Biggest Misconceptions About World War II?

[Koenigstiger]

Didn't the allies collectively lose like 3-4 times as many tanks than Germany?

 

[VonMudra]

• Soviet Union: Between 96,500 to 100,000 tanks
• UK : Around 20,000 tanks
• USA: Around 20,000 tanks

• Germany: Around 45,000 to 50,000 tanks
• Italy: Around 3500 tanks
• Japan:Around 3000 tanks

• 
  
  But these numbers do hide some parts. For instance, these numbers include ALL AFV's. Also, Robert Forzcyk's research has found that, generally, the US alone had a 3:2 kill ratio total against German tanks for the war.

 

[Koenigstiger]

I wish they would make a movie based around the Polish in WW2 and how they basically got crapped on from both sides (or atleast a movie about the battle of Wizna), but I guess that would be like asking Americans to recognize Japanese internment.

Just not gonna happen.

 

[VonMudra]

Uh, there ARE two great modern flicks on Poland in WW2:

Tajemnica Westerplatte (2013) - IMDb
Katy? (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, we recognize the hell out of the Japanese internment. There was most recently a hit Broadway play written and acted by George Takai ON the internment (The Show - Allegiance). In our junior high and high schools we read two or three books written by interned Japanese children, plus spend basically 90% of any WW2 discussion ON the Japanese internment. It is not covered up or forgotten in any way, shape, or form.

EDIT: In fact here, the two books I read in junior high/highschool:

http://www.amazon.com/Journey-To-Topaz-Japanese-American-Evacuation/dp/1890771910
http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Manzanar-Jeanne-Houston/dp/0307976076

(Mind you we also did shittons of assignments and classroom time on them)

And the movie we also watched in class:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074518/

 

[Koenigstiger]

Yea but most Americans I speak to love to play it down, someone who has actually studied WW2 and around that time would no doubt know about it.


Awesome I'll have to check those films out then.

Forgive me though that was a low blow, just speaking with said individuals makes me angry and comparing those two things was wrong

 

[Alex]

Another myth is that there were hordes of T-34’s attacking the German formations. A simple look at the Soviet tank strength at various points in the war shows that the T-34 was not the most important tank. In summer 1941 there were only 967 T-34’s in the total strength of 22.000 tanks. For the rest of the war:

Operational forces​
AFV	1-Dec-41	1-May-42	1-Nov-42	1-Jul-43	1-Jan-44	1-Jun-44	1-Jan-45
Tanks
Heavy	212	660	922	893	349	467	976
Medium	322	1,291	2,714	5,492	2,609	3,766	6,059
Light	1,393	2,025	3,542	3,447	1,438	1,147	564
Sum	1,927	3,976	7,178	9,832	4,396	5,380	7,599
SPG
Heavy				104	139	314	504
Medium				174	244	152	758
Light				86	523	1,565	3,399
Sum	0	0	0	364	906	2,031	4,661
Total AFV	1,927	3,976	7,178	10,196	5,302	7,411	12,260
T-34 % of total	0.17	0.32	0.38	0.54	0.49	0.51	0.49

Source: ‘Velikaya Otechestvennaya Voina 1941-45. Dejstvuyushchaya Armiya’
Axis History Forum ? Soviet Fronts strengths: Overview

 

[Colonel__Klink]

That the IJA were bad fighters.

Is it bad that I lament the destruction of the IJA? Possibly the most disciplined dedicated soldiers(and therefore possibly the best) in the entirety of the world wasted. Horribly wasted. Part of their waste was struggling against resources they couldn't possibly imagine. The other part was arrogant stupid Japanese officers that lacked imagination and creativity that leadership of men requires. They were so arrogant that the IJA command for the first time since the Meji restoration basically stopped modernizing the infantry weapons(including not designing a smg till it was too late) stating essentially that "our soldiers are so great that they can overcome any obstacle with just a good rifle"

If there were ANY soldiers in ww2 that would have obeyed a "do not rape, murder, or pillage" order if it ever came it probably would have been the IJA. Too bad they were told to murder and pillage....


added:

I wish they would make a movie based around the Polish in WW2 and how they basically got crapped on from both sides (or atleast a movie about the battle of Wizna), but I guess that would be like asking Americans to recognize Japanese internment.

Just not gonna happen.

Or how about a movie where the Polish pilots hopelessly defended a nation assaulted from both sides somehow managed to survive the fall of their nation, trek across Europe somehow. Arrive on the shores of Britain and became the single most successful stalwart defenders of the British Isles during the battle of Britain?

The battle of Britain WAS like something out of Hollywood.... "the evil army has marched across the world crushing everyone in its path. One last bastion remains, one last piece of defensible ground. When the people of this land realize to their horror that they are literally standing alone against the beast, the world arrives at their doorstep to help fight. Survivors from all the armies of the defeated somehow made it to this land and together they faced the beast and managed to hold the line."

