Misconceptions About World War II

I'd argue that if America had launched the first strike against the USSR, immediately after WWII, they could have won by quite a large margin. The Russians spent a fair few years nuke-less, and would have had no practical way to respond to a massed nuclear attack other than attempting fighter interception.

Random fact: Seasons travel north across Britain at just below walking speed. If one were to plant daffodils, for example, along a perfectly straight North/South road, they could walk along it and see daffodils opening exactly as they passed, as long as their timing was good enough.

I dunno if this is true or not, or I could have misheard it when I watched some old War World II documentary show with my dad once, but apparently there are some documents from the war that are sealed away from the public and will not be revealed until the year 3000 or something.

The various governments have different standards for document classification. It was only very recently that Alan Turing was recognized as a key figure in the creation of the modern computer because all of his work on cracking the Enigma was kept classified for half a century, and there's still some of it that's not open to the public, IIRC. Likewise the title of "first computer" is made difficult because of how many details of early, government-funded, computer projects are still classified.

In the UK's case, they kept much of it secret in part because, post-WWII, they sold Enigmas to former colonies so that they could eavesdrop on their encrypted traffic. Even after they stopped doing that, they didn't want it to get out that that's what they'd done.


I don't know about year 3000, but I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't hundreds, if not thousands, of documents marked to never be declassified.

Originally Posted by Shinespark

-Winston Churchill was an extremely bloodthirsty leader for the situation at the time.

Even after WWII had ended, he wanted to execute another plan called "Project Unthinkable", which basically means that he wanted to start World War III before most people could even realize that WWII was over. He wanted the USA to get involved after hearing about its successful nuclear weapon tests, in hopes of kicking the USSR's ass. However, president Truman was just being logical here and decided that this was a completely stupid idea. He dropped out, informing Churchill of the possible consequences. After some consideration, Churchill decided to abolish the idea. Had the war happened, the Soviets would've easily kicked the crap out of England, or in other words, Truman would be sitting there telling Churchill, "I told you so.".

I don't agree with this. Your facts are correct, but I don't think they support your conclusion necessarily that Churchill was a bloodthirsty leader (though note, I think it is possible to use other facts to support this conclusion--e.g. his views on imperialism), Churchill, during the course of his war time leadership, had witnessed the Soviet Union unilaterally invade Finland in order to annex more territory, had seen it launch a joint invasion of Poland along with Nazi Germany in 1939, and had witnessed it systematically undermine every non Russophile communist political party or ideology in Eastern Europe while local leaders and governments were suddenly replaced with Moscow loyalists. I think Churchill believed that this pattern of behavior evidenced that Soviet ambitions were not too dissimilar from German territorial ambitions--the two simply collided. I think he viewed this conflict as inevitable and decided that if the Soviet Union had to be fought, it should be fought while the Allies had a good army in Europe to do it with. I think Operation Unthinkable can be characterized as foolhardy and delusional (and certainly the British General Staff thought so), but I really don't think it can be characterized as bloodthirsty per se.

Also, not to overstate the point, but even if Truman was acting logically, he was also acting incredibly naive. When Truman first met Stalin at Potsdam, he said "I think I can do business with Stalin. He's very honest, but he's also smart as hell." I think the Cold War is evidence enough that he ruefully recanted this opinion. And thus when the Second World War ended, the Soviets strengthened their position in Eastern Europe and other occupied territory while the US demobilized--confident that nuclear weapons would be able to a worthy substitute for costly conventional armies. Truman did not know that the Soviet Union would have the bomb a few years later, or countenance that the United States--having liberated most of Western Europe--would see its armies fighting for survival on the Korean Peninsula.

Churchill thus ended the Second World War depressed--feeling that a war fought over an autocratic dictatorship invading Poland had ended merely by seeing the dictators change, but the situation remaining the same. Though, I do feel that Churchill's intuitions and approach was vindicated by history far more than Truman's.

If you removed your intestines and stretched them end to end along a straight line you would die.

Originally Posted by Shinespark

-Had Giuseppe Zangara assassinated Franklin D. Roosevelt, all hell would break loose after WWII.

Had FDR been killed, Vice President Garner would've taken office, and he would've taken isolationism over entering World War II, thus leaving the Europeans to fight WWII without America's help. After defeating the Allied forces, the Axis Powers supposedly turn to conquering the US, which they succeed in doing. Because Hitler is alive but debilitated by syphilis, his under-Fuhrer starts the Mein Kampff agenda, or wiping out all of Earth's inferior races.

(This last one is a bit sketchy because most is based on theory, but a lot of it is backed up with the plans that the Axis Powers had during the war.).

This assumes that the allied powers would have come out below the axis powers if the United States hadn't participated.

Originally Posted by AzraelBlack

Completely governed by fascists? Nope.

Admittedly, a change that subtle would be difficult to notice.

Originally Posted by Shinespark

-Winston Churchill was an extremely bloodthirsty leader for the situation at the time.

Even after WWII had ended, he wanted to execute another plan called "Project Unthinkable", which basically means that he wanted to start World War III before most people could even realize that WWII was over. He wanted the USA to get involved after hearing about its successful nuclear weapon tests, in hopes of kicking the USSR's ass. However, president Truman was just being logical here and decided that this was a completely stupid idea. He dropped out, informing Churchill of the possible consequences. After some consideration, Churchill decided to abolish the idea. Had the war happened, the Soviets would've easily kicked the crap out of England, or in other words, Truman would be sitting there telling Churchill, "I told you so.".

Source

You really have NO idea, do you? Operation Unthinkable was just that, an UNTHINKABLE decision that Churchill drew up JUST IN CASE war between the allies and the USSR erupted. Stalin and Hitler where very much alike, and Churchill knew that the situation in 1945 was exactly the same as that 5 years previous- a bloodthirsty, expansionist dictator ruling half the continent. Churchill did not want a war for the sake of war, he just wanted Europe to be free of expansionist dictators.
Not only that, but it is highly conceivable that the Western Allies could have defeated the Soviets in 1945/6. Soviet troops marched on Berlin in 1945 wearing American made boots and driving in American made trucks. The Soviet logistic train would have ground to a halt for lack of spare parts had this supply stopped. Coupled with Partisan attacks in Poland, East Germany, the Baltic states and the Balkans, the Soviets would have found it very difficult to move anything anywhere.

Second, Allied air power was by far superior than the Soviets. Not only where the best Soviet aircraft supplied by Western nations, but high performance fighter aircraft such as the P-51 outclassed anything the Soviets could build. The Allies also had advanced jet aircraft, such as the British Gloster Meteor. The Soviet air force would have been shot out of the sky by the veteran Allied fighter pilots, hardened by years of duelling the cream of the Luftwaffe. Shooting down waves of obsolete bombers hardly made the Soviet aircrews good pilots. A USAAF P-51 pilot hardened by dozens of missions escorting bombers over the Reich would have been a far better pilot.

The Allied tactical airpower was also second to none. Typhoons, Tempests and Thunderbolts had been the Panzer crews worst nightmare on the Western front, and the B-25s and Mosquitos had wrought Havoc on the German supply lines. Substituting Tigers for IS-2s and French railway yards for German ones would have not impacted the stunning effectiveness of the allied Tactical air forces. Soviet tank columns would be reduced to that of Panzers in Normandy- hiding by day and only moving by night. The waves of T-35s would not be much use when the trains carrying their ammunition are a smoking heap of scrap on some east Germany railway line. The much feared Soviet artillery barrages would have little effect after their crews had been blown to pieces by a hail of 20mm shells, courtesy of the Royal Air Force.

Allied Strategic airpower would have left the Motherland a pile of ruins. The oilfields of the Caucasus would have been rendered useless by the Allied heavy bomber forces, causing the entire Soviet offensive to grind to a halt. Lack of fuel had crippled the Germans in 1944, and the same would happen to the Soviets. Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev and others would resemble Berlin or Dresden after a few months of sustained bombing- and this is without even mentioning the Atomic bomb. Moscow would certainly have been obliterated at the first opportunity, and hopefully along with Stalin and the Politburo. It is entirely possible for the entire Soviet system to completely collapse. This would be the quickest way to end the war.

