Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
History by definition is inaccurate because what is written down, recorded and interpreted is done by humans. We always manage to fudge-up something either due to incomplete or incorrect information, ignorance, bias...etc.
The thing about history is that our knowledge of it is always changing/evolving as new things come to light. New theories are tabled and evaluated...etc.
A couple of examples:
1. After the Bismarck was sunk the British claimed they sunk it. The Germans argued that the ship was scuttled. You can imagine which of those arguments went down in the history books.
But eventually the "history" was challenged when the wreck was explored and it was proven that the Germans did in fact scuttle the vessel.
2. Nick and I were discussing the statements I made regarding the devastation that was present at the end of the war and my statement that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were what led to the Japanese finally surrendering. This was what I was taught and was in all of the books I'd read on the subject.
He stated that there is a new(er) theory that part of the reason they surrendered was due to the Russian advancement, which would have lead to the assassination of the Emperor or something along those lines.
Now, I have not done any further research on #2, but I know there will be conflict about it because of what it implies. But it is yet another example of "evolving history".
That all said, that is still "honest" history. Something that is completely different from the revisionist history (or whatever you want to call it) that is supposedly taught in Japan regarding the war.
Another lie is that Hitler hamstrung his officers. At the end of the war the German officer core that was still alive got their story straight so to speak. Sometimes they got their way, sometimes for other reasons they did not. Just like in any other army. On many occasions Hitler was actually more conservative than they were.
They started this lie to cover up the real reason they lost. They simply ran out of men and material, and in the end were out fought by superior Russian commanders.
Here is a second lie:
The Russian winter of 1941 prevented the advance on Moscow, incorrect.
Everyone knew winter was coming, and it was just as cold for the Russians as the Germans. So what really stalled the advance?
The Russian roads were very poor and their rail lines were poor and of a different gauge, the supply of locomotives was also restricted. So supply issues were ever present, and remember armored divisions move on rail. As a general in the logistics and supply department whose name escapes me stated in 1940 they will get about 800 KM's in and run out of gas, which is exactly what happened. Modern armies run on supply, nothing is more important.
So in December 1941 the Germans were simply unable to bring up winter clothing and fresh troops. The choice was either ammunition and fuel or jackets and food, but not enough capacity for both. The Russians on the other hand as is true of any retreating force had shorter supply lines and lots of Lend Lease US trucks which were worth their weight in gold. So they could bring up their fresh Siberian troops while the Heer's were stuck waiting for a train in Poland.
As my friend above talked about North Africa this is why you see the stop/start style of fighting in that theater. Both sides had long supply chains and were forced to halt until they could build up sufficient forces for an attack. As the war went on we got better at that.
History by definition is inaccurate because what is written down, recorded and interpreted is done by humans. We always manage to fudge-up something either due to incomplete or incorrect information, ignorance, bias...etc.
The thing about history is that our knowledge of it is always changing/evolving as new things come to light. New theories are tabled and evaluated...etc.
A couple of examples:
1. After the Bismarck was sunk the British claimed they sunk it. The Germans argued that the ship was scuttled. You can imagine which of those arguments went down in the history books.
But eventually the "history" was challenged when the wreck was explored and it was proven that the Germans did in fact scuttle the vessel.
2. Nick and I were discussing the statements I made regarding the devastation that was present at the end of the war and my statement that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were what led to the Japanese finally surrendering. This was what I was taught and was in all of the books I'd read on the subject.
He stated that there is a new(er) theory that part of the reason they surrendered was due to the Russian advancement, which would have lead to the assassination of the Emperor or something along those lines.
Now, I have not done any further research on #2, but I know there will be conflict about it because of what it implies. But it is yet another example of "evolving history".
That all said, that is still "honest" history. Something that is completely different from the revisionist history (or whatever you want to call it) that is supposedly taught in Japan regarding the war.
Another lie is that Hitler hamstrung his officers. At the end of the war the German officer core that was still alive got their story straight so to speak. Sometimes they got their way, sometimes for other reasons they did not. Just like in any other army. On many occasions Hitler was actually more conservative than they were.
They started this lie to cover up the real reason they lost. They simply ran out of men and material, and in the end were out fought by superior Russian commanders.
Here is a second lie:
The Russian winter of 1941 prevented the advance on Moscow, incorrect.
Everyone knew winter was coming, and it was just as cold for the Russians as the Germans. So what really stalled the advance?
The Russian roads were very poor and their rail lines were poor and of a different gauge, the supply of locomotives was also restricted. So supply issues were ever present, and remember armored divisions move on rail. As a general in the logistics and supply department whose name escapes me stated in 1940 they will get about 800 KM's in and run out of gas, which is exactly what happened. Modern armies run on supply, nothing is more important.
So in December 1941 the Germans were simply unable to bring up winter clothing and fresh troops. The choice was either ammunition and fuel or jackets and food, but not enough capacity for both. The Russians on the other hand as is true of any retreating force had shorter supply lines and lots of Lend Lease US trucks which were worth their weight in gold. So they could bring up their fresh Siberian troops while the Heer's were stuck waiting for a train in Poland.
As my friend above talked about North Africa this is why you see the stop/start style of fighting in that theater. Both sides had long supply chains and were forced to halt until they could build up sufficient forces for an attack. As the war went on we got better at that.
Last edited:
