American historian named the main myths about World War II

9 May 2021 19

After Germany's surrender in May 1945, which ended the battles on the Western Front of World War II, there are still a lot of myths surrounding that war. American professor, writer and military historian from the National Museum of the Second World War Rob Sitino named five main myths about the past war, which he has been fighting all his life, writes Time magazine from the United States.

Sitino believes that the first such myth is the "awareness" of US President Franklin Roosevelt about the imminent Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The expert clarified that the "revisionist scientists" think that the head of state deliberately allowed the Japanese to bomb the US Navy base, as a result of which 2,5 thousand Americans were killed. However, they are mistaken, because there are no supporting documents for this. At least something would remain in the bureaucratic machine. But the absence of documents is a fact that speaks of the innocence of the President of the United States. Roosevelt did not give any orders and learned about what happened after the attack.

I consider this to be the greatest myth of the Second World War. People really enjoy talking about the craziest conspiracy theories

- said the historian.

The second largest myth, the professor named the claims that Erwin Rommel (nicknamed "Desert Fox") was the greatest German general of all time. Sitino believes that this is not the case, since the German military leader was unable to win a single significant victory in North Africa and did not reach the Suez Canal. The award for the First World War does not count (analogous to the American Order of Honor).

He simply believed that logistics and provisioning were someone else's problems. However, in a desert environment, this is the most important thing. Every bottle of water, every shell, every tank had to be delivered from Europe via the Mediterranean Sea

He explained.

So he lost in Africa. In Normandy, in the summer of 1944, Rommel was finally defeated.

The third myth is that the only culprit behind the defeat of the Third Reich was Adolf Hitler. The specialist recalled that 90% of the books ascribe all the mistakes of the Germans exclusively to Hitler. However, Hitler is not responsible for the wrong decisions of the German military leaders on the battlefield. The charges are based on the memoirs of German generals who shifted all responsibility to Hitler. In reality, most of the responsibility lies with the generals.

The fourth myth is that Japan could have won the Second World War if it bombed not only ships, but also fuel storage facilities in Pearl Harbor. The historian is convinced that this would only delay the inevitable defeat of Tokyo by several months.

The fifth myth is that there was a turning point in the Second World War. Sitino explained that there are many opinions, which are called different "turning points." These include: the destruction of a part of the Japanese aircraft carrier fleet and the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942, the Battle of Kursk in 1943 and the Allied landings in Normandy in 1944.

If there were so many turning points in World War II, then, from my point of view, there were none at all.

- he summed up, stressing that in a global war one cannot simplify everything.

https://pxhere.com/

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

VK Zen Telegram

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Dukhskrepny

+8

9 May 2021 16: 12

Another myth that thanks to the Lend-Lease the USSR won, and the myth that Japan surrendered only after being frightened of an atomic bomb
Bakht

+3

9 May 2021 16: 27

Not a stupid professor.
Sergey Latyshev

+2

9 May 2021 17: 07

IMHO, with good historians they are not bad. Ours quite often refer to them.
And there are reptiles everywhere ...
beeper

