Misconceptions of World War II

[The Lonely Navigator]

I have my site (in sig.) which may help your article. Feel free to look through it and if you have any other question regarding that aspect - feel free to PM me. I don't have direct access...so may not be able to reply right away.

 

[AmateisGal]

There was actually a good bit of this in 1939-40. For one thing, German dialect comedians disappeared from radio and the stage overnight -- as an example, the long-running comedy program "Kaltenmeyer's Kindergarten," a show featuring a comic German schoolmaster, was unceremoniously cancelled, and its star, dialect comic Bruce Kamman, never worked in radio again.

There was also quite a bit of fear about the activities of the German-American Bund. Life magazine ran an expose on that organization in June of 1940, with photos of its paramilitary camps, and that helped feed a "fifth columnist" hysteria in which anyone who didn't display sufficient Americanism was liable to be mobbed in the street. (Religious groups that didn't salute the flag were facing particular wrath that summer, with several attempted lynchings of members.)

Fascinating stuff about the German dialect comedians. I was unaware of that. Not surprised, though. I had a feeling that the hysteria experienced during WW1 would rear its ugly head as soon as the Germans went into Poland.

I did a bit of research on the German American Bund at one point and from what I could gather, the FBI kept a watch on them, but ultimately didn't think they were much of a threat.

 

[AmateisGal]

I don't know how much of a misconception THIS one is, but I believe that there is such a misconception that the Blitz only affected London during the Second World War.

This of course, is not true. And unfortunately, because people think it IS true, finding reliable information (which is what I'm currently looking for, for a history assignment) can be tricky. The Blitz didn't JUST target London. It attacked almost every major British city. London, Bath, Coventry, Southampton and lots more that I couldn't possibly list. Granted, London was the city that was most heavily bombed, but it certainly wasn't the only one. Coventry was so completely near-annihilated that people almost thought about surrendering at that point.

I think this is the type of general misconception that would be perfect for this article, which is intended for a general audience, not a scholarly one. Thanks, Shangas, for mentioning it.

 

[Pompidou]

The idea that the Allies won simply by throwing numbers at the Axis is the biggest one I've come across. It's like WWII was a game of Space Invaders, with the mighty individual German unit taking on wave after wave of Allied opposition till finally he can't take it anymore. Whether it's the "just keep throwing infantry at the problem whether they die or not" Soviet stereotype (that I believed till someone corrected me here, because it's what I was taught), or the apparently shoddily built Sherman tanks that were no match for a Panzer, but by sheer American wealth of resources could be pumped out en masse to win by attrition.

I think another misconception is the cowardice of the French. Sure they did have to surrender, but they had a thriving resistance movement even after the fact.

 

[Marla]

Some members of my generation have the misconception that the United States entered the war only to put a stop to the Holocaust. But as we know, that wasn't the actual motive since the truth about what was happening in the concentration camps didn't come to light until after the Allies came to liberate the camps. Even most Germans didn't know the full extent of what was happening--the truth was so well-guarded.

 

[AmateisGal]

I think it's amazing how each generation has learned a different, sometimes altered history than the previous generation. Amazing, yet scary...

 

[p51]

There are a lot of incorrect perspectives on the reaction and handling of the war by the US public. People today don’t realize not everyone was behind the war even after Pearl Harbor (remember, the Congressional decision was not unanimous), many people in the public weren’t for it, citing it as the war “Roosevelt pushed us into.” There was also a strong push for a negotiated peace once losses started to build up. Roosevelt’s demand of a unconditional surrender didn’t sit well with a few folks.
Roosevelt was hardly a saint who could do no wrong in many people’s eyes. Those of who remember the Reagan era can understand this, how he’s being viewed today as a great man America loved as president, when those of us who were around at the time know it wasn’t quite that simple.
Whether you agree with any of it, history has a way of glossing over certain things and generalizing pretty complex interactions. I agree that not enough time has passed. If you read books about the US Civil War that were written while the veterans were still around, then read books written after the last of them had passed in the 1960s, the perception of that war changed quite a bit.

 

[Spitfire]

Four pages in, and no-one has yet mentioned something I heard very recently from many American kids on a web forum - "You'd have been speaking German if not for us..." lol

Exactly! The most common misconception narrowed down to that line.

Seen from my part of the world it should rather be:
"We would all speak russian, if it hadn't been for us" (At least for some time)

 

[Shangas]

I think this is the type of general misconception that would be perfect for this article, which is intended for a general audience, not a scholarly one. Thanks, Shangas, for mentioning it.

