Historical "facts" and popular representations of histrical figures that are wrong

[SpectacularWebHead]

Hitler may not have only had one testicle. Only 1 person during WWI stated he did but none of his medical records after then made any reference to it whatsoever. Even his private physician never mentioned it. Although it can't be proven to be false, it can't be proven to be true either

The rumour came from the fact he had been a choir boy, and it was common practise back then to cut off a testicle to keep your voice high. Buuut, it wasn't done to all and we don't know if He had. It would explain why he was so pissed off all the time.

That's a new one, never heard of that happening...ever. Every other source I've looked into said it was during the Battle of Somme in WWI where he sustained a groin injuring causing the loss of one testicle.

I've never heard that one. I've heard the one I said and the one about how he was born that way, which was kind of obviously british morale type things and untrue.

 

[Raesvelg]

Another common misconception, the King Tiger was among the largest, not the best. It had some of the best armor and guns, but they cost way too much to be mass produced. The IS-2, on the other hand, was easier to produce, had thicker sloped armor (160mm to 185mm), and a better gun (88mm to 122mm). Plus, I believe that Germany only manufactured about 2 thousand Tigers and King Tigers while Russia managed to manufacture around 3 thousand IS-2's. IS-2's could take out King Tigers from upwards of 800 meters. Plus, they were lighter by around 11 tons (something like 55-59 tons to 44-47 tons) so they were faster and could be salvaged if they were disabled or damaged.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that size is everything in cannons; yes, the IS-2 had a gun with a larger bore diameter, but the 8.8cm KwK 43 L/71 is generally regarded as the best anti-tank gun of the war for a very good reason. The longer barrel (the "L/71" part of the designation, compared to an equivalent L/45 or so for the 122mm on the IS-2) allowed for much higher velocities.

In fact, the IS-2's gun was chosen largely because it was available in large numbers, not because it was judged to be the superior weapon for the platform. It was slow to fire, and while it had a good anti-personnel round available, its anti-tank performance wasn't nearly as good as that of the King Tiger's 8.8cm KwK 43 L/71.

The King Tiger also suffered from poor materials used in construction. In most objective analysis, a King Tiger built with the usual German quality control, with quality materials, was more than a match for an IS-2. The problem they ran into was that by the time they were actually being built, Germany was putting them together pretty much out of whatever they could get their hands on, and they had a nasty habit of popping welds under fire.

 

[Dense_Electric]

How about that the Declaration of Independence was actually ratified on July 2nd, and certainly wasn't signed in a big room all at once? It was actually signed over the course of several months as it traveled up and down the then-American colonies.

 

[Kristian Fischer]

These types of threads are always funny, because they so eloquently portray the sad standard of history education in society today.

 

[gh0ti]

These types of threads are always funny, because they so eloquently portray the sad standard of history education in society today.

If you think the standard of history education was previously better, then I feel your education failed you.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

As for WWII, it never ended.

The European theatre didn't end until 1990. In 1945, Germany was fractured and didn't exist as a country, only East Germany and West Germany, none of which were official combatants in the war. The peace treaty was only signed in 1990 after the Berlin wall came down and the country of Germany was reunited.

War:
"A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state."

Following the Postdam agreement in 1945, armed conflict between the Axis and Allied forces stopped(Well, they did in Europe at least), thus ending world war II in Europe. Since the events unfolding afterwards don't meet the criteria for the word, we can say that, yes the European Theater of World War II ended in 1945. You can say the Division of Germany didn't end until 1990, but you can't say the war didn't end until 1990.

Any history teacher will tell you that a peace treaty is not what determines when a war ends, a war ends only when armed conflict is ceased between the two or more parties, which it was in Postdam Germany in 1945, not 1990. We have dozens of wars that end with Armistices and several others that end with a surrender. For example, we end World War II on September 2nd of 1945, the day Japan, the last remaining Axis power, surrendered. Not when Japan signed a peace treaty, but when they agreed to give up armed conflict.

Hope that helps you have a better understanding of how Wars are studied.

 

[madgaurd1989]

Very well put, though Normandy was, IIRC, a joint British-American attack, with little in the way of Russian assistance. I could be wrong, though.

While not wrong you are overlooking the Canadian involvement, as well as other commonwealth nations. Canadian fought in the Battle of Britain providing airmen and planes. Britain might not have lasted until Pearl Harbor if it wasn't for commonwealth assistance. The Dieppe invasion tested the Normandy strategy and allowed for refinement before D-day. Every dead Canadian at Dieppe saved 100 at Normandy. Canadians on D-Day also advanced father than the Americans or British to a point that German units were retreating to avoid being flanked by the Canadian forces opening up holes for British and American advances. They pushed so far that they had to be ordered to stop because the other forces could not keep up, due mainly to poor planing and choice of vehicles (Canadians favoured jeeps and light armour/artillery as well as heavy weapons, Americans lost most of their "floating" tanks in the landing leaving them without heavy support, and the British favoured a mix of light armour and heavy weapons.)

