26 ms·
World War II was totally unrealistic
- DanielBMarkham 16y agoAt first I thought the author might be poking fun at the war -- then I realized that he was actually poking fun at himself. People have high standards for fiction, yet some of the strangest things are real-life stories from history. A couple of my favorites from the Pacific Theater: 1) Radar detected the Japanese strike force approaching Pearl Harbor, but the guy in charge said it was a glitch. 2) The Japanese planned to declare war before attacking, but mix-ups in the way coded messages were processed kept the Japanese delegation from delivering the declaration of war until after the attack, and 3) On several occasions Yamamoto made battle plans that stood some chance of success -- only to have Army guys muck around with the details. That had to get pretty frustrating. You really can't make some of this shit up.
- patio11 16y agoNot to mention the aircraft carriers made out of ice, the campaign to firebomb Japanese cities using bats with incendiaries tied to them, or the brilliant idea to starve out Japanese island garrisons by airdropping pigs onto them in the hope that the pigs would eat the grains before the Japanese ate the pigs (failed).
- stcredzero 16y agoSomeone should do a post or web comic about pig projectiles in warfare.
- ju2tin 16y agoAlso bats with firebombs attached to them. Surely that's almost as good as sharks with laser beams on their heads.
- stcredzero 16y ago"Bats with frickin Napalm!"
- arethuza 16y agoPig projectiles? What about nukes kept warm by live chickens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peacock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peacock
- arethuza 16y agoWhat about bombs bouncing on water or giant weaponized Catherine Wheels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panjandrum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panjandrum
- pavel_lishin 16y agoWow, never heard about that one. Did they never duct-tape bottle rockets together as kids? Might have taught them a little humility and saved some time.
- pozorvlak 16y agoDuct tape, IIRC, was only invented in World War II, so no :-)
- HeyLaughingBoy 16y agoThere were actually successful attacks with water-skipping bombs. In some cases it was the only way to get the bombs to the target due to the low angle needed.
- mturmon 16y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise The technology was innovative, but the results were mixed. Almost half the aircrews died, and the main casualties of the resulting floods were forced laborers and POWs.
- whyenot 16y agoDeveloped largely by engineer (and later famous novelist) Nevil Shute.
- neilk 16y agoThe history of the Directorate of Miscellaneous Weapons Development is incredible. Their exploits make an episode of the A-Team look plausible. http://www.uboat.net/books/reviews.html/title/2349 http://www.uboat.net/books/reviews.html/title/2349
- DaveChild 16y ago> aircraft carriers made out of ice Pykrete, really - a combination of wood and ice. And the idea had merit - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk for lots of interesting details.
- btilly 16y agoMy favorite messed up weapons from WW II. The Americans came up with an anti-tank grenade that was really sticky so that it would stay to the tank it was thrown at. Discontinued due to an unfortunate tendency to remain in the thrower's hand. The Russians (land of Pavlov and all that) came up with the idea of dogs with bombs strapped to their backs that had learned to associate the under side of tanks with food. Great idea, and it might have worked, if the Russian trainers had access to German tanks for the training. Unfortunately when first deployed the dogs proved able to tell Russian tanks apart from German ones, and immediately put the Russians in full retreat. (I found these in a book of world's worsts that I read many, many years ago.)
- AndrewO 16y ago(You meant "The Russians (land of Pavlov...", right?)
- btilly 16y agoThanks, corrected.
- martey 16y agoThe wikipedia article about the sticky bomb - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_bomb - notes that it was made by the British for use in the event of a German invasion, and so only saw limited front-line use in North Africa and by the French Resistance. There is also info about the Soviet anti-tank dog program at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_dog#Deployment_by_the_Soviet_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_dog#Deployment_by_the...
- viggity 16y agoIf anyone is interested in the "aircraft carrier made out of ice", you can find out more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete
- avolkov 16y agoMythbusters had an episode about it http://mythbustersresults.com/alaska-special-2 http://mythbustersresults.com/alaska-special-2
- rudyfink 16y agoYou missed my favorite one. B.F. Skinner had a WWII weapons program that trained pigeons for use as the guidance system of bombs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon ). From a video I saw (but now cannot find) the pigeons were trained to peck at the shape of a warship. Then they would peck at video of a ship which worked to keep the bomb centered on the warship as it fell by directing the fins to where the pigeon pecked.