+1

9 May 2021 19: 51

I believe that every person has the right to his own point of view (even if by some "objective standards" is frankly mistaken) - his "picture of the world" for his own "use" - WITHOUT the right to forcibly impose his "picture of the world" on other people!
And there is one more "small but" ...
As we know, at least from the dialectic of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, to live in society and at the same time to be completely free from society, alas, no one will succeed (it did not work, in fact, even with the legendary Diogenes, as it were "self-isolated" within walking distance from society, and even the famous "survivalist" A. Selkirk, being on an "uninhabited island", was by no means free from the society of neighbors in the archipelago - kondy cannibals and their "homespun philosophy" ... ).
Proceeding from his own "knowledge" and assumptions about possible "motives" and "restrictions", the WWII historian is "on a salary (and whoever pays, calls the" tune ", to tax, the" singing repertoire "of quasi" independent " "righteous" ?! ) "in the" profile "American National Museum of the Second World War, not at all surprised by his" revelatory ideas "- they are completely in line with the state ideological" historical mythology "of Washington.
For example, "who knew nothing about the Japanese attack on December 7.12.1941, XNUMX" Ameropresus Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his entourage, before the official entry into the war with the Axis countries, it was necessary to radically "reverse", by no means unambiguous, the attitude of the American establishment, and the population in general, to the "war in Eurasia" far from America!
Indeed, in 1941 and in the interval between WWI and WWII, there were still strong "isolationist" and pro-German (even pro-Hitler-pro-Nazi, however, as well as in the "related" in language, racism and "ideology" of pragmatic anti-Bolshevism, Great Britain before the clash with Hitler in 1939) -pro-Japanese sentiments of a part of the population and the industrial lobby in the USA, which was conducting a profitable "this business and nothing personal" with all "parties to the conflict."
But the ongoing Great Depression and the "positive experience" of the participation of the USA in WWI, the numerous, economic and political, "goodies" that they acquired at relatively meager "costs" prompted the mega-pragmatic American elite to abandon the dominant policy of "isolationism (a consistent adherent of the modern version which was "Biden's foreman" Donald Trump) "and join WWII on the side of the forming Anti-Hitler coalition ....
And for this "fracture of consciousness" of ordinary Americans, over the years of WWI and the outbreak of the Great Depression (with the bloody gangster wars of the "dry law" and the mass Holodomor of unemployed and bankrupt farmers, and their families, with hundreds of thousands of forced "labor armies" of highway builders, in inhuman conditions, under armed guard, who worked "for food"!) who had "seen the sights", already required a much more powerful "stimulus vector" than the "explosion of the Maine" or "the sinking of the Lusitania" "...
That is why, as is usually the case in American manipulative politics, the imperial ambitions of the Japanese militarists, who had already started WWII with a war with China and the seizure of European colonies in Asia, were cleverly used ...
Their United States provoked a refusal to sell steel, non-ferrous metals, engineering products and, most importantly, hydrocarbons, so vital to the belligerent Japanese!
Of course, the ameroprez was fully "in the know"! IMHO
This did not pass by him, even if written documents “are not found so far (but where are they“ looking for something ”and have they“ searched ”everything, if such a“ find ”contradicts the“ state line ”?! about the alleged American“ freedom of speech ”) and "nepolzhivost obshchelovekov" I DO NOT need to hang noodles "?!).
There is too long a "chain of accidents" to believe it, and even under the Japanese blow, in a chess-like way "sacrificially", only, by and large, "weak pieces" - battleships, who did not decide anything in that war and were very vulnerable (a vivid example of Japanese superlinkers, mediocrely killed by air strikes), but taking escort ships from the AUG, and "strong figures" - aircraft carriers were prudently withdrawn from the blow!
"Pearl Harbor" is the same "LP (for pedaling on the emotions of a crowd of" ordinary "taxpayers) and a deliberate" trick "of the American authorities, like the odious" twin towers ", like other Fascinating provocations before and after them, which allowed to "promote" certain goals of "big politics"!
In Washington "gosmythology" there are a lot of all sorts of "useful myths" that DO NOT get tired of "riveting" such "professors of history" on the State Department's content and "spreading" through Hollywood, coupled with "non-profitable universal media"!
The general degradation and marginalization of "education" and "enlightenment", the massive "refusal" from reading books (and, associated with independent reading, "critical thinking") and the equally massive latent transfer of the earthly population to predominantly "clip thinking" make it easier for them. associated with the discrete presentation of the "video sequence" in the widespread mobile video communicators ("Doctor" Goebbels, even in his wildest dreams, could not have imagined such broad possibilities!).
By the way, I always paid tribute to the Anglo-Saxon utilitarian pragmatism of thinking and mentally "learned" from the best American (including Russian-imperial origin) engineers, scientists, statesmen and writers ... this is a "conceptual saying" from one of them:

Those who read books rule those who watch TV!

"Lohika" of this "professional would-be historian", in my opinion ("from my point of view"), suffers from "blinkering" - why can't there be several turning points ("moments") in the war ?! It is immediately evident in his "reasoning" of a purely "peace man" without military education (well, a civilian medical one would also help him easily understand the "death mechanics" of such a complex "tenacious organism" as "world war", as a result of a "series of" traumatic " influences ", exhausting and debilitating" factors ")!