Also it is true the Russians were a massive help, but they had a casualty rate 10+ times of the allies. Those deaths got them to Berlin first but they also had no interest in humanitarian aid, actually bypassing death camps just to get the glory of capturing Berlin.

 

[MrCollins]

People who think Braveheart is an accurate portrail of William Wallace.

To quote one historian : "The accuracy would only be slightly diminished if you added a plastecine dog and called it William Wallace and Gromit."

 

[Faerillis]

Some people seem to think King John was actually a good king and that it's just Robin Hood that's given him a bad name. He was, in fact, such a bad king that the Barons went to war with him. On the other hand, that gave us Parliament and the Magna Carta, so, as Churchill said, "When the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns."

Not to say that he wasn't a bad King, but the Barons went to war with the King because they didn't like that he had the power to dissolve their land holdings. More importantly had the Barons known what would eventually happen, they likely never would have made the Magna Carta; it was a document designed to keep the rich and powerful, rich and powerful.

 

[Gypsybob]

Culloden was the most misunderstood battle in history. Wade was a bloody hero.

It was not Scots v English.
It was not Highland Scots v Lowland Scots.
It was not fought for the freedom of Scotland.

It WAS fought between the British government and rebels lead by 'Bonnie' Prince Charlie. He fought to try and claim the British throne for his father, James Stuart (who would have been King James III/VIII, if he had his way). Scottish highlanders made up most of his forces, this is true but some highland clans fought for the Hanoverian Government under Marshal Wade.

If the Jacobites had won then Britain would have been forced to turn catholic which would have caused a lot more problems in the country. More importantly, Charles Edward Stuart and his father, James, believed in the 'Divine right of Kings' which is, simply put, absolute monarchy.

 

[DJjaffacake]

Some people seem to think King John was actually a good king and that it's just Robin Hood that's given him a bad name. He was, in fact, such a bad king that the Barons went to war with him. On the other hand, that gave us Parliament and the Magna Carta, so, as Churchill said, "When the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns."

Not to say that he wasn't a bad King, but the Barons went to war with the King because they didn't like that he had the power to dissolve their land holdings. More importantly had the Barons known what would eventually happen, they likely never would have made the Magna Carta; it was a document designed to keep the rich and powerful, rich and powerful.

I'm aware that the Barons didn't have the noblest motivations, and the Magna Carta is not the great bastion of rights some people think it is, but my point with the Barons was that he was such a massive dickhead that they went to war, and the Magna Carta paved the way for better documents.

 

[Faerillis]

If you take offense to someone saying which political figure they feel could have made the best leader of a country under different circumstances, you're far too sensitive.

In my English class a couple of years ago, we had a German exhange student. Unfortunatly, the day she started we were in the process of watching "The Pianist", which, in case you haven't seen it, is about a Jew hiding from the Germans during WW2. She ended up crying and running from the classroom because this movie affected her so much.

Basically, Germans hate Hitler and what he did and I happen to agree because he did terrible things. No matter how much of a great leader he was, and what his policies were, he did terrible, terrible things and you can't just ignore that. That is why he will never ever be Germany's greatest leader.

You pretend to say that like it's a fact. Last I checked, our measure of greatness is subjective.

That's just it, the measure you're judging him by is provably incorrect. His economic strategies were -terrible-. This isn't a matter of opinion, they are provably terrible.

What don't you understand? You're arguing like I'm yet to come across some piece of information. I know the man. I know the Nazi Party. I know the history. I like some aspects of the most former and think he could have been great.

And we are saying you're completely wrong, every fact disproves everything you're trying to say. It's like saying the Earth is Flat; frankly it's not a fucking debate, your opinion doesn't hold up with actual fact.

 

[Saviordd1]

americans claiming that the atomic bombs were necessary to defeat japan without an invasion. it's history revisionism at it's best, japan had already signaled willingness to surrender prior to the bombings but was ignored. the consensus among historians is pretty much that it was to field test those things and to intimidate the soviets, which were perceived as a growing threat.
also, slightly related: pretending like the germans would have won the war in europe without american assistance. no. just...no. (pacific is a different deal though)

Their willingness to surrender is irrelevant; even if it was the case. The Allies wanted Japan to surrender unconditionally. And I'm pretty sure that that criterion was not met by Japan's peace offer.