However, if a nuclear strike on Moscow did not result in a Soviet collapse, the Red Army would have found it VERY difficult to take any ground. If they fired the first shots and caught the Allies by surprise, then they would be able to make short gains before the Westerners could regroup. However, if, as per Op. Unthinkable, the Allies launched a pre emptive strike, then the Soviets would be on the back foot. The United States still had plenty of fight left in it, although the British and it's Commonwealth (as well as the French and other Allied forces) would certainly not have played a large role. Marshall Aid would have been a low priority, but a continuation of Lend-Lease would have allowed Britain and others to still play a role, even if just a small one.

Even in terms of land warfare, the Allied forces where far superior. With much better logistics and combat engineering capabilities, the standard US Infantry division was a much greater fighting force than the average Soviet Rifle division. Much greater mobility and internal fire support, coupled with close air support, provided a huge force multiplier for the US troops. Allied Armour was also far superior. The later models of the famous M4 Sherman where FAR superior than even the T34/85, and Allied Heavy tanks (such as the Pershing, although heavier British tanks such as the Comet and even the Centurion where also of very high quality) could certainly beat the Soviet heavies such as the IS series. And like the German heavy tanks before them, the Soviet heavy tanks would have been much more of a liability rather than as an asset.


In short, Operation Unthinkable was not just a bloodthirsty scheme of Churchill, nor would it have resulted in Britain getting it's butt kicked. It might have actually resulted in Europe finally being free of expansionist dictators, instead of having to wait until the 1990s.

Originally Posted by Shinespark

Had FDR been killed, Vice President Garner would've taken office, and he would've taken isolationism over entering World War II, thus leaving the Europeans to fight WWII without America's help. After defeating the Allied forces, the Axis Powers supposedly turn to conquering the US, which they succeed in doing. Because Hitler is alive but debilitated by syphilis, his under-Fuhrer starts the Mein Kampff agenda, or wiping out all of Earth's inferior races.

Two words. Pearl. Harbour.

Germany declared war on the US of it's own accord.

Originally Posted by Shinespark

-Hitler WASN'T an evil genius.

He absolutely FAILED at school, and most of the Nazi attacks weren't planned by him, including the invasion and fall of France. None of that was his doing.

Source

I don't know much about his education, but him failing to get into art school was largely down to him being bad at drawing people and faces. As weird as it is to say this (and I'm not a supporter in Hitler in anyway whatsoever), he was actually pretty good at drawing architecture.

I don't know how exactly you're defining "genius" here, but Hitler certainly knew what he was doing during his rise to power. Hitler was a good speaker and he knew it. He used this greatly to his advantage, as it helped him to gain supporters and made people share his views. When Hitler was appointed Chancellor, von Papen believed they would be able to subdue him and that was clearly not the case. Hitler soon got his hands on governmental powers that allowed him to eliminate his political opponents. This assured him his dictatorial powers that the Enabling Act gave him with his two thirds majority. From there he made Germany become a one party state under the Nazis, yadda yadda yadda and then with the death of Hindenburg he became Führer with nobody to stop him.

Yeah, by that point Hindenburg was going senile, but becoming Führer most certainly required intelligence and was largely down to him. Maybe you could say Hilter was not an Evil Genius in the sense that Einstein was (the genius part, not the evil bit).

And I don't quite see the relevance of him not planning attacks. Isn't that the job of generals and stuff any way?



Also the source you gave was the most biased article I've read which still attempts to be legitimate, just saying.

I think Rhian may have just owned that idea.

I'm sticking with nukes, though. The allied airforce was far superior, and the russians may have not developed their own nukes for decades unless someone had told them first (and pretty much stopping this whole concept).

Realistically, the only thing stopping 'operation unthinkable' from turning into 'nuke every Russian city until they surrender' was ethics. And those aren't strong deterrents in warfare.

@Ottsil: Let's not forget Main Kampf. A book that played a large role in radically changing the ideals of a country, and getting said country to re-elect a man who had just tried to attack their seats of office.

Would we elect a prime minister who tried to take the house of lords by force?

Originally Posted by Dovahkiin

You really have NO idea, do you? Operation Unthinkable was just that, an UNTHINKABLE decision that Churchill drew up JUST IN CASE war between the allies and the USSR erupted. Stalin and Hitler where very much alike, and Churchill knew that the situation in 1945 was exactly the same as that 5 years previous- a bloodthirsty, expansionist dictator ruling half the continent. Churchill did not want a war for the sake of war, he just wanted Europe to be free of expansionist dictators.
Not only that, but it is highly conceivable that the Western Allies could have defeated the Soviets in 1945/6. Soviet troops marched on Berlin in 1945 wearing American made boots and driving in American made trucks. The Soviet logistic train would have ground to a halt for lack of spare parts had this supply stopped. Coupled with Partisan attacks in Poland, East Germany, the Baltic states and the Balkans, the Soviets would have found it very difficult to move anything anywhere.

Second, Allied air power was by far superior than the Soviets. Not only where the best Soviet aircraft supplied by Western nations, but high performance fighter aircraft such as the P-51 outclassed anything the Soviets could build. The Allies also had advanced jet aircraft, such as the British Gloster Meteor. The Soviet air force would have been shot out of the sky by the veteran Allied fighter pilots, hardened by years of duelling the cream of the Luftwaffe. Shooting down waves of obsolete bombers hardly made the Soviet aircrews good pilots. A USAAF P-51 pilot hardened by dozens of missions escorting bombers over the Reich would have been a far better pilot.

The Allied tactical airpower was also second to none. Typhoons, Tempests and Thunderbolts had been the Panzer crews worst nightmare on the Western front, and the B-25s and Mosquitos had wrought Havoc on the German supply lines. Substituting Tigers for IS-2s and French railway yards for German ones would have not impacted the stunning effectiveness of the allied Tactical air forces. Soviet tank columns would be reduced to that of Panzers in Normandy- hiding by day and only moving by night. The waves of T-35s would not be much use when the trains carrying their ammunition are a smoking heap of scrap on some east Germany railway line. The much feared Soviet artillery barrages would have little effect after their crews had been blown to pieces by a hail of 20mm shells, courtesy of the Royal Air Force.

Allied Strategic airpower would have left the Motherland a pile of ruins. The oilfields of the Caucasus would have been rendered useless by the Allied heavy bomber forces, causing the entire Soviet offensive to grind to a halt. Lack of fuel had crippled the Germans in 1944, and the same would happen to the Soviets. Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev and others would resemble Berlin or Dresden after a few months of sustained bombing- and this is without even mentioning the Atomic bomb. Moscow would certainly have been obliterated at the first opportunity, and hopefully along with Stalin and the Politburo. It is entirely possible for the entire Soviet system to completely collapse. This would be the quickest way to end the war.

However, if a nuclear strike on Moscow did not result in a Soviet collapse, the Red Army would have found it VERY difficult to take any ground. If they fired the first shots and caught the Allies by surprise, then they would be able to make short gains before the Westerners could regroup. However, if, as per Op. Unthinkable, the Allies launched a pre emptive strike, then the Soviets would be on the back foot. The United States still had plenty of fight left in it, although the British and it's Commonwealth (as well as the French and other Allied forces) would certainly not have played a large role. Marshall Aid would have been a low priority, but a continuation of Lend-Lease would have allowed Britain and others to still play a role, even if just a small one.

Even in terms of land warfare, the Allied forces where far superior. With much better logistics and combat engineering capabilities, the standard US Infantry division was a much greater fighting force than the average Soviet Rifle division. Much greater mobility and internal fire support, coupled with close air support, provided a huge force multiplier for the US troops. Allied Armour was also far superior. The later models of the famous M4 Sherman where FAR superior than even the T34/85, and Allied Heavy tanks (such as the Pershing, although heavier British tanks such as the Comet and even the Centurion where also of very high quality) could certainly beat the Soviet heavies such as the IS series. And like the German heavy tanks before them, the Soviet heavy tanks would have been much more of a liability rather than as an asset.


In short, Operation Unthinkable was not just a bloodthirsty scheme of Churchill, nor would it have resulted in Britain getting it's butt kicked. It might have actually resulted in Europe finally being free of expansionist dictators, instead of having to wait until the 1990s.

I know, I changed the title of the post earlier, bloodthirsty is far too extreme for what the article said. Sorry.

I wasn't saying that he was evil or anything, but my main focus was that he was about to start a pretty bad (or good) conflict had it not been for a few decisions that both Churchill and Truman made. And since WWII had just ended, the plan was, as you said, unthinkable. Also, in the article is said that Unthinkable was a bit of Churchill's idea of a preemptive war with the Soviet Union. I guess that's where I got the whole idea of "bloodthirsty". :/

Although, what you said about the Allies' air forces is very true, and in the article they didn't seem to talk about that, only about the land and climate in Russia.

I think I'll go ahead and remove this one, since it's causing a big conflict and doesn't seem to be as factual and accurate as what Cracked seems to make it (especially since it's a comedy website, it makes sense that it would end up like this. ).

Again, if you guys wish for me to remove one of the facts I said, correct one of them, or add something to one of them, I'll gladly do so. Sorry for that one.

Oh, the terrain in Russia would not be a factor. By the time the Allies reached Berlin, let alone Warsaw and the Russian border, the USSR would have been in ruins.

Originally Posted by Mister Blak

@Ottsil: Let's not forget Main Kampf. A book that played a large role in radically changing the ideals of a country, and getting said country to re-elect a man who had just tried to attack their seats of office.

Would we elect a prime minister who tried to take the house of lords by force?

Mein Kampf never really changed the ideals of the country, it just aimed at bringing old ones back from the days of the Kaiser. The Treaty of Versailles really ♥♥♥♥ed Germany up. Throughout history the Germans have had this thing of liking to be ruled by a powerful leader, and the Weimar Republic completely stripped them of that. It also limited their army to 100,000 men which was a huge change for a country which took so much pride in it's army. The whole Aryan race thing was kinda out of the blue as to reflecting Germany however.

Well you've got to consider the circumstances surrounding the time of the Munich Putsch. It was the same year as the Ruhr Crisis, and there was still bitterness amongst Germans on the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. There were people, along with Hitler (naturally) that thought that the Putsch was excusable which is why he got off with such a light sentence. But throughout his life Hitler played on the weaknesses of the government, such as the huge effect the Wall St. Crash had on Germany. This was a large factor into the Nazis rapidly gaining support and Hitler took full advantage of it.

And Hitler wasn't exactly elected into power. Hindenburg and von Papen appointed him Chancellor, but their reasons for that were largely due to the presence the Nazi Party had.

Just a small mod note: A lot of conversation is going on about WWII. If you guys want to continue discussing it, I might suggest moving it into its own thread. If that conversation continues then we might just do that.

(and this is in itself an insane fact of the world!)

Alright, upon the request of a few members who partook in this conversation, I have moved the posts relating to WWII to its own thread. The main topic is misconceptions about the war.

Feel free to discuss while bearing in mind this is now under Serious Discussion moderation.

Originally Posted by Mister Blak

I'd argue that if America had launched the first strike against the USSR, immediately after WWII, they could have won by quite a large margin. The Russians spent a fair few years nuke-less, and would have had no practical way to respond to a massed nuclear attack other than attempting fighter interception.

A popular argument, however:
1. USSR was an ally and the war was coming to a close. It wouldn't have been a popular move to go to war.
2. The US has a mountain of debt (the largest amount in history). It wouldn't afford it.
3. Europe was devastated and it needed immediate attention.
4. It would have been unprovoked and there was no way of knowing that the USSR would have engaged in a Cold War (even though it was a bit predictable)/

Just a bit of input to the US military's agenda. George Patton petitioned Eisenhower and congress to keep going and attack the USSR after capturing Berlin. He was wisely shot down, but if it was practical and successful, it may have saved some trouble in the years to come.

If we had attacked USSR, we would not have known the significance since there wouldn't have been a Cold War.

It would have been seen as an unnecessary act of aggression, neglecting Europe.

Uh, is this one of those threads where it was split off from a side discussion on another thread? If so, can somebody please link to it so I can see what the hell is going on? Confused Hell Hawk is confused.

Anyway:
Even with nukes, it's unlikely the Allies would have been able to defeat the Soviet Union at all, much less in a timely manner. Stalin would probably be too stubborn to surrender even if you did nuke them. Thus, to beat the Soviets, you would actually have to conquer them. This would be nearly impossible. The Soviets had essentially made a massive fortress that stretched from Poland to the Urals, they had a numerical advantage over the Allies, and their industrial capability was still mostly intact.
If the Allies had attacked the Soviets, it would have resulted in another protracted war that the Allies would likely lose.

@Helhawk.

I may have gotten the wrong end of the stick here, but I don't think you realise just how badly this would have gone or the Russians. The Allies could have destroyed EVERY MAJOR RUSSIAN CITY without deploying a single man on the ground. Nukes and a far superior airforce gave them what was basically an off switch; flip it, and off goes a Russian city. The Russians would have difficulty retaliating, as that would require transporting troops overland, leaving them susceptible to (once again) nuclear strikes, or even a mere massive air attack.

The thing about nukes at that time was that there was no real defense.

Straight from Tumblr.

The best thing was that Napoleon made the same mistake and Hitler didn’t even learn from it, he was just like, ‘no it’ll work for me because I’m Hitler and this is destiny so ♥♥♥♥ you’.

Guy was a politician, not a strategist.

I don't know enough about World War II, to be honest.

Originally Posted by Mister Blak

@Helhawk.

I may have gotten the wrong end of the stick here, but I don't think you realise just how badly this would have gone or the Russians. The Allies could have destroyed EVERY MAJOR RUSSIAN CITY without deploying a single man on the ground. Nukes and a far superior airforce gave them what was basically an off switch; flip it, and off goes a Russian city. The Russians would have difficulty retaliating, as that would require transporting troops overland, leaving them susceptible to (once again) nuclear strikes, or even a mere massive air attack.

The thing about nukes at that time was that there was no real defense.

True, but remember we only had a few nukes available at the time, and those had taken considerable time to make. Nuclear weapons were in no way an exact science yet; they weren't able to yet be produced on the scale needed to actually make them useful in real warfar; they were only good for shock and awe. And as I said, I really doubt Stalin would surrender to a shock and awe attack.

What is often overlooked is the fact that the US only had three nukes available at the time. One was used on Hiroshima, one on Nagasaki, and the third would have been used on Tokyo had the Japanese not surrendered. However, if the Japanese had continued to resist after that, it would have taken months to build more nukes. During that time, the United States would have had to go back to traditional warfare.

So, lets say instead, we completely ignored Japan (which would probably bite us in the ass later) and used those three nukes on the Soviet Union. You could take out Moscow, Leningrad, and whatever the third largest Russian target would be. As I said, Stalin didn't really give a damn about casualties, so he probably would not surrender,. If he was killed in the attack, the country would probably be put in the hands of the military, who also wouldn't have surrendered . We would have exhausted our ready supply of nukes, and it would take months to make more. During that time, we would have to use conventional warfare again. I trust I don't need to explain why we would lose a conventional war in Russia?

So no, the nukes wouldn't have really helped; there simply weren't enough to make a difference.

However, even if they did have enough nukes, they would not be able to use them correctly. I suggest you look into Operation Downfall; the proposed idea of invading Japan should the nukes fail. The ideas of fallout and radiation were not understood yet; there were plans to send US soldiers into bombed areas immediatly after the bombing. If the allies had actually done this, they would have ended up having thousands of deaths from radiation poisoning.