- stcredzero 16y agoAs I mentioned before, not only do the Nazis have an urgent plan to conquer the world ASAP, but they also have super science weapons research. Stealth bombers, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and jet planes. Yet, at the beginning of the war, they faced cavalry charges! There are real life super-scientists engaged in real-life super-science intrigue to keep nuclear secrets out of Nazi hands. And on top of that, these guys are worse or on a par for atrocities with anyone ever, real or imagined. And to cap it all off, they're running around doing this stuff while wearing outfits designed by Hugo Boss. It's like the Nazis escaped from the pages of fiction and invaded reality using a time machine. EDIT: Turns out Hugo Boss didn't design the uniforms. Still, they were quite stylish.
- chloraphil 16y agoBy "cavalry charges" I assume you are referring to the Polish cavalry who did not, in fact, charge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry#World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry#World_War_II
- cema 16y agoI have read about Soviet cavalry charges as late as 1942, but in memoirs, not history books.
- 10ren 16y agoI had to check out that Hugo Boss one: they were one of thousands of manufacturers; they didn't appear to have "designed" the uniforms (they manufactured police and postal uniforms back then). They didn't do suits til the 50's http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/15/business/hugo-boss-acknowledges-link-to-nazi-regime.html http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/15/business/hugo-boss-acknowl... tschild's two comments here summarize my thinking: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=257389#3 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=257389#...
- stcredzero 16y agoI stand corrected. Still, the Nazis were pretty stylin.
- JoeAltmaier 16y agoAnd Shakespear is just a bunch of cliche's strung together. Every think this stuff is cliche BECAUSE of WWII? Or am I just dense?
- rmc 16y agoWell the main point is that the history of WW2 is full of 'plot holes' and hard to believe stories (if it was a TV show)
- JoeAltmaier 16y agoOnly because we believe, because of the movies, that largescale event SHOULD behave as if orchestrated by a logical, sane author. History is just, all of us, doing things selfishly.
- bruceboughton 16y agoThis is one of the central themes of The Black Swan: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly-Improbable/dp/0713999950 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly-Improbable/...
- dimitar 16y agoThat is actually why Hitler had an incursion in the USSR while waging war in North Africa and the Atlantic, creating an anti-Hitler coalition and thus having no chance of an outcome that isn't a catastrophe for Germany. Surely an unwise decision. The Soviets knew in advance of the invasion of the USSR but Stalin could not believe that the Germany could do such thing. Not because he trusted Hitler, but because such a decision would be stupid - Hitler himself claimed that war on two fronts was unwinnable for Germany since WWI and because he didn't see an adequate preparation for an invasion - sure you have troops near the border, but they were in no way prepared for Russian roads, Russian winter or the Russian distances. There was no way Germany could defeat the USSR before winter sets in with no planning. Stalin planned an invasion of Nazi-controlled Europe, before the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. But the Germans had their invasion a few weeks before the planned. But since the troops and materiel were prepared for an offensive war they could react adequately in the beginning. The Russians had only bombers and a million trained paratroops - this is definitely a preparation for an offensive war. The Germans couldn't achieve any major objective in the USSR anyway: * they didn't destroy the Russian industrial capability: Moscow and Leningrad weren't taken and behind them you have the Volga and Ural areas, which produced materiel and provided manpower which let the USSR win the war and conquer for itself half of Europe. Plus even much of the plants that were in Ukraine and Belarus were evacuated of their skilled workers and expensive machinery and new ones quickly were formed deep behind the lines of combat and the ranges of Wehrmacht air power. * no major resource was lacking in the USSR - certainly not oil, which was one of the critical ones. Germany barely had enough from Romania for its own needs. France, the Balkans, Northern Europe, North Africa were invaded with Soviet provided oil, thanks to the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. * they didn't isolate Russia politically - they couldn't convince the Japanese to attack them in the back while Soviets had instant allies - Britain and United States which generously provided even more materials and technology. And this was exactly because the war was started by a logical, sane author. Stalin overestimated Hitler, thinking he wouldn't do such a thing. Germany had no realistic way of winning a war against the USSR with those conditions. I am not saying that USSR was unbeatable. Just that the Germans didn't have a feasible plan to do it and it was obvious to Stalin.
- ntoshev 16y agoWWII fits the stereotypes so well because it originated (a lot of) them. No intellectual curiosity was satisfied by the article.
- edanm 16y agoReally? I thought the same at first about the stereotypes, and I still do, but the article was just really really funny. Maybe no intellectual curiosity, but sure gets a +1 for humor from me.
- jimbokun 16y agoAnd like most good humor, makes you stop and think about some things in a new way.