Yeah this.

And we did need the bombs, as much as I hate to admit it. Historians are still debating it but in the end the invasion would have cost a LOT of people, even if it isn't as many as were told at the time.

And to top that off we were going to use bombs in the invasion ANYWAY so no matter what nukes were involved.

I think a lot of this stems from people wanting to think we were totally evil and Japan was totally innocent; so they try to pick apart what happened in a desperate attempt to make us look like the evil ones. (Despite the fact that both sides were very grey)[footnote]I'm not supporting the murder of civilians, let me get that straight. The nukes were horrible weapons and the people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the surrounding areas payed dearly for our desperation[/footnote]

 

[A3sir]

As for WWII, it never ended.

The European theatre didn't end until 1990. In 1945, Germany was fractured and didn't exist as a country, only East Germany and West Germany, none of which were official combatants in the war. The peace treaty was only signed in 1990 after the Berlin wall came down and the country of Germany was reunited.

War:
"A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state."

Following the Postdam agreement in 1945, armed conflict between the Axis and Allied forces stopped(Well, they did in Europe at least), thus ending world war II in Europe. Since the events unfolding afterwards don't meet the criteria for the word, we can say that, yes the European Theater of World War II ended in 1945. You can say the Division of Germany didn't end until 1990, but you can't say the war didn't end until 1990.

Any history teacher will tell you that a peace treaty is not what determines when a war ends, a war ends only when armed conflict is ceased between the two or more parties, which it was in Postdam Germany in 1945, not 1990. We have dozens of wars that end with Armistices and several others that end with a surrender. For example, we end World War II on September 2nd of 1945, the day Japan, the last remaining Axis power, surrendered. Not when Japan signed a peace treaty, but when they agreed to give up armed conflict.

Hope that helps you have a better understanding of how Wars are studied.

1. Any history teacher worth their salt will tell you finding technicalities like this is what makes history a lot more fun.
2. Japan hasn't given up armed conflict, there is still one island hold out.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

As for WWII, it never ended.

The European theatre didn't end until 1990. In 1945, Germany was fractured and didn't exist as a country, only East Germany and West Germany, none of which were official combatants in the war. The peace treaty was only signed in 1990 after the Berlin wall came down and the country of Germany was reunited.

War:
"A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state."

Following the Postdam agreement in 1945, armed conflict between the Axis and Allied forces stopped(Well, they did in Europe at least), thus ending world war II in Europe. Since the events unfolding afterwards don't meet the criteria for the word, we can say that, yes the European Theater of World War II ended in 1945. You can say the Division of Germany didn't end until 1990, but you can't say the war didn't end until 1990.

Any history teacher will tell you that a peace treaty is not what determines when a war ends, a war ends only when armed conflict is ceased between the two or more parties, which it was in Postdam Germany in 1945, not 1990. We have dozens of wars that end with Armistices and several others that end with a surrender. For example, we end World War II on September 2nd of 1945, the day Japan, the last remaining Axis power, surrendered. Not when Japan signed a peace treaty, but when they agreed to give up armed conflict.

Hope that helps you have a better understanding of how Wars are studied.

1. Any history teacher worth their salt will tell you finding technicalities like this is what makes history a lot more fun.
2. Japan hasn't given up armed conflict, there is still one island hold out.

1) Any history teacher worth their salt would still fail you if you tried to argue this in a paper. I just told you, just because a peace treaty had not yet been written does not mean the war did not end. Axis powers surrendered in 1945, that is all it takes.

2A) No, there are no confirmed Japanese holdouts that still remain since World War II, the last one gave up in the 70s.

2B) The Japanese government surrendered, it does not matter if a ragtag group soldiers continued to fight as the definition requires for there to be two or more nations or states or groups within in a nation or state for it to be defined as a war.

So again, you are wrong.

 

[Mr.Philip]

I'm not sure if this has been said yet, but, the Vikings didn't have horned helmets.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that size is everything in cannons; yes, the IS-2 had a gun with a larger bore diameter, but the 8.8cm KwK 43 L/71 is generally regarded as the best anti-tank gun of the war for a very good reason. The longer barrel (the "L/71" part of the designation, compared to an equivalent L/45 or so for the 122mm on the IS-2) allowed for much higher velocities.

In fact, the IS-2's gun was chosen largely because it was available in large numbers, not because it was judged to be the superior weapon for the platform. It was slow to fire, and while it had a good anti-personnel round available, its anti-tank performance wasn't nearly as good as that of the King Tiger's 8.8cm KwK 43 L/71.

