians are cast into these days by the industry. Rap may not be "music", but some of it is done by musicians.
if hitler was a genius, why did he invade crete which delayed barbarossa by several months even though crete had no strategic value? Also, he diverted units from army group north and center to army group south while invading Russia to get army group south to reach the caucus mountains. He halted the main center and north army group advances to Moscow for the most part and moscow was only about 3/5 the distance of going to the caucus mountains for oil. By the time he realized his mistake, winter was coming. He also attacked stalingrad for no reason other than his own personal reasons. ALL of these statements were rejected by german generals but hitler refused.
@hetzers
The cracked article first uses the claim Hitler failed to get into art school, following up with another ridiculous claim that art school is easy to get into, as a reason for painting Hitler as a sort of idiot or incompetent.
While you chose to cite military engagements, your claims might be better for consideration, until you realize that you focused on the wrong part of the story. Cracked was trying to say Hitler was an idiot because of an claim that any fool can get into Julian (or other 'art' school). So what does that say about your rebuttal?
Now, I doubt you are a General or Admiral of any armed force. I'll go out on a limb and assume you haven't even attended a military academy let alone graduated from one. If you had, you probably would have known that you could do what you are trying to do with Hitler, for every single military General, Field Commander or Admiral in history... especially the ones who seen enough action to be worthy of stories galore. Also, you would know, mistakes are most obvious in hindsight; so just because you can point out a mistake after the fact of a genius doesn't mean it wasn't a reasonable decision at the time given the circumstances, or that any other "genius" might have had much better insight. And don't forget, Presidents, Kings, Dictators, Tsars and all sorts of heads of states often go against judgements from their military advisor so if Hitler deviated a bit from the suggestions of his staff... that doesn't have any statistical bearing to say he was in any way out of touch. It happens all the time, I bet Obama probably over rode or ignored advice from his Joint Chief of Staff... you'll never hear about it, or people won't try to make him look stupid for it, unless years from now he ends up in the same taboo boat Hitler wound up in.
Bottom line, you can't rise to power like he did if you are anything less than extraordinary. You can't do better, so stop trying to make yourself feel better by trying to insult a man who for better or worse was good enough for you to remember his name.
He was not a genius. He was simply not a buffoon. He might have been a good orator, like Churchill, but the two were militarily complete idiots.
"Hitler was a genius."
And you're basing that on... what, exactly? That he COULDN'T get into art school? He could paint one hell of a nice tree?
While your arguments might be serious, Quercia is just taking a funny cheapshot (not that there are any cheapshots when it comes to Hitler..). And no, getting into visual arts schools is not hard (if it was, I never would have gotten in, because I can't draw worth shit). And even if it was the hardest thing to get into in the history of the known universe, being able to paint a realistic looking tit does NOT mean you're in any way qualified to command an invading army. Hitler was simply a good orator with a lot of charisma who happened to be there when Germans needed someone to rally around and against.
The fact that your musical skills were too inferior to get you into MIT does not make Hitler a genious. Read some history books, and learn something.