- vgurgov 16y agoI dont know the author and why its here on HN, but its easy to make obvious statements that most of TV shows are oversimplified BS. I'd be interested to read his vision of true WWII history though. I think the truth is that its was complex combination of various forces. None of them were evil/good or black/white, simply because it was a story about huge masses of ppl , who are hmmm.. more complex than good elves and bad orcs. Perhaps its hard to see from US but here in Europe its still a big deal that should be touched with respect as so many ppl died and so many lives changed during that period.. RIP
- CodeMage 16y agoI think that the author's point was something else. People expect fiction to be consistent, believable and predictable and yet they take their own history for granted. You'll hear people complain that the show X jumped the shark because of the character A or plot device B. Yet a lot of those same people don't question much of what they "know" about World War II. And a lot of those who do question it, just give up and say "Oh, well, it's history. We'll never really know, will we?"
- chipsy 16y agoThat's what I got out of it too. "Believable" or "realistic" often translates to "conventional" or "predictable." Fiction authors tend to toe the line between them very carefully; yet some of the most respected literature around tends to be based on a ridiculous or fantastic premise. Examples: Moby Dick, the Odyssey, Don Quixote, the Metamorphosis.
- brazzy 16y agoPart of that is that fiction generally gives a very immediate, close-up view of events, whereas you get history as a biased summary of a vast amount of indirect reports.
- vgurgov 16y agowell i can only agree with you. to me lessons here are quite obvious: 1) history channel is not a right pick if you want to learn some history. 2) if you take any complex story and try to make popcorn story out of it - you most likely end-up making something inconsistent/unbelievable for some curious minds(like HN readers)
- pilif 16y agointeresting view on the history. Of course, over here in Europe, we go into great detail when looking at WWII in history at school (at least the European part) and to be honest, I have to agree with the poster - all this feels kind of surreal and inaccurate. I guess this is already some consequence of history-rewriting going on in some parts, combined with strange coincidences. But in general, yes, the whole story, especially when told in such few words as the original article, doesn't make a lot of sense. On a different note: I totally agree on his opinion about Bablyon 5. There are few other series that managed to capture me as much as B5 did. Especially seasons 2 and 3 are brilliant and I would highly recommend everyone with even just a slight liking of Sci-Fi to give at least these two seasons a go. If you want, you can start at S1, but it's quite slowly building up story, so you might get bored out, but in the context of the whole series, quite many episodes in S1 do make a lot of sense too.
- c1sc0 16y agoUpvoted for daring to raise the issue of history-rewriting.
- zokier 16y agoHistory is written by the victors.
- hughw 16y agoI recommend reading David Irving's Hitler's War and Churchill's War as an antidote to the Churchill hagiography. You'll be able to filter out Irving's opinions and still see another perspective on the war. One in which Chamberlain and Halifax are statesmen who might have been successful in avoiding armed conflict, but for the determined war party of Churchill. I'm not here to make that case -- just saying, there are mighty few revisionist histories you can pick up at Borders, and you should read them.
- anamax 16y ago> One in which Chamberlain and Halifax are statesmen who might have been successful in avoiding armed conflict, but for the determined war party of Churchill. No one disputes that it would have been possible to avoid armed conflict with Nazi Germany. The relevant question is "at what cost?" Given Hitler's ambitions, do you really think that he'd have stopped at the channel? It is reasonable to suggest that Chamberlain bought some time for Britain to re-arm and that trying to defend the continent was a bad idea. But that's very different from suggesting that sustained peace was a reasonable possibility.
- stcredzero 16y agoApparently we're supposed to believe that in the middle of the war the Germans attacked their allies the Russians, starting an unwinnable conflict on two fronts, just to show how sneaky and untrustworthy they could be? And that they diverted all their resources to use in making ever bigger and scarier death camps, even in the middle of a huge war? Sheer ignorance. Simply read Mein Kampf. The Nazis had an urgent program to conquer the whole world ASAP because of they thought there was too much cross-breeding with "inferior" races. They had to get started right then! The death camps? To rid the world of so-called genetic contamination. It's all spelled out in Hitler's books. (There was a sequel book.) EDIT: Okay, I get to the end, and the article is all tongue in cheek.
- jimbokun 16y ago"The death camps? To rid the world of so-called genetic contamination." What part of that does not sound like a cartoonishly evil super-villain motivation suitable for a comic book?
- stcredzero 16y agoI hope that wars over religious ideology come to seem as incomprehensible one day.
- chc 16y agoIn a world where it's the 1920s and not the 2010s?
- drivingmenuts 16y agomy god. I can hear the air quotes.