The King Tiger also suffered from poor materials used in construction. In most objective analysis, a King Tiger built with the usual German quality control, with quality materials, was more than a match for an IS-2. The problem they ran into was that by the time they were actually being built, Germany was putting them together pretty much out of whatever they could get their hands on, and they had a nasty habit of popping welds under fire.

From my understanding the length of the KwK 43 had only slightly better penetration when compared to the IS-2's gun but still not enough to really penetrate the 185mm's of sloped armor. Frankly, with these two it really seems to be more of a matter of commander experience rather than the tanks themselves. They seem to be on equal footing. The IS-2 seems more like an assault tank while the King Tiger seems like one you'd hold back and use for ambushes. That being said, the IS-2 is still the better tank because it was cheaper to produce while still having the same killing capabilities.

 

[Kashrlyyk]

....

How many would have died by November 1st, 1945 both Japanese, Allied and Far Eastern civilians?
....

Very few if only America wasn't so hangup on a militaristic solution instead of an diplomatic one. The war could have already been over if America wasn't so arrogant and singleminded and tunnelvisioned to only accept an "unconditional" surrender. It was linked early in this thread already: http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

A point made by then Assistant Sec. of War John McCloy and seconded by the then Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence, Captain Ellis Zacharias is of particular importance. Regarding the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan, McCloy later wrote, "everyone was so intent on winning the war by military means that the introduction of political considerations was almost accidental" (John McCloy, The Challenge to American Foreign Policy, pg. 42, my emphasis). Zacharias lamented, "while Allied leaders were immediately inclined to support all innovations however bold and novel in the strictly military sphere, they frowned upon similar innovations in the sphere of diplomatic and psychological warfare" (Ellis Zacharias, The A-Bomb Was Not Needed, United Nations World, Aug. 1949, pg. 29). Defeating Japan was perceived of by the Allies in the narrow terms of military methods. The Japanese messages intercepted by the U.S. in July showed the Japanese government's view toward the war had changed. However, the U.S. didn't keep up with this change, and the advantage of combining diplomatic methods with military methods was largely missed.

Intercepted in JULY!!!

...
Yeah, Japan would have eventually surrendered unconditionally. AFTER Japan's infrastructure had been completely annihilated. AFTER there was even worse starvation than there was by the end of the war. AFTER tens, if not hundreds, of thousands had died from either the bombs themselves or the starvation. It would have taken far, far longer to repair Japan, both economically and socially, after its surrender if the U.S had just bombed it to oblivion. You don't stop starvation by showing up one day with a truck full of twinkies.

So even you agree that the problem was the "unconditionally". You yourself said Japan was ready to end the war and accept defeat. But the Americans refused and prolonged the war!!!! Leading to how many dead people? All the "consequences" you mention above would have happened because of Americas refusal NOT because of Japan's unwillingness so surrender and accept defeat. Your claim of "hundreds, of thousands had died from either the bombs themselves" is rebuked below by Gar Alperovitz.

Historian and former Naval officer Martin Sherwin has summarized the situation, stating, "The choice in the summer of 1945 was not between a conventional invasion or a nuclear war. It was a choice between various forms of diplomacy and warfare." (Sherwin, pg. xxiv).

From: http://www.doug-long.com/hirosh2.htm

Funnily enough it also contradicts this pretty openly racist post by beastro, filled with racist stereotypes about Japan. What BEASTRO ignores is, as you said yourself, Japan was ready to surrender! So the Japanese leadership wasn't actually as "suicidal" as racist beastro says.

....

He also ignores the fact that preparation for the invasion by the Army was the massive seizure of food to support the suicide force. Anyone that could no longer contribute to the war effort was expected to starve and die to maintain that force long enough, Once food ran out, then it was expected by such men that the Japanese people would die to keep the remainder of the military alive for as long as possible.

This also doesn't touch on some of the final acts made by the Japanese government right up to the surrender such as completely debasing their currency to make sure that whatever money people had post-war would be a worthless to them as possible.

Some people seem to fail to comprehend just how suicidal the Japanese leadership was and that wound up being more important to their loyalty to their god-emperor in the end when he had the gall to spare their people more senseless misery and death.

The nukes saved fighting Allied servicemen lives.

The nukes saved Allied POW lives.

The nukes saved Far Eastern civilian lives.

The nukes saved Japanese lives.

They were an evil, but that war was downright evil and people I have the least sympathy for are those who began it, even though I still do have sympathy for them.

It was war, people had to die and some 200,000 dead was a cheap price to pay compared to the alternatives.

