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

And nationalism...I do hope though well I know...we here are in the main above that.

 

A great thread...Lets face it, we sometimes need to face our own personal interpertations. But now you've gone and done it...The Aussies and Canadians will be waking up to this thread at any minute...We'd all best go hide.

 

Well, I've been just twice in the USA and yet I think I understand why Americans do not know or do not bother trying to understand the second Great War. I guess it is because there are millions of other, much better things to do instead of tinkering about the distant war. America is the best place to switch-off and have some fun. Perhaps this is just superficial thought of a tourist.

 

Ask a young southerner about the US Civil War and you'll get a real education because it was fought right there in his backyard. I suppose the same is true across Europe when it comes to WWII.

How about them airborne forces? Were they really as instrumental to victory in the ETO as history makes them out, or is that reputation inflated?

 

I'm sure he meant well, and I have the same thoughts sometimes myself. I reckon that most Americans know the US was on the winning side since we still speak English, except for areas on the border with Mexico.

Sometimes I think that most Americans don't even know when the War of 1812 started.

 

Hitler was born in Australia wasn't he?

 

Back to the original question, about the "Battle of Britain". The main prerequisite for Operation Sealion (no matter how ill conceived). was air superiority. Hitler and Goering both realized that without it, the plan was a non-starter.

 

The problem is that history is more than just flags moving on a map. At some point, historians (even good ones) have to forward a subjective opinion on how that flag moved and what the consequences of that move were. Those opinions are drawn from accounts that are highly subjective in themselves. You can't get two allied generals to agree, much less the enemy generals. And how much do those generals really know since they are merely relying on battlefield reports of lesser commanders who are eager to cover any mistakes and make hay of any success, even if that success is due entirely to happenstance. Worse, those memoirs and opinions are often altered or influenced by media accounts - are Bradley or Montgomery going to disagree that this action or that advance weren't brilliant strokes, but just a result of an enemy withdrawal to a new line?

In short, I don't think history on the micro level is accurate at all. On the macro level, the flags moved...

 

While that is entirely true Lou, even if Germany could have achieved temporary air superiority over the Channel, long enough for the amphibious forces to have crossed, it was still a no-go. Any forces that made it across would have been cut off and eventually destroyed on their beach head. The German Navy was never strong enough to protect the beach head until sufficient supplies, personnel and equipment could be landed to effect a breakout. If the sky was controlled by Germany during the day the Brits would have attacked the landing beaches and supporting naval forces at night. Combat consumes enormous amounts of ammunition, medical supplies, fuel, food, water, etc. Germany lacked the sealift to keep any sizeable landing force supplied while engaged in combat operations. Especially, after the initial landing and in face of attritional losses of the craft used to transport said materials. Someone mentioned, I don't remember who, said something about "keep the Germans within artillery range", exactly. All the Brits had to do is slow any expansion out of the beach head while artillery and aircraft attritted them. Destroy bridges and fuel sources if required to withdraw and the Germans could have landed 5,000 Tigers (never could have but if they did) as soon as they run out of fuel they're big steel pillboxes, as soon as they've expended their basic ammo load if no resupply they're big steel coffins for their crews. Artillery that is responsible for 3/4's of combat casualties continually shelling them. The Brit's had only to get the ammunition from the factory or ammunition dump to their units, along roads they controlled. Add in naval bombardments at night. Airborne forces? They're even more vulnerable. Even if they could have managed a drop without losses (would never have happened, but if it had) they are too lightly armed and too poorly supplied to do more than seize and temporarily hold key positions or objectives. Attempts to supply them by air would just result in many shot down transport aircraft. I don't think the Luftwaffe was ever strong enough to even temporarily establish air superiority over the Channel. My personal opinion. I know they lacked the ability to do this and establish air superiority over portions of the English country side, not enough aircraft and the main fighter the 109 was too short legged.
Finally, German lacked the expertise in amphibious operations to pull it off. Any discussion of the Germany's actually pulling this operation off should start out "Once upon a time..."

 

The HG div did not have much trouble with them in Italy. They played a role just like every other unit in the ETO. The 30th Infantry div was better.

 

We agree!

I met these gentlemen in Izhevsk a few years ago. It was an honor.

 

Hitler was born in Australia wasn't he?

Supposedly he once got an invitation to visit, although it may have been a bit tongue-in-cheek.....shortly after the war started, the story goes, the publisher of Mein Kampf wrote to their Australian distributer complaining that they were no longer receiving the royalties due for however many copies were sold in that country. The Aussies replied that Mr. Hitler was welcome to appear in Australian court and contest the matter.......

 

In general I agree with this post.

Although the soviets did most of the actual Allied fighting winning the war In Europe would not have happened without the mountain of US supplies. This is something the soviets and even many nowadays Russians still want to ignore.

About the myths: one is definitely the soviet/Russian myth of the innocent, peaceful nation being attacked by an evil one and then winning the war practicly single-handed.

 

Great points, Belasar. I would say the descriptor "some justifiable pride" is a far too modest assessment. But I don't mind being humble as well. Your comments on the UK and Russia are both very true as well and major praise should be accorded them as well for their sacrifices made in the cause of victory. Our relatives from the Greatest Generation left us so much to be proud of (their accomplishments in the face of such adversity). We as caretakers of that legacy, SIMPLY, must do a better job of protecting what they fought so desperately to preserve and improve. I pray that reality TV, ever more destructive drugs and vices and the "soft life" do not erode our values any further; so that some sort of democratic equilibrium is maintained throughout the "Free World". How many of my esteemed friends here detect Nero warming up in the background?

But I pontificate. P.S. Note to Filipino, Vietnamese, Chetniks and New Guinea guerrillas and other contributors, thank you as well.

This is a great thread, by the way. Did I mention the Canadians, thanks very much mates!! (good catch Urgh). Aussies and New Zealanders covered under UK.

Sealion - I remember long passages (from Churchill's "Their Finest Hour") dedicated to the logistical nightmare Germany confronted beginning with the lack of adequate transport ships or even barges to deliver adequate troops and materiel and of course their deficiency in NGFS and air supremacy were major contributing factors. RAF was as much a deterring factor as any of them and a major contributing factor to the scrub the mission decision. That is my short answer.

 

So, how about them airborne forces? Overrated or not?

 

Not overrated, more like specialist that would also sling it with the front line rifleman.