
World War II Is Full of Plot Holes (2010) - mblevin
http://squid314.livejournal.com/275614.html
======
xxxyy
Well, knowing this is intended to be just funny I have to point out a few
things:

> All this from a country that was ordinary, believable, and dare I say it
> sometimes even sympathetic in previous seasons.

Germany was drowned in serious economic depression that was deep enough to
trigger a huge social response. Plus we cannot forget about the humiliating
Versaille Treaty.

> they instantly forget about all the racism nonsense and become best buddies
> with the definitely non-Aryan Japanese

Holocaust was not intended to wipe out all other races, only those that stood
in the way. This includes Jews and Romani people for inhabiting "incorrect"
lands, East European nations for inhabiting fertile lands. Hitler was happy to
jump into one bed with Hungarians or Italians for example, although it is not
obvious what would happen later had he won.

> 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 (...)

And Hitler was not far from taking over Moscow in 1941. Of course the failure
of Operation Barbarossa was huge, but there was a point when Stalin must have
been really afraid about the future his capital (end of July 1941, before Nazi
troops diverted north for Leningrad and south for Kiev, following an order
from the Furer himself; his generals strongly opposed this order).

~~~
jonnathanson
Hitler was willing to be opportunistically flexible with his definition of the
"Aryan race." For instance, he recognized Iranians, Arabs, and Turks as
"Aryans"[1] in so far as they supported his war efforts. He also dubbed the
Japanese "Honorary Aryans," whatever that's supposed to have meant. (Hirohito
was about as fanatical over "racial purity" as Hitler was, and perhaps Hitler
saw in him a kindred spirit, in addition to a military ally. Extant records
and writings suggest that Hitler viewed the Japanese as more reliable allies
than the Italians, whom he was planning to double-cross at some point down the
road. This is probably because Italy shared a border with Hitler's Germany, by
way of Austria, and hence, was "in the way," while Japan was not. Hitler's
writings and track record suggest that, had he won the war, he'd have turned
on pretty much any country at any time, should they have proved inconvenient
for any reason).

[1] Leaving aside the obvious, of course, which is that Iranians are arguably
more "Aryan" than Middle-European Caucasians. That is to say, if we use the
historically accurate definition of the term, and not the Nazi-racist-
mythological definition of the "Aryan" people.

~~~
curun1r
The whole fixation on Aryan race was less about racial purity than it was
about psychological transference. The combination of abusive child rearing
practices, the Treaty of Versailles and the economic depression left many, if
not most, Germans very angry with no logical outlet for that anger. Hitler was
able to channel that anger towards minority groups, particularly Jews. The
other, somewhat controversial theory for why he targeted Jews was the
possibility that he was actually 1/8 Jewish and he was targeting the part of
himself that he considered shameful.

Regardless, the fixation on the Aryan master race was never about the belief
that there should only be one race. It was about needing to feel powerful when
others had made them feel victimized. It was the cycle of child abuse played
out on an international scale. It didn't need to be ideologically consistent
so long as it soothed that hurt that both Hitler and much of the German people
felt.

For anyone interested in the psychological explanations for the war, Alice
Miller's "For Your Own Good" is any excellent exploration of that subject.

~~~
jonnathanson
A lot of that is true, but I don't think it's a wholly sufficient explanation.

Unfortunately, the "master race" rhetoric served a tidy political purpose, as
well, even outside of Germany. Throughout much of European history, there
hadn't been a great deal of "German" history to speak of. The peoples we
currently recognize as German were fragmented across hundreds (at one point,
thousands!) of independent polities and micro-states. These peoples were
scattered across a large portion of Central and Eastern Europe, even after the
unification of Germany as a nation-state. Hitler was able to play the "Aryan
race" card as a pretext to invading and occupying any countries or territories
that happened to have German-speaking inhabitants of any appreciable number
(Czechoslovakia, Poland, and so forth). Interestingly, his phrasing started
off as being more about the "German people" or "German folk." When he set his
sights on other quasi-Germanic countries, like Norway and England, he talked
about the "master race," a broader and more strategically flexible concept.

The "master race" concept also won him a small, but vocal number of adherents
in the UK and US, particularly among the upper classes, in which racism and
eugenics had become fashionable for a time.

No question Hitler's psychology was deeply troubled (and troubling). But it's
tough to cleanly separate his personal beliefs from his political opportunism.
He seemed to act upon each in almost equal measure.

------
PeterisP
It's the same reason why fictional commandos like Rambo and buddies have less
kills and not so daring achievements as some historically documented cases.

Fiction writers try to push the limits of what readers will [try to] believe,
while reality simply ignores those limits.