The attempt of the American historian to "fit in with Hitler" is quite in line with the trend of the current rewriting of history in the "Washington way" and, consolidating the Eurosatellites around the United States, "universal human solidarity."
Although the German generals-memoirists are not all the same and there are those from whom you can very much learn the art of war, for example, Eike Middeldorf - I liked his books, a hardened foe, but very intelligent and able to clearly express his valuable thoughts!
Yes, and according to the "desert fox" -Rommel, I completely agree with the "professor" - this Hitlerite field marshal (like his adjutant Colonel Staufenberg) is indeed excessively "mythologized" and romanticized - the British themselves (the same "mythologized" and the romanticized Montgomery, for example) pretty much "played along" with their miscalculations and "blunders".
But the war in Africa and the "African logistics of cargo delivery", the history of the Mediterranean struggle "for convoys" (in the air, on land and on water, and under water) was and remains very interesting and informative!
1. Bakht
  
  +3
  
  9 May 2021 22: 13
  
  At one time, I, too, became carried away by the theory that Roosevelt exposed the fleet at Pearl Harbor to attack. But strictly speaking, there are no such facts. Legsington and Enterprise left as planned airlifts to Wake and Midway. That battleships went out of fashion became clear a little later.
  The fact that the States behaved like an elephant in a china shop has long been known. They still behave in the same way. Of course, the embargo on the supply of petroleum products left Japan no other choice. But is the United States behaving differently now? Plus there was a letter from the Secretary of State. In fact, an ultimatum, where he demanded the withdrawal of Japanese troops from China. Then there were explanations that an error had occurred and that Indochina was meant.
  In any case, issuing ultimatums is the hallmark of American foreign policy. And this style has not changed at all today.
  It is quite understandable that the German generals blamed Hitler for the defeat. But this is not true. It was the generals, with their narrow-minded thinking, who failed the campaign against the USSR. Leeb, Bock and Guderian especially distinguished themselves in this field. First of all, Guderian. I once wrote that he should be given a Hero of the Soviet Union. Moreover, in the 1941 campaign, at least twice.
  Rommel is from the same breed of narrow-minded generals. A tactician, but not a strategist. The problem for the Germans (fortunately for the British) was that he was able to push through his decision and crushed Kesselring under himself (of course, with the support of Hitler). Going to Alexandria with only fifty tanks is probably from a great mind.
  1. beeper
    
    +1
    
    10 May 2021 14: 40
    
    Salam Aziz Bakht!
    Yesterday I already wrote a voluminous detailed answer, but then erased it.
    The point boiled down to the fact that according to the Pearl Bay and the general political "method of action" of Washington, my opinion was formed gradually and only gets stronger as new information and examples accumulate.
    And if you approach with a measure
    "cui prodest cui bono", then many "hidden meanings" of past and current events in world history become quite "convex".
    About aki "an elephant in a china shop" I agree with you!
    Regarding "Fast Heinz" I will neither deny nor confirm your assessments (but with the proposal "to give Guderian the GSS, at least twice, for the failure of the campaign against the USSR" I do not agree in any way, even if it was written by you for the sake of "paradoxical shocking" and such "banter" over the king of the Romanian occupiers, Hitler's henchmen (outstanding, even against the background of the Germans, whose atrocities are still remembered in our southern Ukrainian lands!) "! ), I can only say that while reading military memoirs, I try to "grasp the meanings" and find something useful for myself.
    I read Guderian's books and about him for a very long time, but, as a tanker in military specialization, most of them "came to me" - I found in them a lot of interesting ideas on the organization and use of tank forces in offensive operations (correlating and synthesizing with my knowledge about all this "from the Soviet side"), somewhere there are still my extracts from there.
    Complaints of the Hitlerite generals about their "Fuhrer" and their "obligatory" in such Western "war books", curtsies to the Anglo-Saxons and equivocations to "these Russians ..." diagonals "- I am not interested in such" opportunistic fabrications "(either by the authors themselves, or by their western editors-pioneers)!
    Yesterday, it was, I wrote in detail about them, the Wehrmacht, obsequiously adored by these generals (during his lifetime), the leader - "Reichsfuehrer" - a rather limited and stupid two-legged creature, "who jumped much above his level of competence" and received powerful "levers of power" ...., but then I considered it inappropriate on Our Victory Day to "paint" about this damned ambitious scoundrel and his "mistakes" in managing the seizure of the USSR and the destruction of my relatives and compatriots ...
    
