#1 Posted by consolemaster001 (6915 posts) - - Show Bio
#2 Posted by Veshark (9353 posts) - - Show Bio

I love Cracked, great humor articles from the writers and great Photoshop submissions from the readers too. They have some fun articles on comic subjects as well.

#3 Edited by OptimusPalm (1871 posts) - - Show Bio

Its a shame they don't provide any proof.

#4 Posted by consolemaster001 (6915 posts) - - Show Bio

Its a shame they don't provide any proof.

The text in blue are links. You can check em out for proof.

#5 Posted by OptimusPalm (1871 posts) - - Show Bio

@optimuspalm said:

Its a shame they don't provide any proof.

The text in blue are links. You can check em out for proof.

Ok, there's obviously some proof, but also a lot of writers interpretation. I hate writers interpretation.

#6 Posted by AweSam (7526 posts) - - Show Bio

"Because it's like thinking that while many X-Men contributed in their own special way, defeating Magneto really came down to Iceman."

#7 Posted by EnigmaLantern (773 posts) - - Show Bio

One of the funniest articles I have ever read. Fair play. Schools should give that link to children when teaching WWII, makes things so much simpler and straight-forward. Thanks for the link @consolemaster001

#8 Edited by Vortex13 (12138 posts) - - Show Bio

Its a shame they don't provide any proof.

If you don't think it's actually true look it up yourself. I have and what the person wrote is way more accurate than what most people are taught in the US because of US bias from the cold war like they mentioned.

#9 Posted by consolemaster001 (6915 posts) - - Show Bio

@vortex13 said:

@optimuspalm said:

Its a shame they don't provide any proof.

If you don't think it's actually true look it up yourself. I have and what the person wrote is way more accurate than what most people are taught in the US because of US bias from the cold war like they mentioned.

At first they were like:

But THEN they were like:

#10 Edited by Lvenger (24319 posts) - - Show Bio

As a student of history, I can't believe people actually think these myths to be true in spite of the factual evidence documented about what transpired in WWII.

#11 Posted by JediXMan (33406 posts) - - Show Bio

@consolemaster001 said:

@optimuspalm said:

Its a shame they don't provide any proof.

The text in blue are links. You can check em out for proof.

Ok, there's obviously some proof, but also a lot of writers interpretation. I hate writers interpretation.

... it's Cracked. That's pretty much their thing.

Moderator
#12 Edited by mrdecepticonleader (19380 posts) - - Show Bio

Very interesting article. I found the one about Churchill particularly eye opening.

#13 Posted by HBKTimHBK (5571 posts) - - Show Bio

@awesam said:

"Because it's like thinking that while many X-Men contributed in their own special way, defeating Magneto really came down to Iceman."

XD

#14 Posted by lolzstastic (215 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger said:

As a student of history, I can't believe people actually think these myths to be true in spite of the factual evidence documented about what transpired in WWII.

That's because your average joe doesn't actually do any research and just sticks with what he learned in school, war movies and Call of Duty.

#15 Posted by Nova`Prime` (4172 posts) - - Show Bio

Not as impressive as I was hoping, anyone who is a student of history knew these things. The problem is many American's, which I am assuming the article is aimed at, don't take an interest in history.

Now onto a counterpoint.... if the German army had gone through the middle east like many of the generals wanted they would have defeated the Russians because they would have cut the country in two and had the oil resources to keep their war-machine rolling, but Hitler was an egotistical bastard and wanted to show Stalin who was the better mad man.

#16 Posted by consolemaster001 (6915 posts) - - Show Bio

Not as impressive as I was hoping, anyone who is a student of history knew these things. The problem is many American's, which I am assuming the article is aimed at, don't take an interest in history.

Now onto a counterpoint.... if the German army had gone through the middle east like many of the generals wanted they would have defeated the Russians because they would have cut the country in two and had the oil resources to keep their war-machine rolling, but Hitler was an egotistical bastard and wanted to show Stalin who was the better mad man.

I agree. Taking Turkey and Spain as allies germany could have easily won in north africa and eastern europe.

'The fact that Spain had practically no military significance and Turkey not much better has little to do with it. Italy didn't have a very efficient army either. It was (with regard to Spain and Turkey, not Italy) the strategic location that mattered. Spain blocked the entrance to the Med. From Turkey the Axis would have very good access to the oilfields of the Middle East and in Russia. With Turkey as ally the Germans wouldn't need to fight Stalingrad to get to the oilfields.'

#17 Edited by mrdecepticonleader (19380 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger said:

As a student of history, I can't believe people actually think these myths to be true in spite of the factual evidence documented about what transpired in WWII.

Well that is down to people not doing research.