~~~
rglovejoy
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill)
tldr: He once killed a German with a longbow and would carry a broadsword with
him into battle.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Medicine_Crow](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Medicine_Crow)
tldr: Last war chief of the Crow nation. Still alive at age 101, because Death
is afraid of him.

~~~
cremno
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Carton_de_Wiart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Carton_de_Wiart)

>He served in the Boer War, First World War, and Second World War; was shot in
the face, head, stomach, ankle, leg, hip, and ear; survived two plane crashes;
tunnelled out of a POW camp; and bit off his own fingers when a doctor refused
to amputate them. Describing his experiences in World War I, he wrote,
"Frankly I had enjoyed the war."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4)
| [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1517044/The-long-
view...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1517044/The-long-view.html)

>Using nothing more than an iron-sighted, bolt action standard rifle, Simo
killed 505 Russians during a three-month period

~~~
presidentender
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Whittemore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Whittemore)

Veteran of the French and Indian wars. At the age of 78 he participated in the
Battle of Lexington and Concorde, where he was bayoneted, beaten and shot in
the face. He recovered and died of old age at 96.

~~~
arethuza
How about winning an Iron Cross _and_ a Victoria Cross (albeit in different
wars):

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Manley](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Manley)

------
herge
> 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?

Sneakily, except for the reams and reams of writing the National Socialists
had written about conquering Russia to use their land as Lebensraum, and how
that was the whole point of their war.

~~~
caycep
I always wonder about the History Channel...the programs are a good piece of
entertainment but it's never seemed to be well researched/thought out enough
to act as a serious academic resource of any kind.

~~~
maxerickson
[http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-idiocy-
fabr...](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-idiocy-fabrications-
and-lies-of-ancient-aliens-86294030/?no-ist)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostradamus_Effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostradamus_Effect)

[http://www.history.com/shows/ufo-hunters](http://www.history.com/shows/ufo-
hunters)

It's unambiguously entertainment.

~~~
mcguire
" _Bird wasn’t the first person to notice the dinosaur tracks, and selling the
sauropod and theropod tracks was a cottage industry in the vicinity of Glen
Rose. And a few local people carved fake human tracks in the same stone. Bird
actually saw a pair of such forgeries at a trading post in Gallup, New Mexico,
along with dinosaur tracks removed from the Glen Rose area, shortly before he
left to investigate the site himself._ "

That's completely ridiculous! I'm surprised the Smithsonian is putting it's
good name behind this sort of trash. Do you know how far Gallup, NM, is from
Glen Rose? It's nearly a thousand miles! Certainly, no trading post dealer is
going to travel that sort of distance to tote some rocks around! Not even the
most dedicated 12-year-old tourist would do it.

I'm sorry, what was the question?