 

[Aniallator]

That the United States wanted nothing to do with the war. I can't tell you how many times I've had an Aussie or a Brit go on about how the States didn't want to get their feet wet, and that they didn't do much in the war anyway. I lived and schooled in Auss for two years. Were we educated about the Second World War? Yes, mostly the Pacific theater. What did we learn? That Auss won the Pacific war on their own, with help from the Brits in India. We were told almost nothing of the American part in the war. It just disgusted me.

 

[Koenigstiger]

lol

What school was that?

My understanding was that it was a group effort as was the entire war

We were, after all "The Allies"

 

[drummer93]

That the SS were elite fighters.
That the Russian T-34 was a war winning tank.
That the German army was mechanized.
That the French Army had lousy tanks.
That the MG42 was inaccurate.
That the Poles barely resisted and were outdated militarily.
That the French were surrender monkeys.
That Italians couldn't fight.
That Patton was a good general.
That Rommel was a good general.
That the Wehrmacht was free of war crimes.
That the Waffen-SS were 'just soldiers.'

I can go on....

Rommel was not a good general?. Are you serious?. I mean, I know it was deified by all, but come on ...

 

[Miller786]

Rommel failed at tobruk if im not wrong

 

[MausRatte]

One of the most common misconceptions is why the U.S. and Japan went to war (at least from my experience). I used to think that Germany named Japan as its "War Machine" and that Hitler instructed Japan to heavily weaken us. Many other people think many different ideas. What I understand now is that Japan basically knew that war from the U.S. was coming to them because of how they were basically having their own genocide war in China, and they had the choice of playing a defensive role or offensive role, and they chose offensive (which didn't work very well for them).

Another is that a lot of people think that every Concentration camp was there just for killing just jews and they were all huge, even though there were many scattered around Europe that had a bulk of jews and then a lot of other prisoners from different countries that weren't even jewish. Also, most camps didn't have giant crematories and gas chambers, most camps just starved the people and worked them to all hell.

Also, one of the biggest misconceptions is that the U.S. was the largest factor of the war in Europe (This is opinionative, but I think a very vast majority of historians would agree).

 

[Koenigstiger]

The camps were for rounding up slave labour and anyone the Nazis deemed as undesirables

Jews, Blacks, Gypsies, Slavs, political "enemies", etc

Anyone deemed unfit for labour was sent to the gas chamber after coming through the gate

Arbeit macht frei


There were talks between Germany and Japan about them opening a front with the United States as well as the Nazis were undermining the American and Japanese foreign relations and this was because even though they weren't officially engaged in the war the U.S was still "interfering" in it

both in the Atlantic giving aid to the British and in the Pacific

it was just a matter of time before the U.S entered the war, the pre-emptive strike was to get the upper hand

 

[drummer93]

Rommel failed at tobruk if im not wrong

with great respect, if you say "Rommel failed at tobruk if im not wrong", you don't contribute relevant information to discuss. With your logic Napoleon sucks... -.-

 

[VonMudra]

Rommel was an excellent divisional commander. However, as an Army commander, he has very mixed results, and most of his victories in Africa were against greatly inferior forces. Everytime he actually faced a foe of equal size, he tended to fight to bloody draws or defeats. He also had little idea about strategy or logistics, and quite often would overrun his supply lines, leading to near disaster (at one point in 1942, half his units were cut off and surrounded by the British, himself included, and were about 12 hours from surrendering due to lack of any water, when they finally managed to break through and retreat back to German lines. A near debacle turned into a status quo draw.). He also repeatedly warned off any attempt to assault Malta, beliving it to be a sideshow to his campaign, when Malta ended up being a lynchpin that helped keep the Afrikakorps low on gasoline. His assualt on Kasserine, while initially successful, ended up ruining any chance the Germans had for a successful rear guard action in Tunisia, as drew German forces away from the British front in the South, and only ended up in them losing tons of tanks and material against a much superior enemy. Finally, his planned idea for the Normandy invasion consisted of immediately attacking the beachhead with tanks- sounds good on paper, but the reality was the German army had already tried this, at Salerno, and it had met with total disaster. Turns out, attacking an enemy beachhead that is completely dominated by that enemy's naval gun-support goes very, very badly for tanks. 16th Panzer Division lost 70% of the tanks at Salerno in one day. Any German assualt on the beachheads would have met with overwhelming naval and air support that would have utterly decimated the German forces and probably led to an even faster Allied victory in Normandy. That said, there was probably little chance of the Germans ever having a successful defense of NOrmandy, merely how long they could delay the inevitable.

