I probably didn’t make this clear, but I didn’t agree with everything that prof said. I did read up afterwards on WWII and figured out what you said: that we needed the North African & Italian campaigns to get ourselves up to snuff for the main event.
And like you, I don’t see anything at all wrong with Eisenhower’s attempting to minimize U.S. casualties.
But my point was that all of us in that class had no idea at all of how much the Russians went through in WWII. The point was that he made us see the world from a different perspective, which is what college is supposed to do.
[hijack]There are valid military reasons for avoiding casualties to the extent possible. Humanitarian feelings aren’t alone in that aim. Excessive casualties can and do prevent reaching the objective. Every casualty has to be replaced, and in the beginning the replacement is rarely as effective as the original because of inexperience. The replacements have to be brought to the site using transport, such as ships, that could be carrying supplies. Wounded have to be cared for which takes personnel away from possible combat roles. Heavy casualties are hard on morale; people can only take so much.[/hijack]
If that professor made any dent in the general impression that “We saved the world from Hitler” I’ll be surprised. I’ve more or less abandoned any effort to convince others of the exaggeration of that view.
For the record here is what the Historian of the Army writes about the WWII battle in the USSR. The last paragraph is particularly revealing.
On the other hand, maybe we aren’t any worse at facing up to our history than is anyone else, although it’s hard to beat the blind eye that defenders of the Confederate States of America possess.
Teachers, despite what the major unions may have one believe, are a fairly diverse lot. Many are left wing, but quite a few are very conservative and wear their views on their sleeve in the classroom. And in practice, very few history or social studies teachers I know go strictly by the book or include only the approved curriculum. They insert a great deal of their own life experiences and world view in their courses. And indeed, there are still many teachers that maintain a very traditionalistic method of teaching history, at least at the high school level.
As for doing more “good” for the world than any other country…yes the United States has had the potential for doing great good. Indeed I think most Europeans are fundamentally greatful (even if they don’t currently show it ) for the United States’ liberation in World War II. I think the average non-elite citizen of Latin America, Africa, Russia, Asia. or even the Middle East sees the “American way” as a quite desirable way of life when compared to his or her own. There is certainly no shortage of ‘new applicants’ to the United States either. But as a large country with a huge economy, our foreign policy misdeeds are bound to reverberate far more than say, lapses in Danish or Slovenian foreign policy.
But the attitude that “all you little people better love everything we do and be grateful for us forever” is bound to cause some anger isn’t it?