" _Read more:[http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-idiocy-
fabr...](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-idiocy-fabrications-
and-lies-of-ancient-aliens-86294030/#Grp0TFZfLeW7kDSy.99) Give the gift of
Smithsonian magazine for only $12!
[http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv](http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv) Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on
Twitter_"

Thank you, Smithsonian!

~~~
maxerickson
I think your premise about the rocks moving around is flawed. I was in a
touristy rock shop near here a few weeks ago:

[https://www.google.com/maps/@47.2474164,-88.4525903,12z](https://www.google.com/maps/@47.2474164,-88.4525903,12z)

It had junk from all around the world. I imagine they utilized package
delivery services (further sarcasm omitted) as much as they carried stuff
around themselves.

But sure, let's be more cynical about Smithsonian Mag than History.

------
TehCorwiz
It's funny; I was just sitting here thinking about dropping software dev to
become an anthropologist and then I run across this. I have to give the author
credit in that anything viewed in the right light is absurd, but I think he
misses the point that that "show" invented the tropes he accuses the show of
having.

------
pjc50
There's a similar page around somewhere on the implausibility of the Falklands
War, starting with the absurdity of the conflict over tiny resourceless
islands, through things like the transatlantic bombing run and putting all the
helicopters on one ship which was sunk immediately. Then there's Thatcher
ringing up Mitterand in the middle of the night to demand the remote disarm
codes for the Exocet missiles France had sold Argentina, involving threats to
nuke Buenos Aires.

And the War of Jenkins' Ear, which is just silly.

------
ctdonath
"Plot holes" \- brilliant term I've been looking for to explain conspiracy
theorists' obsession with finding ludicrous explanations in mundane/petty
inconsistencies normal in the real world.

~~~
notahacker
Conspiracy theorists are the people that come up with the inept cash-in "non-
canonical" sequel and dreadful fanfic that make the official story seem quite
compelling by comparison.

------
nsajko
I totally agree with all the other explanations posted, but here's another
one: popular history as a retelling of real events gets the same tropes
applied to it as fiction does.

------
pessimizer
If Churchill is the hero, he's a monstrously flawed one:
[https://www.quora.com/Was-Winston-Churchill-a-
racist](https://www.quora.com/Was-Winston-Churchill-a-racist)

That should make the war a bit more believable.

Also, the part where the US wouldn't take Jewish refugees:
[http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007094](http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007094)

~~~
mikeash
Heavy-handed attempts by the writers to insert some "balance" into the story.
Hmm, we show these guys as so good, it's not believable, how can we show them
as flawed? Oh, I know, let's have them refuse to take in some refugees for no
apparent reason, the very same people they later fought to save. It's just
amateur hour in the writers' room.

------
VLM
If you want to discuss ridiculous stories, he claims he watched this WWII
historical stuff on "the history channel" but I checked the schedule for
tonight (honest!) and tonight is a three hour "Pawn Stars" marathon, tomorrow
has more pawn stars followed by what appears to be a horror-reality crossover
called "the curse of oak island" and wednesday night has a marathon of
"american pickers" and thursday is, I kid you not, another marathon of "pawn
stars". So I suspect he never saw anything other than blue collar workers
screaming at each other and at customers on this so called "history channel".
Its the same pablum on TLC, discovery, syfy, etc. The only way to tell TV
channels apart in 2014 is to check the name, there's really only one channel.

(That said, I'd recommend the 60s era BBC WWII series if you can find it in
the usual locations, legal or otherwise)

~~~
cbd1984
Maybe he originally wrote it during the Hitler Channel era.

------
will_asouka
I thought this was making the point that WW2 is often reduced to a simple
coherent narrative for the purpose of documentaries concerned more with their
viewing figures than historical rigour/the truth.

These simplifications are distorting the mainstream collective memory of these
events. This is particularly prevalent in the UK with regard to the First
World War; a popular satirical comedy series has shaped a widely held view of
mindless muddy bloodbath which does not do justice to the complexity of
reality
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackadder_Goes_Forth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackadder_Goes_Forth)).

It'd be nice to see the History Channel et al delve a little deeper.

Edit: I'm not totally sure if he's making this point or not frankly.

------
bladedtoys
And a particular division even had little skull and crossbones on their hats
for heaven sake.