    In general, I am among the first to read your comments, dear Bakht, I find them reasonable and balanced, and I agree with many of them!
Miffer

+4

9 May 2021 21: 58

Sitino said that there is still a discussion among historians about which event can be considered a turning point in World War II. Some consider this moment to be the Battle of Stalingrad, someone - the Battle of Moscow, and someone - the Battle of the Kursk Bulge. And someone will name the landing of the allies in Normandy. According to Sitino, this gives the right to argue that there was no one specific turning point at all.

https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/6097eed29a7947914dd83962

In my opinion, he is absolutely right in his statements.
oderih

0

9 May 2021 22: 16

America is the most important fascist state, and all the troubles come from there.
Petr Vladimirovich

+2

9 May 2021 22: 37

Bakhtiyar, Pischak (I don’t know how to call-to name)
Guys, why don't you put articles on this forum?
We will read it with pleasure, discuss ...
1. Bakht
  
  +4
  
  9 May 2021 22: 46
  
  I have already explained the reason. I am not a journalist. Writing in a clumsy language does no honor. Everyone must do their job. I can write about gas, oil .. History is my hobby. Especially World War II. On the way, I had to go further, to the First World War. They are interconnected.
  And even a journalist cannot be omnivorous. A multipurpose tool is a good thing, but professionals use special tools. I was lucky to have a lot of free time at work. Now there is even more of it. So I am reading. I was taught to analyze and critically perceive what I have written back in school.
  To write an article yourself - this is how much time you need to spend before you learn. The comments are much better.
  1. Bakht
    
    +2
    
    9 May 2021 22: 50
    
    Let's say, the topic of the mistakes of the German generals. This is how many quotes from how many sources you need to collect. It is necessary to cite the West text of Barbarossa, the memoirs of Bock, Guderian, Halder's journal. And all this can be compared by facts and time markers. And it turns out that Guderian completely failed Barbarossa's plan. And he was so stupid that he wrote about it himself in his memoirs. Moreover, it thwarted the execution in July, September and October. Directly ignored the orders of the higher command. In the Red Army, they immediately put them up against the wall and did the right thing. Therefore, Kluge hated him and dismissed him at the first opportunity.
    1. Kim Rum Eun
      
      0
      
      9 May 2021 23: 03
      
      This is how many quotes from how many sources you need to collect. It is necessary to cite the West text of Barbarossa, the memoirs of Bock, Guderian, Halder's journal.
      
      https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/75524
      https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/166876
      
      Finally, what seems to you to be true now does not at all mean that it was true at the time of its occurrence.
      1. Bakht
        
        +3
        
        9 May 2021 23: 14
        
        Thank you. But in this case, the primary sources are the memoirs of eyewitnesses. This is a very unreliable source. Your second link directly says
        
        According to Mark Block, the sources themselves do not say anything.
        
        People are so arranged that they try to whitewash themselves. Therefore, I find Halder's diary more credible than Guderian's. Although now they write that Halder's diary was subject to proofreading.
        It is necessary to focus on official documents and the real course of events. It is quite an official document that is not in doubt, this is the text of the Barbarossa directive. And the movement of Guderian's panzer divisions. They diverge completely.
        
