It is claimed that Napoleon once said “history is the lies that the victors agree on”. While rather extreme, there is a strong element of truth in this statement. Unfortunately the military history of WWII (as opposed to the political and socio-economic histories) has been, and still is, particularly susceptible to this phenomenon. It appears that the whole subject of Nazi Germany and WWII is so emotive that it has proved difficult for many historians and other commentators to be objective. In many cases it has proved impossible for them to stand back and analyse the purely military aspects of the war, with particular focus on the tactical and operational performance of the belligerent’s military forces.
There are many reasons for this, which would in themselves warrant a whole book. However, the core seems to be human nature: who wants to learn that their ‘hated’ enemy exhibited a higher degree of tactical or operational skill than their own brave soldiers? Who wants to learn that a derided enemy weapon system was in fact an outstanding operational success? Nevertheless one would expect that after six decades a sense of objective realism would prevail in regards to the military aspects of WWII. Unfortunately the vast majority of literature to do with this subject is written by ‘authorities’ from the winning side, and generally there has been a curious reluctance on the part of historians and authors to shake off the myths bestowed by Allied counter-propaganda during the war. It is understandable and necessary that during WWII the Allies (including the Soviets) would assiduously propagate statements to debunk Axis propaganda.
Read Full Article »