One wonders if Hugo Boss actually got ideas from comic books bad guys.

------
Tycho
Hmm, this made me think: do people who believe America was right to drop the
atom bombs on Japan also believe they should have been used in subsequent
wars? If not, why not?

~~~
bostonpete
I don't think this is the right place for such a debate, but if you google
"did the atomic bomb save lives", you'll find people that make the case that
it was the right choice.

I suspect the response to your "why not?" would be that we haven't had any war
since then where the threat was significant to warrant the horrific impact of
their use (which nobody seems to deny). Plus, ever since shortly after WWII,
there was always the possibility of nuclear weapons triggering a nuclear
response.

------
Vanayad
Well, considering the Japanese actually tried to surrender before the bombs
fell to the Russians is totally not important... and that they found out about
the 2 N-Bombs only after they surrendered to the Americans. /s

------
imanaccount247
The sarcasm falls flat when you realize that a lot of what he is talking about
really is wrong. That is not what happened, that is a collection of
misconceptions people gathered which are only loosely based on actual history.
Germany was not simply racist, they had declared jews to be their enemies. Not
"people who aren't white". The German military was the most racially and
religiously diverse military force involved in WW2. There were plenty of
Wehrmacht soldiers with brown skin, wearing turbans, or carrying copies of the
Quran given to them by Hitler as gifts. A shocking number of people are under
the impression that the US joined the war because Germany attacked France and
was killing jews. It is no wonder that people have a comic book view of WW2
given how little actual history they've been taught.

~~~
foldr
Although Nazi Germany did co-operate with various (for want of a better term)
brown people, Hitler and the rest of the Nazis certainly held racist attitudes
towards them. It would be misleading to suggest that the Nazis were "only"
racists with regard to Jews.

(Of course virtually everyone on the allied side was also racist.)

~~~
imanaccount247
>Hitler and the rest of the Nazis certainly held racist attitudes towards them

Why is that certain? I'm not aware of anything that would support that claim.
High ranking nazis and even Hitler himself made positive statements towards
plenty of other ethnic and cultural groups. A belief that ethnic groups should
have pride in their culture and stay "pure" by only breeding with other
members of the same ethnic group may not be popular now, but it is not racist.

~~~
foldr
I hate to cite Wikipedia, but the following helpful article has some quotes
from Speer's memoir which are relevant:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world)

>A belief that ethnic groups should have pride in their culture and stay
"pure" by only breeding with other members of the same ethnic group may not be
popular now, but it is not racist.

Actually it is racist.

~~~
imanaccount247
That wikipedia article supports what I said. And I'm sorry to be the one to
tell you this, but when speaking with others you do need to use the actual
definitions of words. If you pretend words mean things they do not mean, then
communication is impossible. Racism requires the belief that one or more races
are inferior or superior to others. Not merely an acknowledgement that races
exist.

~~~
foldr
The Wikipedia article shows Speer making reference to the fact that Hitler
considered Arabs racially inferior.

I am not going to argue the semantics of racism with you. You know as well as
I do that there are no examples of non-racists opposed to interracial
marriage. Such people could conceivably exist in principle, but do not in
practice. I am not sure what your motivations are for trying to defend these
hypothetical non-racist anti-miscegenationists, but this has nothing to do
with the Nazis in any case.

~~~
imanaccount247
It also shows Hitler saying otherwise. Hearsay vs first hand, what a tough
call. Why are your responses so consistently dishonest?

~~~
foldr
Where on the page does it show Hitler saying that Arabs are not racially
inferior to "Aryans"? The page has multiple well-sourced instances of Hitler
making explicitly racist comments about Arabs. E.g. "Let us think as men and
let us see in these peoples [in the Far East and Arabia] at best lacquered
half-apes who are anxious to experience the lash". And as far as hearsay is
concerned, the article notes that similar statements are made in Mein Kampf
(which, to state the obvious, was written by Hitler personally).