        Yesterday there was controversy over how and why Hitler came to power. Yes, there were letters from the Comintern that an alliance with the Social Democrats was unacceptable. But in reality the KKE has proposed such an alliance several times. It was the Social Democrats who refused. Some emphasize these directives and recommendations of the Comintern. I rely on the real course of events. Hence the different interpretation of events.
      2. Bakht
        
        +2
        
        9 May 2021 23: 18
        
        Truth and Truth are different categories. Truth is always one, but truth is multifaceted, like a faceted glass.
      3. Kim Rum Eun
        
        +1
        
        10 May 2021 08: 23
        
        kapitan92, you will never become a major.
        (born to crawl, cannot fly).
  2. Petr Vladimirovich
    
    0
    
    9 May 2021 23: 13
    
    how much time should it take
    
    So it's not the gods who burn the pots, our E won't let you lie ...
    1. Kim Rum Eun
      
      +2
      
      10 May 2021 08: 36
      
      So it's not the gods who burn the pots,
      
      You have a purely "proletarian" approach to the interpretation of the question. Now such "professionalism" is in great favor: ((
      Therefore, in the modern history of Russia, a lawyer has been president-prime minister for a long time, an economist-financier has optimized health care, a river transport engineer commanded sports (now he is a financier), and dozens of siloviki generals have become governors.
      
      The trouble is, if the cobbler starts the cakes,
      And the boots stitch the pastry,
      And things won’t work out.
      Yes, and a hundredfold
      What who loves to take someone else’s craft.
      He forever others stubborn and foolish:
      It’s better to ruin everything,
      And glad soon
      The laughing stock of becoming light
      Than honest and knowledgeable people
      Ask il for advice.
      
      http://bibliotekar.ru/encSlov/2/18.htm
beeper

-1

10 May 2021 12: 56

Dear Pyotr Vladimirovich, Thank you for the appreciation of my humble graphomaniac "talents"!
Writing Articles about something interesting and seeing them in print is, of course, Great, and earning a living with your head (albeit with the same writing) for a living, physically not "twisting the screws", is also Nice!
But it also requires much more mental work (on the idea, factual, structure and style, words and illustrations, and many more nuances accompanying a successful "publication", and even after writing the text of the article must be "matured" and still "polished" , after all, "a good thought comes afterward", and NOT "fly away on the fly, which came to mind sooner", like ordinary comments on Internet sites!) and, accordingly, more time consuming than just, at your pleasure, "comment" on that what "hooked" another Author in the News or Article.
Basically, even my own comments I need more, as a way to structure my own thoughts on the topic touched upon (and simply, "epistolary" to distract from the surrounding realities ... ).
It often happens that I will write what, in the course of the "writing" process, I will suddenly come out on interesting thoughts, memories or images, and my already outlined "comment", even the one that I "like", ruthlessly erase - I DO NOT send it at all, "turning the page" ...
And under the Union he was not silent - "my tongue, my enemy!" "bast in the line" of a rather large criminal term (at best) - here is such a sad "pun" gradually "drew" as a result of "rozbudovy nezalezhnisti"!
I have already written off my articles and have had the well-deserved fame in abundance!
In his literary work, as a "guiding star" and the ideal to which he aspired (fighting his "eternal" addiction to complex sentences and verbosity, but never overcame ), was the laconic style of Isaac Babel and his words about which of his text he considers complete.
I don’t remember literally, but [b] the sound idea of I. Babel is

I consider my story completed, ready for printing, from which, without losing the embedded meaning, it is already impossible to delete a single word!
Xuli (o) Tebenado

+1

14 May 2021 07: 30

peep May 9, 2021 19:51
I believe that everyone has the right to their own point of view ...

As we know, at least from the dialectic of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, live in society and at the same time be completely free from society, alas, no one will succeed

From the article "Party Organization and Party Literature" by V. I. Lenin: "... After all, this absolute freedom is a bourgeois or anarchist phrase (because, as a world outlook, anarchism is bourgeoisness turned inside out. It is impossible to live in society and be free from society.) The freedom of a bourgeois writer, artist, actress is only a disguised (or hypocritically disguised) dependence on a money bag, on bribery, on content ... "

I personally really like the local interpreters of Marxist-Leninist philosophy :)
Only it is not clear what the dialectic has to do with it, and even the Marxist one ...
Well, okay - "my own point of view."