Thank gawd no Euros, Asians, other NorteAmericanos or Africans do that.
I’m not sure how one could teach American history without having a focus on America and Americans.
Right, every country programs at least some portion of their history curriculum for children to be on the history of their country. It just isn’t possible to fully teach kids age 5 to 18 a “comprehensive history of every region of the world”, and probably not even a good idea to try. It instead makes sense to have classes on national history, and then some classes on world history that try to give kids a broad understanding of important history that has shaped the larger world. Also how it ties back in to the history of their country.
For that reason, things like the English Civil War and the English Bill of Rights frequently tie in to American history lessons–we inherit the constitutional traditions of those things. Whereas much less time is generally spent going over the history of the various French Republics in history classes in the United States.
If you are teaching American History, then you focus on Americas role in WWII. Which was significant. But in a world history course, it should be pointed out that the Soviet Union did the bulk of the fighting on the eastern front. Maybe it should also be pointed out in an American History Course.
Is it bullshit history the we (the US) defeated the Nazis?
Incomplete history. That’s why they called themselves the Allies.
I’ve never read any WWII history (including those books written by American historians) that claimed or suggested that Americans defeated the Nazis on their own.
*cue outraged gripes about U-571.
Probably not. On the other hand, it is and was bullshit history that the US defeated the Kaiser. The problem isn’t that nations concentrate on their own history: the problem is that they get it wrong.
Regarding the Russians: my ancestor was expecting to be sent out to the North Atlantic to be torpedo’d by a German submarine while supplying the Russians, when the Nazi’s surrendered and he was sent to the Pacific instead. The Russians don’t learn about that.
My country, Australia, is convinced that they defeated the Japanese in Papua. They may be aware that the Japanese were starving to death* at the time, but they don’t make the link to Naval battles, or even between starvation and defeat.
Arguably, history doesn’t matter, or that truth isn’t the point of education: but arguably, the idea that the USA is undefeated, and wins wars without external support, leads to bad political decisions like the invasion of Iraq.
*As in, you know, dying. Of starvation
Maybe not a detailed WWII history, but I have had conversations with USians where that claim is made.
I think part of the issue there is the way US history is taught in public schools.
In my high school US History was one year long class that used one textbook. Think about that for a minute. Cramming all of the 400+ years of the history of Europeans in North America into one book. You basically have to omit stuff to make room.
And that’s not even mentioning that when I took US History in high school in the early 90s we basically got to end of World War II by the end of the year and did not even finish the book. And when I mentioned something we learned in class of my classmates they often completely forgot about it or misremember a great deal.
There is a good chance most Americans have learned about World War II from popular culture than the US education system.
Acting alone and saving the rest of the World? Yes, bullshit.
The fact that the Chinese government has shown a pattern of behavior that prioritizes saving their own face above everything else kind of makes everything else they say suspect, and complicates the whole idea of whether it came out of a lab in some way.
I mean, I don’t blame the Chinese people, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the lab workers and government officials’ first instincts and reactions at all levels were coverups, and they only fessed up to their superiors when they absolutely couldn’t cover up any more.
It’s bullshit history to claim that any ONE nation defeated the Nazis. It’s true that the Russians did the majority of the land fighting on the Eastern Front. But it’s also true that the US/British strategic bombing campaign severely crippled the German ability to make war, especially in the latter half of 1944 and afterward. The Russians did virtually no strategic bombing whatsoever. Nor did they offer any meaningful naval capability in the east or west either.
Speaking of WWII, one thing that sounds like absolute bullshit history is that the US 8th Air Force (the European theater air force) actually suffered more killed than the Marine Corps in WWII did. After all, we constantly hear how bloody Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Peleliu, Okinawa, etc… were, right?
But it’s true. The bombers never lost more than about 600 killed in any given day, but there were a LOT of days. In the fall of 1943 anyway, bomber crews often flew 2-3 missions per week. (my grandfather started in mid-September and ended right after Christmas 1943, and flew 25 missions in that time). That adds up after a while, and at the end of the war, the 8th Air Force had suffered 47,000 casualties, 26,000 of who were dead. The USMC only lost just shy of 20,000 killed in action during the war.
“The Longest Day” “Patton” “Saving Private Ryan”, the list goes on. The US beat the Nazis.
British history probably focuses on the British role. And British movies probably emphasize the British contribution. French films are mostly about the Resistance.
“The West” aka NATO are all probably equally guilty in minimizing the eastern front. Not only for nationalistic reasons, but the Cold War that followed.
So i am not trying to minimize the western front or what we sacrificed, i am saying it is bullshit history that we think we defeated the Nazis. Without any help from the Soviets.
Serious Historians of WWII would of course know otherwise, but the common man?
It is also bullshit history to say that the US single-handedly defeated the Japanese -though we probably had bigger role in their defeat than the Nazis defeat in Europe.
Also it’s interesting to note people(at least in the US) rarely mention the defeat and collapse of the Fascist Mussolini regime in Italy. I actually had to look it up in Wikipedia to learn how it happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Empire#End_of_the_empire
Isn’t this thread NOT about “history that turned out to be bullshit” ?
The Allied invasion of Sicily and mainland Italy is quite well-known in the U.S., although more attention has been paid to the landings in Normandy.
“What? Over? Did you say ‘over?’ Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!”
It’s not much of a pattern though really; information about the virus was suppressed in the early days and doctors were even jailed. This was awful and local government should face convictions. But this was over a period of 10 days.
In the way it keeps getting blown up with each retelling, it’s supposedly obvious that China knew months beforehand and even knew the answers to all the scientific questions that normally take investigation to solve, like whether it could spread human to human.
Anyway, in this thread its not necessary for us to rehash all this. The point is, it’s way too soon for anyone to declare that Trump is right on this one. The evidence is zilch.
Pretty sure stress and diet and not considered a cause for ulcers these days. H.pylori and NSAIDs are the biggest culprits.
Absolutely true about the Soviets.
Germany had over one million casualties on the Eastern front, along wit hthe loss of 2800 tanks and 2800 planes.
On D Day, the allied forces has 156,000 army vs Germanys 56,000 - the allies NEEDED 3 to 1 to make the invasion.
Now imagine D Day with 156,000 vs 250,000 or 156,000 vs 1,000,000.
(now, I am not sure about the numbers, someone can correct me, but the principle is clear - the allies fought a small proportion of the German army.).
You’re joking, but our school history classes are still very Eurocentric, not Afrocentric at all.