How much of our WWII history is really just propaganda and myth?

How many people do you think are familiar with the Soviet Manchuria offensive? One of the greatest strategic operations in history.

 

No it is not....good similie....But then again we are talking here now...about ww2. And if we are to do that we would move this thread into somewhere it should not go..as I would ask you is the American attitude to being in others countries..today any different than that of Britain under Queen Victoria..I won't mention the present talk of American present day empire...How does that really differ today from any previous empires? But thats another thread, perhaps another forum as is your raising of Queen Victoria. Its of course an explanation mate, but its more an admittance?

 

Mahros, I'd actually raise questions on Alenbrookes writings too...Especially on his words relating to Gort...It would seem he had his own bias there in my own biased view of course. I think most folk have realised as you say that Churchill had a version of what occured that differs from many. He had his flaws..as with most generals and politicians, but his nations need of him for a short period in 1940 cannot ever be overestimated. I am a fan, but not ever taken in by his words alone. He would be sniggering at us if he thought we ever thought that way. The RAF is in my blood and bones...quite litterally...Have bits of the RAF under my skin for life...But I'm not their biggest fan...The Air League in its old form and even today exists for one reason and one reason only. Before the war and today. The RAF had their finest hour in 1940 in my view...they are deserving of the words heaped on them at that time...They fought and beat the Luftwaffe over Britain. As to ivasion..I agree if he could he would. He didn't. The RAF figured highly in the reasons he did not. As did many others. The RAF has fought even fights for its right to exist since its inception. The truth of the RAF lies somewhere between its few and its supporting hierarchy in the smoking rooms of many a private club.

 

Do you guys even think there are 100 Americans under 30 who care about WW2? They only care about texting on their cell phones.

 

With all respect CB...the phone, and text thing is no different in UK I would think. I can't speak for Russia..Moscow and large cities etc...I would say China and Japan have same problem...even more so with their relative understanding of ww2....But I for one admit the Russian soldier and civilian suffered immensly in ww2. And bled for us all. Many others did too but who knows and I'm not doing a what if...Who knows what would have happened if Russia had not been willing to suffer and fight as they did. Politics aside, gulags and the quick to jump like for likes that this sort of discussion brings out in some...ww2 without an allied Russia in whatever form would have been unthinkable for us.

 

cbiwv,

As an American, I am quite familiar with the Soviet operation in Manchuria, but I would hardly call it "One of the greatest strategic operations in history." Steamrolling over an opponent that is hardly capable of defending against an invasion from one direction, let alone many, and is also totally outclassed in numbers & quality of equipment on the battlefield - A victorious outcome is expected.

Further along those lines, we have the reverse of the war against Germany. The Americans had "bled the Japanese white," causing Japan to ship off most of their better units in China to die defending their various Pacific island holdings. Thus, the Americans helped pave the way for such an lopsided Soviet victory in Manchuria.

Oh, and FYI, this American does not own a cell phone.

Also, criticizing Americans for our "stereotyping" World War II, while at the same time making your own "stereotypes" of Americans is rather hypocritical...

As others have stated it took a COMBINED EFFORT to defeat the Axis, no single Allied power could have reasonably done it alone.

 

I suspect that this was no more workable than Sea Lion. Between Norway and Holland the Germans had a huge percentage of their transport aircraft either damaged or destroyed. There were also several Commonwealth formations in Britain at the time from what I recall reading. Maybe not divisions size but good well equiped troops in formations big enough to be useful vs paratroopers. Consider also that Germany really didn't know about Chain Home at this time either. The result would likely have been many of the transport aircraft downed at the outset any follow on aircraft would likely have had an even rougher time as it's unlikely that even if the paratrooper sized an airfield they could have pushed the British back beyond artillery range of the field.

 

My son is 22. The first rifle he ever bought (with his own money) is a hex receiver Mosin Nagant "dragoon". He is certainly aware of WWII history and the Soviet role in that victory.

Yet, you're right that most Americans don't understand the war and I suspect that most Russians and western Europeans don't understand it either. Some of that is due to disinterest (it was 70 years ago), but much is due to that myth and propaganda which I mention in the opening post. After the war you couldn't find a Nazi in Germany, while in France it turned out every man and woman had been in the resistance. In America it was widely known that Patton had won the war on his own and in the UK they all shook their heads because if the Yanks had only listened to Monty, the war would have been over by Christmas.

Then all the generals wrote biographies to explain why lost battles weren't their fault and battles won were far more decisive than had been realized at the time, and pointing out that other generals had really screwed the pooch. Then those accounts were used as sources by historians.

It's no wonder we find it so difficult to get at the truth today.

 

Very insightful!

 

Your disdain for American culture and educational matters is clearly detected, but I think that you'd be able to find a little more than a 100 people from a country of about 310,000,000 or so, give or take a few thousand (+ or -) to care about most anything. Maybe you should take the rest of the day off and start back tomorrow fresh and new.

 

The only way to turn myths into serious history is to remove political components from otherwise factually valid interpretations of the past.

That's apparently easy and yet very difficult task.

 

His point is sound, even if we don't like to hear it.

I would only point out that there is far less reason for Americans of this generation to be interested in the war. After all, we weren't fighting German divisions on the Mississippi river as the Russians were fighting them along the Volga. We didn't have half our population uprooted or killed, as they did.

I blame Hollywood rather than the educational system for the general ignorance. If we were to go by popular culture, then the airborne won WWII with an occasional rescue by Patton with his invincible Sherman tanks. The English were around someplace with their funny helmets and antique rifles, and occasionally a Frenchman with a big mustache would show up, wounded, to tell us where the German ambush was. And the Russians? Well, other than that guy Vassily and his team of big busted sniper gals, they really weren't involved all that much.

 

Indeed. Quite often people prefer lies because truth is too painful.

 

Ok, ok, maybe only 95 or 96 Americans under 30 care about WW2. CB was right. Happy now?

CB was letting his preconceived myth about Americans and what they care and don't care about get the better of him is my point. I think.

 

Easter surely.....