#18 Edited by Bogey (1022 posts) - - Show Bio

Reason 5 is partially true. Roosevelt knew that he could only get the Americans to support the war effort if Japan was seen as the aggressor, and that is precisely how he engineered it economically.His cabinet was aware of a possible attack on Pearl Harbor years before it would happen and Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote that during a meeting with the president, he expected an attack to take place around the time the event took place.

#19 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2852 posts) - - Show Bio

America may not have contributed in man power but our contributions of equipment to Britain and the USSR was immense and helped them beat the Germans. I am not saying that Russia would have lost without US financial and material aid but many more Russians would have died. 2/3 of all Russian trucks were US made, pretty much all trains used by the USSR in WW2 was made by America, 20% of their military planes were US made, 1/4 of all British munitions were supplied by the US, and the US spent almost 20% of its Military expenditure during WW2 on feeding and supplying the Allies. Let me reiterate that the Soviet Union could have probably won without that aid but you can be sure that the winter clothing, food, and armaments supplied by the US was crucial to their victory.

Also the US was the main component in defeating Japan (probably about 70% of it) the other component was the Chinese and Britain... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Slim,_1st_Viscount_Slim

look up this man and his campaign in Burma with the Fourteenth Army (forgotten army of Britain) true bada**

Back to the US, the US in the Pacific took away Japans greatest advantage (sea power).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_coral_sea

The Battle of the Coral Sea saved Australia from a Japanese invasion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway

The Battle of Midway was the turning point in the Pacific

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_philippine_sea and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf

both are 2 of the largest naval battles in history (Philippine Sea was the largest carrier battle and Leyte Gulf was the largest in the tonnage of ships) and were the final nails in the coffin for the Japanese Empire.

Overall though I would say that America contributed about 35% of the Allied victory in WW2, the USSR 50%, Britain 10%, and the other allies 5% (this is purely opinion)

#20 Edited by russellmania77 (17084 posts) - - Show Bio

Where's captain America when u need him

#21 Posted by Stevens61310 (194 posts) - - Show Bio

I was aware of #5,3, and 2. I think the American involvement in the South Pacific may have been a little higher than 70% but I'm no statistician. I also personally believe that the Australian involvement in the South Pacific is higher than the British involvement.

Now #1 is where I have some questions. There is a significant amount of research that indicates the possibility of FDR knowing about Pearl Harbor. Significant enough that calling it bull sh--- is not so clear cut. I am paraphrasing this but I will never forget reading an interview between Walter Winchell (a news journalist of the time) and FDR. Winchell remarks that it was extraordinarily lucky that none of the aircraft carriers were in harbor at the time. And FDR remarks something like--do you think that's by coincidence--?? Things that make you go HMMMM

#22 Posted by WillPayton (11945 posts) - - Show Bio

#3 is debatable because it depends on what you mean by "would have won the war". If you mean "take over the world" then yes, Germany had no real chance at the time. But if you mean "take over Europe and be in a good position to later try to take over more" then, no, I dont think that's a myth.

Germany, and more specifically Hitler, made some huge mistakes and bad moves that if not done would have allowed them to take over Europe. Then, if they had Europe secured (especially if the U.S. hadnt entered the war) they'd have had more time to develop their atomic bomb, jet aircraft, and missile technologies. Once they had intercontinental jet bombers (were working on them) and atomic bombs (also working on them) they would indeed have been in good shape to take over the world.

#23 Posted by Edamame (29831 posts) - - Show Bio

Well, I don't entirely agree with number 3.

If Stalingrad, Moscow and Leningrad all fell, then the Soviet society/nation would have collapsed. Those three cities were the three main command and control centers of the former Soviet Union, and it's important to note that Nazi Germany was being engaged on three fronts and that Mussolini's failure to take over Greece is what delayed German plans to attack the Soviet Union. So they could have attacked in April or May instead of in June. The Russian winter was really Russia's most powerful "weapon". Also, let's not forget that the Soviets received a lot of aid from Britain, Canada and America. That simply can't be ignored. The British and the Soviets even had to invade neutral Iran in order to secure the natural resources (such as oil) there. They were concerned that the Axis Powers would have gained access to those natural resources.

#24 Edited by BadVoodoo (386 posts) - - Show Bio

@awesam: The fact that America was told to back down and let the Russians go on with the assault on Hitlers bunker shows how far American got in WW2. America didn't single handily won the war, but we were a huge help. If anything America was the wolverine of WW2.

oh and i didn't know thats were they got the poster from

its an in game poster in new vegas =P

#25 Posted by WillPayton (11945 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame said:

Well, I don't entirely agree with number 3.