You're welcome!

Pompidou,

I never believed that the Allies won simply by throwing their weight at the Axis. Not that they didn't, but just that such a...tactic...would never have won them the war. I think the Allies WON because they were innovative.

 

[Mark D]

The idea that the Allies won simply by throwing numbers at the Axis is the biggest one I've come across. It's like WWII was a game of Space Invaders, with the mighty individual German unit taking on wave after wave of Allied opposition till finally he can't take it anymore. Whether it's the "just keep throwing infantry at the problem whether they die or not" Soviet stereotype (that I believed till someone corrected me here, because it's what I was taught), or the apparently shoddily built Sherman tanks that were no match for a Panzer, but by sheer American wealth of resources could be pumped out en masse to win by attrition.

But, really it was a war of attrition. Please don't discount just how thin the Axis had spread itself such that it could no longer arm its troops in Russia or provide fuel in North Africa. I'm not convinced that the outcome would have been the same had there been no Barbarossa

 

[Shangas]

Your statement, Mark, reminded me of a joke I read once.

"Hitler wasn't insane. Hitler was stupid. You don't take on Russia AND America at the same time".

I can't remember where I heard it, but it always made me laugh.

I think there is another misconception, that may exist amongst Australians at least, that Australia (like America) was largely untouched by the War.

While Australia certainly was never invaded, it certainly did not escape unscathed like the United States. Because coastal Australia contained many harbours and airports and was an important Allied base in the Pacific theatre, it was in danger of enemy action just quite as much as any other place. Sydney Harbour was attacked by Japanese submarines and Darwin was famously bombed twice by the Japs during the War. Other cities and towns on Australia's west coast were also attacked by the Japs, but never in the same intensity as the Germans against the European Allies.

The importance of Australia's safety was significant. The Japanese had taken every other place in the South Pacific and the Americans needed Australia to stay free so that they could have safe maritime passage across the Pacific from one Allied country to the other. There's a famous incident where the Australian Prime Minister (John Curtin I think it was at the time), ordered Australian troops fighting in Africa, back to Australia to defend the homeland against a possible Japanese invasion. Japanese soldiers were invading Papua New Guinea (an Australian colony) and they had to be stopped. If my history serves right, such an action was against the direct orders of Winston Churchill, who wanted Aussie troops to remain in Africa. Curtin refused to allow this, saying that the safety of their own country was more important to Aussie troops than the safety of Africa.

So whoever thought that Australia was never directly affected by WWII (which believe me, is a fairly common misconception...I believed it myself until recently), needs to read up on their history again.

 

[Edward]

Uh, I already basically covered that further back, but not as bluntly.

Oh, yes, I saw that.... the specific 'would have been speaking German...' line is what I was particularly getting at, though. It really is shocking how often I see that one thrown out, and by folks who genuinely believe it. Made me start to wonder whether that is the version of history now being taught in some places? Don't get me wrong (as some of those folks do!), I don't for a minute believe that the US didn't have a very significant role in hastening the end of hostilities; there was also the not inconsiderably manner of US money rebuilding most of Western Europe under the Marshall Plan. It just seems odd that so many completely accept this alternative. Maybe because they might otherwise have to countenance the role of Soviet Russia in defeating Hitler? The point has been well made that Stalin was far from the pipe-smoking, cuddly Uncle Joe type, though I do sometimes wonder whether in this respect the misconception about "who won the war" arises from the assumption of Stalin as 'Bad Guy', born of Cold War thinking and forgetting that at one time his status as enemy of an enemy rendered him a 'friend'.

I do not ever, ever, ever believe...that the US just decided to come in when the time was JUST right for them to take all the glory. And neither do I believe that they all wanted to go to war. These days people tend to forget the isolationist tendencies that existed in the 'States during the 1930s. They already got themselves involved in one war that they didn't consider their fight, and they damn well weren't getting themselves involved in another war that they didn't consider their fight. THAT was why they kept out.

They joined IN because they finally woke up to the fact that if they didn't go to war, the war would come to them, no matter how isolationist and "not our business" they wanted to be. It had nothing at all to do with America "charging in to save the day!!!". They came in because they were FORCED to, because they had no other choice. It's got nothing to do with taking the glory and trying to save everyone else from hell.

Certainly, yes.

I think, even with Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt would have had a tough time convincing the American people to go to war against Germany - Japan would have been an easy sell - had Germany not declare war on the US.

That is in no way to denigrate America's input and dedication to the cause, I hasten to add, and all of the Allies attempts at avoiding the war were fully justified with the knowledge they had then, their recent experiences, and the inability to predict the future. American isolationism, British appeasement, and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact are all down to a very similar set of circumstances. The US leadership didn't think Europe was none of their business, but with the death toll of WWI, poor military preparation, the effects of the Great Depression, it would have been hard to convince them that it who controlled what in Europe was a big enough problem to waste lives on. Chamberlain didn't think Germany should have had the Sudetenland and Austria, but he was in no position to prevent it, he had enough problems at home, and the mechanisation of the military had yet to be completed. Stalin didn't think Hitler was a nice guy who he could sit around a fire sniffing brandy and discussing which bits of Europe they should each get: his officer corps was decimated, and as a war had brought in revolution in Russia once before, it wasn't difficult to expect it again.

Agreed. On that score also, it seems to me that Chamberlain has been ill-treated, as opposed to the (equally muddled, in my opinion) virtual canonisation of Churchill. The more I read about the immediate pre-war period, the more convinced I am that Britain simply was not militarily ready for a war on that scale in 1938. Chamberlain's ill-fated Munich agreement actually bought the Brits valuable time in which to get things up to speed before the real hostilities commenced. I've just started reading a book about RAF Bomber Command, and it has come as a great surprise to me just how primitively equipped they were in 1938. That aside, I am also of the view that Chamberlain deserves at least some credit for exploring whether there was an alternative to war. Not to say I consider myself an appeaser; actually, were it up to me, Hitler would have served at least a decade for the Munich Putsch, meaning it would have been around '35 when he got out of prison. How different a world that might have been, I wonder. Of course, there would still have been the simmering resentment of Versailles, but perhaps someone more in the Stresemann mould might have taken the helm...

I don't know how much of a misconception THIS one is, but I believe that there is such a misconception that the Blitz only affected London during the Second World War.

This of course, is not true. And unfortunately, because people think it IS true, finding reliable information (which is what I'm currently looking for, for a history assignment) can be tricky. The Blitz didn't JUST target London. It attacked almost every major British city. London, Bath, Coventry, Southampton and lots more that I couldn't possibly list. Granted, London was the city that was most heavily bombed, but it certainly wasn't the only one. Coventry was so completely near-annihilated that people almost thought about surrendering at that point.

Belfast was also bombed on a number of occasions. The first time, it is possible that a Luftwaffe raiding party went off course, but later on they were most likely aiming for the Harland and Wolf shipyards where a lot of British military ships were built during the war years.

On a side note, a relative of mine, I am told, sank a U-Boat in Belfast Lough. His navy superiors refused to believe him until he took them out in the ship to see it. No idea if bits of it are still there.... Now, as far as I know this is the same guy who claimed to have captained the Clyde Valley on a certain night in 1914 (and about which I offer no political commentary!). We don't know whether or not that is true, but he was decorate for sinking the U Boat.

The idea that the Allies won simply by throwing numbers at the Axis is the biggest one I've come across. It's like WWII was a game of Space Invaders, with the mighty individual German unit taking on wave after wave of Allied opposition till finally he can't take it anymore. Whether it's the "just keep throwing infantry at the problem whether they die or not" Soviet stereotype (that I believed till someone corrected me here, because it's what I was taught), or the apparently shoddily built Sherman tanks that were no match for a Panzer, but by sheer American wealth of resources could be pumped out en masse to win by attrition.

I think another misconception is the cowardice of the French. Sure they did have to surrender, but they had a thriving resistance movement even after the fact.

Indeed. The French really had it tough. It should not be forgotten that they had also suffered severely during the Great War, then on top of that were caught by a Blitzkrieg. I suspect their Eastern Border defences that were in place in the 30s were very much based around the post-Versailles arrangement with a demilitarised Rhineland.

Some members of my generation have the misconception that the United States entered the war only to put a stop to the Holocaust. But as we know, that wasn't the actual motive since the truth about what was happening in the concentration camps didn't come to light until after the Allies came to liberate the camps. Even most Germans didn't know the full extent of what was happening--the truth was so well-guarded.

Frankly, I don't think you can honestly blame any in Germany who suspected and did nothing about it out of fear they'd end up there too. amazing, the stories of brave individuals who went out of their way to do something, but I can't honestly say what I'd have done in that situation.

