
World War II was totally unrealistic - goodside
http://squid314.livejournal.com/275614.html
======
DanielBMarkham
At 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
Not 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).

~~~
arethuza
What about bombs bouncing on water or giant weaponized Catherine Wheels:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panjandrum>

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
There 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
<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.

------
jakevoytko
This 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
Sure, 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
Not really

~~~
JoeAltmaier
??? Say more. The treaty at Yalta wasn't signed by Roosevelt? what?

~~~
jakevoytko
Well, 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
Of course leaders have enormous powers. But it was never like comrade Stalin
waves and everything stops.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Hm, I guess I don't buy that at all. Stalin in particular.

~~~
borism
then you have oversimplified view of the world and I don't. let's agree to
disagree.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Cute, get the last shot in, then pretend its reasonable to stop discussing.

Books have been written about the "Stalin Personality Cult", his enormous
personal power and his perfect control over all matters of state. And you
dismiss this with a few cute remarks.

For your remarkable claims, you will have to provide MUCH more evidence. Try
this: google Stalin and start reading.

~~~
borism
we can continue to debate if you insist, but judging by your other comments it
may not be exactly pleasant experience.

also let me caution you that probably unlike you I have actual experience
living in Soviet Union (not under Stalin, fortunately) and getting to know the
"evidence" first hand.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Right, under enlightened Soviet rule your education in history and politics is
wide-ranging and complete. I believe that.

~~~
dreyfiz
You would be surprised. People who grew up under Soviet education are a lot
more cultured and worldly than Americans. Hint: if your worldview is a
cartoon, it's probably inadequate to reality.

------
pilif
interesting 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.

~~~
vegas
So we should can the history book writers in favor of JMS? I could have told
you that a decade ago!

Also, S1 is the best B5 there is, rise of the psycorps, nightwatch, captain
getting kidnapped by creepy intelligence guys to be mindfucked, it's just like
WWII!

~~~
pilif
S2 is more like the beginning of WWII. If I remember correctly, the Nightwatch
is a program initiated by president Clark (or his administration) and he isn't
in the office during S1.

At the end of S1, events are set in motion (not spoiling anything here, but
the end of S1 is super-awesome and constantly sends shivers down my spine when
I'm watching it), but it's not quite there yet.

Also, there are many non-story-relevant episodes in S1. But as I said: It's
building up background. Just very slowly for first-time watchers.

That's not surprising as that's how TV series worked back then: Most episodes
are closed in themselves and there basically is no overall story progression.

IMHO it was B5 that broke with that tradition and nowadays series are just
like very, very long movies.

------
shadowsun7
"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.

~~~
dasil003
And what of Stephenson's Cryptonomicon?

~~~
ojilles
Are you trying to argue that Fiction is sometimes not believable, are actually
the reverse?

~~~
dasil003
It 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.

------
mikecane
And 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>

~~~
jimbokun
How about a pacifist war hero?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_C._York>

------
protomyth
You 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
Watch Robert Newman's history of oil sketch:
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159>

It addresses that particular piece of rewritten history.

------
stcredzero
_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? 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
"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
I hope that wars over religious ideology come to seem as incomprehensible one
day.

------
balding_n_tired
But Churchill remained the awful strategist he had always been. Outstanding
organizer for the Navy, inspiring leader, but: Norway, Anzio, the
Dodecanese...

------
mattmaroon
He forgot the Japanese Balloon Bombs and the US Government coverup of them.

[http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_8992.sht...](http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_8992.shtml)

------
dschobel
He 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.

------
RyanMcGreal
>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
+1 for staying in OP's story mode :)

------
ntoshev
WWII fits the stereotypes so well because it originated (a lot of) them.

No intellectual curiosity was satisfied by the article.

~~~
edanm
Really? 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
And like most good humor, makes you stop and think about some things in a new
way.

------
nazgulnarsil
history 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
Totally depends on your frame of mind/expectations. I had a lot of fun reading
that article. Nothing condescending to the audience at all.

------
vgurgov
I 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
I 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
That'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.

------
rriepe
Luckily, Monster Quest, Ghost Hunters and all those other shows should satisfy
any desire for fiction on the History Channel.

------
sliverstorm
Churchhill _did_ have a frikkin amazing ability to produce one-liners. In
retrospect it was almost inhuman.

------
hernan7
Reminded me of that Mark Twain quote (apocriphal?) "Fiction is obliged to
stick to possibilities. Truth isn't."

------
JoeAltmaier
"The greatest generation", indeed.

------
drivingmenuts
my god. I can hear the air quotes.

------
dtby
"The difference between reality and fiction? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom
Clancy

<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy>

------
mkramlich
It may have been unrealistic but I hope nobody makes a sequel.