If Stalingrad, Moscow and Leningrad all fell, then the Soviet society/nation would have collapsed. Those three cities were the three main command and control centers of the former Soviet Union, and it's important to note that Nazi Germany was being engaged on three fronts and that Mussolini's failure to take over Greece is what delayed German plans to attack the Soviet Union. So they could have attacked in April or May instead of in June. The Russian winter was really Russia's most powerful "weapon". Also, let's not forget that the Soviets received a lot of aid from Britain, Canada and America. That simply can't be ignored. The British and the Soviets even had to invade neutral Iran in order to secure the natural resources (such as oil) there. They were concerned that the Axis Powers would have gained access to those natural resources.

Attacking the Soviet Union in the first place was one of Hitlers biggest mistakes. Why, why do it? Stupidity and overconfidence is why. He thought that England would fall quickly and the Americans wouldnt be able to do much without a foothold in Europe. And he thought the Soviets would also fall quickly since he saw them as an inferior race and technologically backwards.

Hitler just made too many bad moves:

-not having enough U-Boats at the start of the war. If they'd waited until they had more, they could have shut down all supplies to Europe from America

-not destroying the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk

-invading the USSR

-not developing jet fighters quickly enough (Hitler wanted jet bombers... not fighters). Having a force of jet fighters earlier would have given the Germans total air superiority over Europe.

-failing to take out British radar stations and air fields and instead bombing cities like London

-failing to properly defend during D-Day, waiting to send reinforcements to the actual landing sites thinking the "real" attack was coming elsewhere. If the Germans had done things right, D-Day could have been a major disaster for the allies.

-trusting that idiot Mussolini with... anything

#26 Edited by consolemaster001 (6915 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: Germany should have treated italy as a puppet state rather than an equal

Also britian was pretty much f*cked so if operation sea lion could have worked.

#27 Edited by lykopis (10868 posts) - - Show Bio

That was fun to read.

#28 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29886 posts) - - Show Bio

@jedixman said:

@optimuspalm said:

@consolemaster001 said:

@optimuspalm said:

Its a shame they don't provide any proof.

The text in blue are links. You can check em out for proof.

Ok, there's obviously some proof, but also a lot of writers interpretation. I hate writers interpretation.

... it's Cracked. That's pretty much their thing.

What even is internet

#29 Edited by ssejllenrad (13028 posts) - - Show Bio

Biggest myth was that Hitler committed suicide. Not true at all. He died in a theater.. I watched it in a documentary by renowned historian Professor Quentin Tarantino, Ph.D.,

#30 Edited by Edamame (29831 posts) - - Show Bio
@willpayton said:

Attacking the Soviet Union in the first place was one of Hitlers biggest mistakes. Why, why do it? Stupidity and overconfidence is why. He thought that England would fall quickly and the Americans wouldnt be able to do much without a foothold in Europe. And he thought the Soviets would also fall quickly since he saw them as an inferior race and technologically backwards.

Hitler just made too many bad moves:

-not having enough U-Boats at the start of the war. If they'd waited until they had more, they could have shut down all supplies to Europe from America

-not destroying the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk

-invading the USSR

-not developing jet fighters quickly enough (Hitler wanted jet bombers... not fighters). Having a force of jet fighters earlier would have given the Germans total air superiority over Europe.

-failing to take out British radar stations and air fields and instead bombing cities like London

-failing to properly defend during D-Day, waiting to send reinforcements to the actual landing sites thinking the "real" attack was coming elsewhere. If the Germans had done things right, D-Day could have been a major disaster for the allies.

-trusting that idiot Mussolini with... anything

Well, Hitler and the Nazis never really wanted war with the British. It was Britain that declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Their main goals included the extermination of European Jews, "living space" in Eastern Europe, and attacking the Soviet Union was one of Hitler's main goals. He never wanted a war with the British. As a matter of fact, Hitler and the Nazis considered the English and the Germans to be "of the same race".

The Fascists and the Communists hated each other, and many people saw this as the opportunity to get rid of the Communist threat forever. Also, the former Soviet Union had the largest Jewish population in Europe. So the Nazis clearly had their eyes on the U.S.S.R. They also never expected America to enter the war, especially since America was almost 100% Isolationist. The Japanese had their own goals, but that messed up the plans of the other Axis Powers members. They never coordinated attacks. Also, many of the people in Eastern Europe also held anti-Communist sentiment. So it didn't really help that the Nazis were so racist. As a matter of fact, they probably could have overthrown Stalin and the Soviet government and ended the Communist threat right there, but the Nazis continued to be very anti-Slavic and against anything that wasn't "ethnic German". I also doubt that the Soviets would have been able to reach Berlin without all that assistance from Canada, Britain and America. I mean, we're talking about tens of billions of dollars worth of aid here. That money wasn't spent on Vodka or books but rather on military aid. Britain also received a lot of aid from Canada and America. One can't forget that. You are also absolutely right about that advanced military technology that Germany could have gained access to if more time was given.