As a reply to racist beastro and his stupid bullshit:

Regarding claims that the atomic bombings saved lives, Gar Alperovitz has noted, "It has been argued in this connection that using the atomic bomb was less costly in human life than the continuation of conventional bombing would have been. Apart from the fact that accounts which urge such a view commonly leave aside questions concerning [modifying the unconditional] surrender formula and the impact of the Russian attack, by early August 1945 very few significant Japanese civilian targets remained to be bombed. Moreover, on July 25 a new targeting directive had been issued which altered bombing priorities." "Attacks on urban centers became only the fourth priority, after railway targets, aircraft production, and ammunition depots." "...the new directive (as the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey noted) 'was about to be implemented when the war ended.'". (Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 342).

...

In 1948 Sec. of War Henry Stimson published his memoirs, ghost-written by McGeorge Bundy. In them Stimson revealed, "It is possible, in the light of the final surrender, that a clearer and earlier exposition of American willingness to retain the Emperor would have produced an earlier ending to the war". Stimson and Bundy continued, "Only on the question of the Emperor did Stimson take, in 1945, a conciliatory view; only on this question did he later believe that history might find that the United States, by its delay in stating its position, had prolonged the war." (Stimson & Bundy, pg. 628-629).

Robert Butow has affirmed Stimson's position: "Secretary of War Stimson has raised the question of whether an earlier surrender of Japan could have been achieved had the United States followed a different diplomatic and military policy during the closing months of the war. In the light of available evidence, a final answer in the affirmative seems possible, even probable." Butow continues, "Although it cannot be proved, it is possible that the Japanese government would have accepted the Potsdam Proclamation immediately had Secretary Stimson's reference to the imperial structure been retained. Such a declaration, while promising destruction if Japan resisted, would have offered hope if she surrendered. This was precisely Stimson's intention." Butow adds, "The Japanese military... interpreted the omission of any commitment on the Throne as evidence of the Allied intention to destroy forever the foundation stone of the Japanese nation. Here was an invaluable trump card unintentionally given them by the Allies, and the militarists played it with unfailing skill." (Butow, pg. 140-141).

From: http://www.doug-long.com/hirosh2.htm

 

[Scorpid]

lots of people are ignorant to the fact that Abraham Lincoln wanted to ship all the negroes out of America

For period till he realized how crazy and unrealistic that was. It was also a popular, and even consider progressive (to some) for the time. Most likely since Lincoln wasn't some stary eyed idealist he meerly supported the idea for political reasons rather then the merit of the argument. Politically speaking it would never of been successful. It was I suppose kind similar to the idea that we should build a wall on the Mexican border and ship all those aliens back. Sounds great (to some) but won't ever work. He'd certainly abandoned it by the end of his presidency.

 

[A3sir]

As for WWII, it never ended.

The European theatre didn't end until 1990. In 1945, Germany was fractured and didn't exist as a country, only East Germany and West Germany, none of which were official combatants in the war. The peace treaty was only signed in 1990 after the Berlin wall came down and the country of Germany was reunited.

War:
"A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state."

Following the Postdam agreement in 1945, armed conflict between the Axis and Allied forces stopped(Well, they did in Europe at least), thus ending world war II in Europe. Since the events unfolding afterwards don't meet the criteria for the word, we can say that, yes the European Theater of World War II ended in 1945. You can say the Division of Germany didn't end until 1990, but you can't say the war didn't end until 1990.

Any history teacher will tell you that a peace treaty is not what determines when a war ends, a war ends only when armed conflict is ceased between the two or more parties, which it was in Postdam Germany in 1945, not 1990. We have dozens of wars that end with Armistices and several others that end with a surrender. For example, we end World War II on September 2nd of 1945, the day Japan, the last remaining Axis power, surrendered. Not when Japan signed a peace treaty, but when they agreed to give up armed conflict.

Hope that helps you have a better understanding of how Wars are studied.

1. Any history teacher worth their salt will tell you finding technicalities like this is what makes history a lot more fun.
2. Japan hasn't given up armed conflict, there is still one island hold out.

1) Any history teacher worth their salt would still fail you if you tried to argue this in a paper. I just told you, just because a peace treaty had not yet been written does not mean the war did not end. Axis powers surrendered in 1945, that is all it takes.

2A) No, there are no confirmed Japanese holdouts that still remain since World War II, the last one gave up in the 70s.

2B) The Japanese government surrendered, it does not matter if a ragtag group soldiers continued to fight as the definition requires for there to be two or more nations or states or groups within in a nation or state for it to be defined as a war.

So again, you are wrong.

Yeah, I'm just going to go ahead and guess you don't understand the nuances of it. It's not about right and wrong, it's about being able to find and laugh at the small insignificant things that you can laugh at because you enjoy history.