- shadowsun7 16y ago"An intelligent observation of the facts of human existence will reveal to shallow-minded folk who sneer at the use of coincidence in the arts of fiction and drama that life itself is little more than a series of coincidences." -- Rafael Sabatini This article was probably meant as humour, but I can't help but notice that fiction and life are two very different things. Fiction makes sense; life very often does not.
- Qz 16y agoYou need to read more fiction :).
- shadowsun7 16y agoGood fiction, then. I suppose you may argue that bad fiction need not make sense.
- Qz 16y agoGood fiction doesn't need to 'make sense' either. Of course, what qualifies as 'good' is subjective, and to get a little meta, fiction doesn't make sense - we make sense of fiction, just as with life. See also: religion vs. science.
- dasil003 16y agoAnd what of Stephenson's Cryptonomicon?
- ojilles 16y agoAre you trying to argue that Fiction is sometimes not believable, are actually the reverse?
- dasil003 16y agoIt wasn't actually a rhetorical question. Just wanted to point out that historical fiction is interesting food for thought on the question and hoping someone else would say something enlightening.
- jakevoytko 16y agoThis is the effect of telling the histories of nations as if they were groups of 5 people. It's convenient to say sentences like, "Germany then instigated the Battle of Britain, causing Churchill to say X and beginning a lengthy battle," but anything like this is a gross simplification. When nations take action, the whole org-chart needs to move into gear, which takes extra planning and arguing and wrangling and doubting. It doesn't seem realistic because we're told the results of decisions and battles as if they were they were made by anthropomorphised countries with a leader and some generals. But it's always more complicated than that. Trimming facts off at the first few levels of details makes everything feel, well, oversimplified.
- JoeAltmaier 16y agoSure, but in the end Stalin says "Yes" and that's it. Really. And Roosevelt says "Ok, Peace" and the shooting stops. It really happens like that sometimes.
- borism 16y agoNot really
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago??? Say more. The treaty at Yalta wasn't signed by Roosevelt? what?
- jakevoytko 16y agoWell, look at it this way: treaties don't blink into existence completely understood by all parties as perfectly fair without any loopholes or unnecessary concessions.
- borism 16y agoOf course leaders have enormous powers. But it was never like comrade Stalin waves and everything stops.
- balding_n_tired 16y agoBut Churchill remained the awful strategist he had always been. Outstanding organizer for the Navy, inspiring leader, but: Norway, Anzio, the Dodecanese...
- rriepe 16y agoLuckily, Monster Quest, Ghost Hunters and all those other shows should satisfy any desire for fiction on the History Channel.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago"The greatest generation", indeed.
- mikecane 16y agoAnd then, in a sub-plot hardly ever mentioned, we have this superhero-like guy with the weird name of Audie Murphy! Who is too young to even be in the war to begin with! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy
- jimbokun 16y agoHow about a pacifist war hero? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_C._York http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_C._York
- protomyth 16y agoYou want a historical "yeah, right" moment, then take the sequence of events that start WWI. If it was a tv show, you would be thinking the writer was on drugs.
- akkartik 16y agoWatch Robert Newman's history of oil sketch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159 It addresses that particular piece of rewritten history.
- nazgulnarsil 16y agohistory has been shoehorned into a narrative that fits well with the motivations of the victors. that this narrative is childish, condescending to its audience, and inaccurate is hardly surprising.
- ojilles 16y agoTotally depends on your frame of mind/expectations. I had a lot of fun reading that article. Nothing condescending to the audience at all.
- dtby 16y ago"The difference between reality and fiction? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy
- mattmaroon 16y agoHe forgot the Japanese Balloon Bombs and the US Government coverup of them. http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_8992.shtml http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_8992.sht...
- RyanMcGreal 16y ago>Apparently we're supposed to believe that in the middle of the war the Germans attacked their allies the Russians, starting an unwinnable conflict on two fronts, just to show how sneaky and untrustworthy they could be? That's not fair. They explained it in the backstory - the Germans were short on fuel and needed full access to Caspian hydrocarbon reserves.
- ojilles 16y ago+1 for staying in OP's story mode :)
- dschobel 16y agoHe should have gone further in his analysis. "Battalions of stormtroopers dressed in all black, check" Maybe at the onset at the war, but for the last year or two it was a pathetic lot of teenagers and the elderly after all the desirable soldiers had all been killed, captured or maimed.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- hernan7 16y agoReminded me of that Mark Twain quote (apocriphal?) "Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't."
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- mkramlich 16y agoIt may have been unrealistic but I hope nobody makes a sequel.
- sliverstorm 16y agoChurchhill did have a frikkin amazing ability to produce one-liners. In retrospect it was almost inhuman.