The other misconception that gets bandied around now also is that the Holocaust only affects Jews. While they were certainly the most persecuted single group and their suffering was terrible, they were far from the only group to be processed in the death camps. Communists, socialists, liberal intellectuals, Christian clergy who refused to fall in line with the Reichskirche and preach Hitler alongside Christ, the disabled (both mentally and physically), and on and on. Gay people were also sent straight to the concentration camps.... where they were subsequently often treated little better by their fellow inmates than by the Nazis.

 

[Edward]

Seen from my part of the world it should rather be:
"We would all speak russian, if it hadn't been for us" (At least for some time)

Very true, Spitfire.... and in parts of China, you could substitute '...would have been speaking Japanese...'

Here's another one I don't think we've touched on in this thread, though it has certainly caused flared tempers elsewhere on the Lounge before now:

"All Germans were Nazis." Given how politically (il)literate the average person on the street is at any given time, many of them probably cared little about the political situation in reality, at least until they started to lose the war. True, all German military swore an oath of loyalty to Hitler, but then he was head of state. I'm sure plenty of US military boys have pledged to serve loyally under a president of whom they do not approve, while in the British forces they took oaths of loyalty to the King. Not all of them would have been passionate royalists. This myth also comes from the same mindset that says "We, the allies, were the good guys and therefore could do no wrong". It wouldn't be the first time I was accused of being pro-Nazi for my view that the Dresden firebombing constituted a war crime. Binary thinking is so small minded. There are only 10 kinds of people in this respect: those who get that, and those who don't.

Ultimately, though, any and all of these myths are perpetuated because it's simply easier than addressing the complexities and nuances of real history.... which in turn makes it all the more important that we strive to keep the truth (insofar as anyone can claim to know that) alive.

 

[David Conwill]

I'm sure plenty of US military boys have pledged to serve loyally under a president of whom they do not approve, while in the British forces they took oaths of loyalty to the King.

Actually, in the United States we swear to support and defend the Constitution and to obey the orders of the President. That's not supposed to be a distinction without a difference.

Everybody keeps talking about 1938, but what about the re-militarization of the Rhineland in 1936? My understanding is that a large number of German soldiers were carrying dummy rifles for that campaign and it would have taken little to bite German expansion in the bud right then and there.

-Dave

 

[Atticus Finch]

I have always thought that the most important contribution made by the USA toward winning WWII was the quick mobilization of our tremendous productive capacity. Our military ended up being good, no doubt. But in the thirties and early forties, many countries had good militaries…much better than ours, truthfully.

On the other hand, no country in the world...at that time...could even come close to matching our ability to produce the machinery and supplies of war. And that, historically, is what wins wars.

AF

 

[LizzieMaine]

Actually, in the United States we swear to support and defend the Constitution and to obey the orders of the President. That's not supposed to be a distinction without a difference.

Everybody keeps talking about 1938, but what about the re-militarization of the Rhineland in 1936? My understanding is that a large number of German soldiers were carrying dummy rifles for that campaign and it would have taken little to bite German expansion in the bud right then and there.

-Dave

Nobody had the stomach for it then, either, except perhaps a few fire-breathers led by the London Daily Mirror, who were campaigning for Baldwin's ouster as Prime Minister and his replacement by Churchill, and a hard line against Germany. But they were very much in the minority.

 

[AmateisGal]

Here's another one I don't think we've touched on in this thread, though it has certainly caused flared tempers elsewhere on the Lounge before now:

"All Germans were Nazis." Given how politically (il)literate the average person on the street is at any given time, many of them probably cared little about the political situation in reality, at least until they started to lose the war. True, all German military swore an oath of loyalty to Hitler, but then he was head of state. I'm sure plenty of US military boys have pledged to serve loyally under a president of whom they do not approve, while in the British forces they took oaths of loyalty to the King. Not all of them would have been passionate royalists. This myth also comes from the same mindset that says "We, the allies, were the good guys and therefore could do no wrong". It wouldn't be the first time I was accused of being pro-Nazi for my view that the Dresden firebombing constituted a war crime. Binary thinking is so small minded. There are only 10 kinds of people in this respect: those who get that, and those who don't.

Another good one, Edward. I think I was probably under this impression for a long time until I undertook my master's thesis. It centered on the German POW camp at Fort Robinson, Nebraska, during the war. I discovered there were several Nazis AND anti-Nazis among the German soldiers. In fact, in my research, I uncovered a remarkable group called the Arbeitsgemeinschaft, started by an anti-Nazi, who wanted to introduce the other German soldiers to democracy. It became part of the re-education program of the War Department in our attempt to eradicate Nazism.