All told, Rommel was mostly a divisional commander who was promoted far above his capabilities. He functioned well when he was able to focus purely on aggressive tactical engagements, however he lacked foresight, logistical planning, and a grander vision of the capabilities of forces under his command. His successes were trumpeted by the German press, not only due to his image as an Aryan warrior, but due to his connections at home (he had only gotten command of 7th Panzer in 1940 due to him having been the commander of Hitler's bodyguard (the Führerbegleitbrigade) after the LSSAH was sent to combat in Poland in 1939. He was a posterchild, and he soaked in the media attention. After the war, due to the allied-sponsored 'Myth of the Good Wehrmacht', Rommel was elevated even farther, as the ideal 'good' German general, and so became famous in the west for the relatively clean campaign Rommel conducted in Africa.

Really, Rommel, like Patton, was often nothing more than a tactically aggressive General who got extremely lucky that he never had to face an opponent that matched him in equipment and numbers. In both of Rommel's victories offensives in Africa, the majority of the best British divisions had been removed from the front, in 1941 to Greece, and in 1942 to Syria. Beyond those two campaigns, Rommel never actually fought a successful campaign as a Army commander or Feldmarshall- really, his only tactical success against an equal opponent would be 1940 in France, as a divisional commander. Again, he was a superb tactical commander, however he became over-promoted and was never able to adapt to a war of logistics- the most important school of warfare for any Army or Army Group commander. Wars are won not by soldiers, or generals leading from the front- they're won by the side that can best organize and supply it's armies to support campaigns. Rommel was simply never able to do that. His tactical victories hold sway due to their granduer, but it is really a false veneer once you chip away to see the larger war.

 

[drummer93]

I agree on some things, but not others. First, I must clarify that I don't consider Rommel among the best generals of World War II, but say it was not a good general, it's say that he was bad, and that's a mistake. I agree with you that was a general of divisions, of small groups. And it was where he excelled. Talking about his supplies problems in Africa, or their plans in Normandy (when he mattered little the war), it's talk with the Monday's newspaper. It's easy to criticize when you already know the story, but in fact if you put on his shoes, you realize that he had to make tough decisions, although not end well, were not misguided. You can not cover the sun with a finger even if you want.

I agree that in a modern war, a general should not be in the front. But he did, and indeed, such a strategy game, he moved his chips step by step, and created brilliant military movements. He had tactical intelligence, not strategic. Rommel didn't work at a desk, he worked as a soldier. In fact it cost him several war wounds.

Perhaps his boldness is criticized, and could say he was lucky on many occasions, but his philosophy, though risky, had strong livelihoods. He was a person who could see order where many others saw only chaos, and that gave advantages. He was a person who could do a lot with little. And he also had everything a good leader needs. Since good communication, to interpersonal intelligence to identify with every soldier under his command.


His career was successful from the First World War, which had already shown his astute leadership and combat skills. No one here will say that Rommel was on par with Von Manstein, but separating the person of God, and knowing his mistakes and weaknesses, it remains understood that was a LEADER like few others.

 

[drummer93]

On the other hand I want to add that Rommel is not guilty of being a victim of propaganda, both in terms of the Nazis and people like Churchill, who well knew these things to create "heroes" as he did with Montgomery.

 

[VonMudra]

I think this comes down to parsing of language. Rommel was a tactically good general, and so was able to lead divisional sized forces aggressively. However, his fame comes from a campaign in which his only tactical successes came when fighting greatly inferior opponents- not exactly the hallmark of rating aptitude. As an army commander, he HAD to have been a good logistician, however he failed miserably at that. Thus, his rating in my mind remains as a strong divisional commander, but a poor Army commander. You simply cannot command an Army as you would a division- that leads to eventual failure, and that is exactly what Rommel faced at Alam Halfa, ordering massive tank assaults on prepared British positions, and suffering tremendously for it. In the end, Rommel was terrible at judging operational and strategic efficiency, and couldn't handle the logistics side of the campaign, choosing to ignore it in favour of his divisional command mindset, and so suffering major defeat in the long term. IMO, the hallmark of a great Army commander must firstly be one who approaches a campaign from a long term operational doctrine, not from a short term tactical success. Von Manstein, Bradley, Stillwell, Slim, and Zhukov all rate highly in my mind for that genius. Rommel simply doesn't.

 

[drummer93]

yes exactly, and for me it's important to clarify that parsing. I agree that Rommel didn't have logistics aptitudes. Possibly has delegated a post that exceed their capabilities. But the reality is that what made him famous, was his ability to deploy combat and evasion maneuvers. Not for nothing it is called "ghost division" the 7th Panzer. Or how he made "padlock" movements with the Panzers and Flaks, or how he know to use the ground for his purposes. For me, he was brillant in some things and not good in other, but beyond that que was deified, his fame is well deserved, and he is an example of leadership, and tactical and critical thinking.

 

[drummer93]

Oh, I think that Patton not had the oportunity to desmostrate that he was a good general, not be rude with him too haha x)