http://www.cracked.com/article_21091_5-bullshit-facts-everyone-believes-about-wwii.html
This article talks about five things that most people believe about world war II. I would like to know about the legitimacy of their claims. This article was put on their website today.
The first point is that World War II was not as technologically advanced as many people think. That many countries were using cavalry, including the US, Russia, and Germany. I think this point is more focused on the use of horses than the lack of technology, because even if the number of horses used matches with the article, I think the technology used was impressive for the time.
The next point talks about how the Nazis were never close to developing an atomic bomb, mostly because of their anti-semitism forcing Albert Einstein and Erwin Schroedinger out of the country. Another point was that because of the war, very few other countries wanted to work with Germany on their technological research.
The third point talks about how before the Nazis took over, Germany was on the up-and-up on the state of their government. The article says that after the Nazis took over, the German government became a bumbling mess. The Gestapo also would have lost all legitimacy if not for stories that random citizens had made up about the Gestapo's power.
The fourth point talks about how the generation of people during WWII actually weren't the "greatest generation" for a myriad of reasons. The fact that two-thirds of WWII servicemen were drafted, vs. two-thirds of Vietnam war servicemen being volunteers. The fact that WWII had the highest draft-dodging rates in US history, desertion rates were the same as in Vietnam, and that the servicemen were getting drunk whenever they could.
Lastly, the article claims that not many people in the US even knew what the war was about, and that many who did know wanted every single Japanese person exterminated from the planet.
That is it on the article. Also, should we start a subreddit about fact-checking Cracked articles? I have seen several posts wanting to fact-check articles, and maybe these should be delegated to their own subreddit.
The next point talks about how the Nazis were never close to developing an atomic bomb, mostly because of their anti-semitism forcing Albert Einstein and Erwin Schroedinger out of the country. Another point was that because of the war, very few other countries wanted to work with Germany on their technological research.
It's a small point, but Einstein had a tiny, tiny role in the development of the bomb (nothing would really have changed if he hadn't participated, in my view), and Schrödinger had zero role. Neither would have had any role in making a bomb in Nazi Germany, either. They didn't do the kind of physics that was useful for bomb work (E=mc^2 has essentially nothing to do with actually making an atomic bomb, popular perception to the contrary).
There were physicists who were driven out who were important to the US project either because they were extremely technically gifted (Hans Bethe, John von Neumann, Enrico Fermi, etc.) or because they were extraordinarily motivated to convince the Allied governments and scientists to embark on a risky bomb-development project (Leo Szilard, Otto Frisch, Rudolf Peierls, etc.).
But it is in fact true that the Germans were not at all close to getting a bomb (they weren't even really trying to develop one, in fact), and it is also true that most people (at least most Americans, in my experience) have been mislead into thinking that there was a real "race for the bomb" that the US "narrowly" won.
If this were an exam I would give Cracked a "B" on this answer (and that would be because of grade inflation). Their ultimate conclusion is correct, one of the factors they mention is related, but they are missing out on a lot of the important aspects that would be necessary for a good grade.
The United States had the only army that was mostly motorized,
The BEF in 1939/40 was fully motorized (note: not mechanized), albeit with a large number of requisitioned civilian vehicles and limited off-road capability.
Source: Thomppson, J. Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory.
The Nazis Were an Efficient, Bureaucratic Machine
I don't believe this has ever been canon, the Third Reich is an excellent case study of waste, inefficiency and repeatedly failing to select and maintain an aim.
The "Greatest Generation" Was Better Than Later Generations
They are right to question this assertion, but for the wrong reasons. The key here lies in generational theory rather than feeble comparisons between WWII and Vietnam, viz: all generations are different, but each is capable of achieving extraordinary things in dire straits. If we were to play the "Greatest Generation" game then Wellington's soldiers of the Peninsular Campaign knock spots off any other British military generation in my opinion. All volunteers, they spent years away from home, fought an innovative campaign, were very well led and outperformed the French at every turn.
There is nothing to suggest that this generation couldn't perform as well under similar pressures.
It Was the "Good War"
No war is ever good. Clausewitz described war as an act of violence designed to compel the enemy to fulfill our will.
The Greek poet Pindar wrote that:
"War is sweet to those who have no experience of it."
Martin Luther described war as:
"...the greatest plague that can afflict humanity... it destroys states, it destroys families...
any scourge is preferable to it."
After Waterloo, Wellington is reported as saying:
"Nothing except a battle lost can be half as melancholy a battle won."
The next point talks about how the Nazis were never close to developing an atomic bomb, mostly because of their anti-semitism forcing Albert Einstein and Erwin Schroedinger out of the country. Another point was that because of the war, very few other countries wanted to work with Germany on their technological research.
This was brought up here a few days ago. Conclusion: The Germans were indeed nowhere near developing the atomic bomb. Also, it's not just that there weren't many countries working with Germany, some of the best minds in those countries, like Einstein and Enrico Fermi, had gone to the US.
The article says that after the Nazis took over, the German government became a bumbling mess.
One of the things about the German government was that it was designed, by Hitler, to be inefficient. Like many dictators Hitler was worried about being overthrown by those in his own government. To prevent this the government was set up so that different ministers, etc had overlapping areas of responsibility. This was so they would have to fight with each other to get what they wanted. Hitler's hope in this was that they'd spend too much time fighting with each other than with him. Hitler too was quite hands off in his approach in being a leader. He'd give vague orders in what he wanted (quite possibly due to his not knowing how to accomplish what he wanted due to having no expertise in basically anything) and then leave it to everyone else to figure out how to do it, with all the before mentioned infighting. The result of all of this was of course was a less efficient government.
This is examined in "Hitler" and "The End" both by Ian Kershaw.