They had a few camps where they would send the "virulent Nazis" so they would quit causing trouble in the regular camps. There were many instances of the Nazis beating up other German soldiers who refused to give up their anti-Nazi tendencies. A fascinating subject, actually.

 

[martinsantos]

As we could add "all italians were fascist".

Of course the theme here is much more about USA. But here we got a severe restriction about german descendants. My family had trouble - and they came here in 1860s! But then they couldn't speak german and a lot of books were confiscated (my grandma always laught about a Goethe's anthology confiscated. Of course the political police didn't know anything about german literature!!). German food restaurants were closed.

With italians everything was softer... They couldn't speak in italian in streets (here in São Paulo there were so many italians that you could think to be in an italian city!), and of course some clubs were closed (these clubs were stimulated before, because the dictator here, Getulio Vargas, was really a fascist). But nothing happened with italian reastaurants. Why? Everybody loves italian food...

"All Germans were Nazis." Given how politically (il)literate the average person on the street is at any given time, many of them probably cared little about the political situation in reality, at least until they started to lose the war. True, all German military swore an oath of loyalty to Hitler, but then he was head of state. I'm sure plenty of US military boys have pledged to serve loyally under a president of whom they do not approve, while in the British forces they took oaths of loyalty to the King. Not all of them would have been passionate royalists. This myth also comes from the same mindset that says "We, the allies, were the good guys and therefore could do no wrong". It wouldn't be the first time I was accused of being pro-Nazi for my view that the Dresden firebombing constituted a war crime. Binary thinking is so small minded. There are only 10 kinds of people in this respect: those who get that, and those who don't.

Ultimately, though, any and all of these myths are perpetuated because it's simply easier than addressing the complexities and nuances of real history.... which in turn makes it all the more important that we strive to keep the truth (insofar as anyone can claim to know that) alive.

 

[Edward]

Actually, in the United States we swear to support and defend the Constitution and to obey the orders of the President. That's not supposed to be a distinction without a difference.

Sure, I see the difference there, but even so, in the present day US - a democratic country, as opposed to the dictatorship Hitler had established by the time he became militarily engaged - there must be many military men who have served in campaigns ordered by a CiC whom they may not personally support, and yet whose orders they must carry out, even if not personally pledged to him directly (In that respect, yes, the British Crown is probably a closer direct comparison). In short, I think it over-simplified and mistaken to assume that all in a given country's army at any one time fully supports the leadership / those calling the shots on foregin (or, indeed, domestic) policy.

Everybody keeps talking about 1938, but what about the re-militarization of the Rhineland in 1936? My understanding is that a large number of German soldiers were carrying dummy rifles for that campaign and it would have taken little to bite German expansion in the bud right then and there.

-Dave

Well, while the Rhineland was demilitarised under Versailles, it was still German territory, as opposed to the Sudentenland which had been carved out to form part of the new nation of Czechoslovakia. The Western Allies had, it seems to me, become somewhat more conciliatory towards Germany in later years, and were prepared to relax some of the more punitive terms of Versailles which had (much influenced by Clemenceau, in my understanding), been primarily intended to humiliate Germany. The Versailles limitations on the German armed forces would have left Germany unable to wage even a significant defensive war. It would seem to me that the image of the German Goosey Gander wandering into its own backyard in the Rhineland was not perceived as a threat to anyone else, whereas the Sudentenland, which of course led on to the complete takeover of Czechslovakia was a different kettle of fish. That's the way I read it at this distance anyhow, though I agree that Hitler could have been more easily turned back at that point. Still, I'm not sure that that would have stopped it flaring up eventually - Hitler as much as anything was an opportunist who took lethal advantage of the already extant political situation, rather than instigating the conditions that led to the support that raised him to power and beyond.

 

[dhermann1]

The Maginot Line

The whole French question deserves a thread of its own. France's problem was not lack of military courage, it was the lack of political cohesion. That, plus the ultra reactionary clique that ran the army. They were REALLY ready to fight the last war.
One great fallacy that I'd like to toss into the fire was that the Maginot Line was a failure or was ineffective. That fact was that it was extremely effective, as far as it went. The line, however only faced against Germany, not against neutral Belgium. It was assumed the Germans would not violate Belgian neutrality. Toward the end of the 30's there was an attempt to build up the unprotected areas with something comparable to the Maginot Line, but it was not nearly as well developed or effective. So when Germany invaded, they went around the Maginot Line, and shocked the hell out of the French High Command.