The Luftwaffe came close to destroying the British Royal Air Force, but they decided to attack British civilians and British cities after the British air force bombed German cities. So that's why that happened.

Actually, if you're interested, here is a video about D-Day. It provides an intricate historical analysis of what happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_dbXyeyMa4

Also, here is a video depicting the Battle of Kursk, in which at least 5,000 tanks engaged each other. That was basically Hell on planet Earth. The vast majority of Russia's and Germany's tanks were used in this battle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI_ZeJ-AYM4

#31 Edited by WillPayton (11945 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame said:

The Luftwaffe came close to destroying the British Royal Air Force, but they decided to attack British civilians and British cities after the British air force bombed German cities. So that's why that happened.

That's my point, they didnt need to shift their focus from the air fields and radar stations to civilian targets. From what I remember the Brits bombed a German city by accident, and that caused Hitler to become enraged and he decided to divert the Luftwaffe's efforts to attacking London and all that. If Germany had finished off the RAF, which they could have, then they'd have air superiority for an invasion of England.

Not finishing off the forces at Dunkirk and not keeping focus on the RAF/airfields/radar stations were two of the biggest mistakes of the war because England stayed in the war and allowed both the Brits and Americans to keep a third front open. Also, there would have been no D-Day if England had fallen.

As far as the Russians, yeah Hitler wanted to take them down, but he should have waited until Europe was under control... which includes England. Remember that Hitler initially had a non-aggression pact with Stalin. This is because he knew he didnt want to be trying to conquer Europe AND invading Asia at the same time. He just got way overconfident after the early successes in the continent and started thinking that the USSR would fall as quickly as Poland and France.

#32 Posted by Edamame (29831 posts) - - Show Bio

That's my point, they didnt need to shift their focus from the air fields and radar stations to civilian targets. From what I remember the Brits bombed a German city by accident, and that caused Hitler to become enraged and he decided to divert the Luftwaffe's efforts to attacking London and all that. If Germany had finished off the RAF, which they could have, then they'd have air superiority for an invasion of England.

Not finishing off the forces at Dunkirk and not keeping focus on the RAF/airfields/radar stations were two of the biggest mistakes of the war because England stayed in the war and allowed both the Brits and Americans to keep a third front open. Also, there would have been no D-Day if England had fallen.

As far as the Russians, yeah Hitler wanted to take them down, but he should have waited until Europe was under control... which includes England. Remember that Hitler initially had a non-aggression pact with Stalin. This is because he knew he didnt want to be trying to conquer Europe AND invading Asia at the same time. He just got way overconfident after the early successes in the continent and started thinking that the USSR would fall as quickly as Poland and France.

With regards to the underlined, how would the Germans be able to get past or defeat the British navy?

#33 Posted by tupiaz (2258 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger said:

As a student of history, I can't believe people actually think these myths to be true in spite of the factual evidence documented about what transpired in WWII.

Agreed. Number one shocks me! Is that how it is in USA? I'm from Europe and everybody knows about the war on both fronts. However most talks the USA because after the war the Soviet was seen as the bad guys. By the way I don't agree with everything in the article. I'm not sure that the Soviet would have attack Hitler. That was Hitler biggest mistake that he was delayed and went to war anyway so that Nazi Germany would end up fighting doing Russian winter didn't help either. Also fore sure Hitler wasn't the mastermind behind it all he had helped from a lot of people knowing a lot more about military strategies than him. However the article in my opion also does his to discredited him way to much. Saying that he didn't know what he was doing and only won because of luck is a very biased attitude. You don't get to the true by giving too much discredited to the part that is favoured to much. You are getting to the truth by giving prove how it actually was and get rid of bias on both sides.

@optimuspalm said:

@consolemaster001 said:

@optimuspalm said:

Its a shame they don't provide any proof.

The text in blue are links. You can check em out for proof.

Ok, there's obviously some proof, but also a lot of writers interpretation. I hate writers interpretation.

That is what you get in history. It is the historians job to be as objective as possible but in the end it is how the historian understand, reads and values the sources that will end up with being based on sometimes assumptions and guessing. Not that history on purpose is lying or wrong (well propaganda history is but that is another thing). However historians has always been debating whatever or not another historian has the right conclusion.

#34 Posted by Nefarious (28696 posts) - - Show Bio

They say Adolf Hitler committed suicide but I don't see any proof.