Chief_Darkcloud

Here are some WW2 myths which I find rather amusing from my fellow armchair historians.

1. The myth that somehow Japan should have attacked Russia in 1941 to support Barbarossa. Japan lacked the logistics and mechanized forces to wage war in the vast wasteland of Siberia. Why would they fall on the sword and create another front for themselves while bogged down in China just to help Adolf? Even the most obsolete Soviet tanks would run circles around anything Japan had and not broken a sweat. The tanks Japan had in 1941 were so bad they made Italy's tanks look like Tiger/panther tanks

2. The myth that Operation Sealion could have conquered the UK. Those Rhine river barges would have made nice targets for the royal navy. Even if they managed to survive long enough to land how would the Germans resupply them? Germany lacked the expertise and capacity let alone the navy to pull this off. Even the combined industrial might of USA/UK/Canada/ect had a hard time in 1944 after years of experience and preparation.

3. The myth that the Axis should have focused more on the middle east to gain oil. One of my favorite myths since somehow I find it hard to believe the British would just hand over those oil wells intact. Also in the 1940's most of those oil wells were not developed as we know them today. USA was the Arabia of the 1940's and accounted for most of the worlds oil exports. Even if the Axis somehow captured the middle east how were they going to ship that oil back to mainland Europe for further refinement? They had a hard enough time supplying the Afrika Korp between Italy/Libya.

Just a couple that come to mind. Would like to hear others or discussion if you disagree with my original three.

Kind Regards

deadkenny

I'm not sure that the Japanese tanks stacked up that poorly against the earlier Soviets models (BT's etc.). However, clearly the Soviets had the advantage and I more or less agree. Usually those making the statement are considering matters only from the German perspective - in which case of course Japan 'should have' attacked the Soviets after the Germans did, in order to tie down Soviet forces. However, this made little sense from the Japanese perspective. The Soviets had handily beaten the Japanese at Khalkin Gol, and that was a preview of what the Japanese might expect. Furthermore, what did the Japanese stand to gain? Siberia? From the Japanese perspective, the Dutch East Indies were alot more valuable and apparently easier to take.

As it was constituted historically, I tend to agree that Sealion wasn't a viable proposition. However, I do believe that you are not considering two important factors. One was German air power, both the ability to airlift troops and supplies to Britain, and the ability to attack the RN operating in the Channel. Historically the RN took a beating off Norway and Greece / Crete, and in the Med in general. Operating in the Channel, with even more nearby German airbases would have been very costly for the RN. The other factor is simply that in the summer of 1940, the British defenses would have been much weaker than what the Allies faced in Normandy in 1944. IMHO the Germans would have had to both capture the BEF at Dunkirk, and follow up much more quickly with invasion preparations to have a decent shot at succeeding. However, given the situation, I do not believe it was outside the realm of possiblity. The Germans simply didn't do what was necessary to make it possible.

In the short term I agree. The real threat was longer term. The Afrika Korps was not originally tasked with conquering Egypt and the Middle East / Persian Gulf - it was originally just intended to help avoid the Italians getting kicked out of North Africa completely (at the time it was sent the Italians had been routed and had already lost half of Libya). Later, as the German forces in the Soviet Union advanced into the Caucasus, a second 'prong' converging with it through Egypt looked good - on paper at least. If the Germans had succeeded to that extent, it is possible that Turkey might have felt pressured to the extent of allowing transit rights. However, I agree that, given the forces committed to North Africa, an independent drive through Egypt and into the Middle East / Persian Gulf wasn't really feasible.

corrocamino

The greatest myth about any war is that war is noble.

sylla1

Couldn't agree any more.

In the end, I guess "myth" simply means "I disagree"; I certainly tend to disagree with the three statements of the OP, as it was so eloquently explained by Kenny.

Sydor

Myth: M1-Garand can not be reloaded until all bullets are spent. And, if you do attempt a reload than your thumb will be sliced off.


False, as demonstrated in the below clip.


This myth was popularized because experienced soldiers would shoot their remaining ammo during battle as it was easier and quicker than doing a proper midclip reload.
As for thumbs being sliced off, while a Garand Thumb does hurt its like closing a door on a finger and nothing like losing an actual thumb.

diddyriddick

WWII myths...

The German army was fully mechanized. While the Heer had mechanized units, these were the exceptions, rather than the rule.

The japanese raid destroyed the american navy at Pearl Harbor. Naval warfare in WWII was dominated by aircraft carriers and submarines. In fact, Yamamoto's attack didn't put a scratch in a single Pacific fleet aircraft carrier or submarine. Old Battleships saw limited service in the Pacific, mostly in an invasion support role.

Sydor

Even a number of the Panzer Divisions had troops who never had motorized transportation. It was typically the premier armored divisions, i.e. Das Reich, that had motorized transportation for everyone.


German logistics, contrary to Hollywood scenes of roadside ambushes on trucks, were largely conducted by animal transportation (wagons). I think our generation has trouble comprehending that vehicles back then were rare. Even up until the 1950s, some people in London were still using horse drawn carriages.



Such this thread on Axis History,
obviously pack animals weren't used the entire way (that's what trains were for) but you could only take a train so far until the tracks ended.

You can have all the missiles you want but nothing has more rate of fire, impact and bang for buck like a Battleship firing rounds built back in the 40s. We also learned in Lebanon in the 1980s, with the USS Iowa, that sometimes just a huge Battleship (without even firing) is enough to stop a revolt.

diddyriddick

A Marine's best friend!

Belloc

Japan's defeat by the Soviet in 1939 blocked any potential invasion of Siberia in support of Barbarossa. The Navy faction gained the upper hand by then.

Krystian

Polish Cavalry attacked german Tanks.

This myth was produced by the german propaganda after a group of polish mounted scouts were surrounded by german tanks and in order to escape they had to run in their dirrection and try to slip between them. While to some this might look like a charge they didn't actually try to hit the tanks with swords as the germans lied afterwords, but jsut escape. Even though 71 years have passed since then i still hear that BS from time to time. Yet none of the people that repeat this myth know when i ask them that the germans lost 993 tanks and armoured cars, along with 697 planes and 50,000 men in just a little more than a month in Poland.