the American view of world history vs everyone else's

[Carbon]

Do you ever wonder how different other countries's take on world history is relative to the American "version" of world history?

Quick example, how different do you suppose the curriculum of WW2 history in German public schools differ from ours? Japan? or any other country.

Is there a possibility, that some of this so called "cultural imperialism", Americans have portrayed of having imposed among other countries may stem from the discrepancy in information?

How mallable is that information?

I know this is a really broad question.

your thoughts and opinions, please disscuss. Peope who have traveled and learned abroad please comment.


thnx

[Major Ho]

My French exchange student friend was taught in school that their people fought valiently when the Germans invaded them.
We Americans joke all the time that they surrendered and got sacked up the butt twice.

[Flamebo]

It's late and I've got class in the morning, but I'm happy to see that other people take an interest in things like this. [generalization] Americans have been conditioned for generations to believe that their perspective on history is unquestionable fact, and that's not the case at all[/generalization]. This goes as well with plenty of other countries, but if you look into it you begin to realize just how strongly a government can affect public opinion on whatever they like.

[Carbon]

yeah man. information or dis-information.

[nastymag]

the french army was full of horrible generals and in general couldnt coordinate, the Free French fought valiently after their nation had fallen.

but yeah pretty much any country is going to squew their history to show themselves in a more favorable light

[maglover728]

I have a few French WWII rifles for sale. Never fired, only dropped once. pm me if intrested!



LOL

[FreakBaller12]

I have a few French WWII rifles for sale. Never fired, only dropped once. pm me if intrested!



LOL

roflee! :rofl:

[bornl33t]

It's late and I've got class in the morning, but I'm happy to see that other people take an interest in things like this. [generalization] Americans have been conditioned for generations to believe that their perspective on history is unquestionable fact, and that's not the case at all[/generalization]. This goes as well with plenty of other countries, but if you look into it you begin to realize just how strongly a government can affect public opinion on whatever they like.

erm, not goverment, MEDIA.

I grew up in Austria, went to school, the whole nine yards. Their view on history isn't THAT different from Americans. The perpective is obviously different... but in general what you hear in school is how they believe the war (for instance) happened. Austria believes they were invaded from the beginning and some Germans think that Austria joined the Reich voluntarily. But both conceed that it was Americans and British that ended it and that what was going on in Europe was indeed wrong.
You'll find that the younger generations are increasingly less thankful for the defeat of nazi germany and increasingly more jealous of america, with MUCH resentment and hate I might add.

[PyRo]

That's the way the world works. The generations that America helped is quickly dieing and the new one doesn't care what happened before they were born. When is the last time anyone around here thanked the French for helping their great great great grandfathers in our revolutionary war?

[Eagle]

For their help during our revolution is the only reason I don't totally despise the french. But it's like bornl33t said, it's the media. If it bleeds it leads, never mind the reason or outcome. But yes, other countries have different perspectives. In Britain, they call it the American rebbelion or something, and they dedicate very little time to it, for to them, it wasn't a good time and it wasn't a pivitol point in their history. I' mean, how many people here have ever even heard of Guy Fawke, and yet one of Britains most celebrated holidays is named for him. How many people over there know anything about Jamestown, and yet I know I learned about it every year I as in school.

[Konigballer]

Contrary to apparent popular belief, the French only actively joined our fight in the American Revolution AFTER the turning point in that war had already been fought, the Battle of Saratoga.

They, the French, were'nt going to throw their chips in until they were sure we were going to win.


Of course, during World War 1 America did'nt actually get in the fight till the last year of the war in 1918 after the Germans had lost all possibility of victory when their last great offensive, the "kaiserschlacht", had already failed. Our actual battlefield contribution to the alliies in that conflict was minimal compared to the British, French, Russians, etc.

[Bolter]

We are taught that Americans like to think they are helping more often than not. It was our planning and bombing raids that burnt Germany to the ground, and ended the war, raiding by night and very successfully. The Americans tried to bomb the Germans in the day and lost hundreds and hundreds of planes and men and made little or no impression. Anyone taught anything else? I would like to know.
America messes up alot. There are alot of ally and civillian casualties when you guys are around, and that has nothing to do with the media, or your brave soldiers.

The French were split. Some were actively helping during the war, others did not. You only really remember those that didn't.

Guy Fawkes tried to blow up Parliament, we celebrate his unsuccessfulness (if thats a word ) Its an excuse to have a big fire, and set off large fireworks which is nice

[quik]

I know in Japan, they dont think that Hitler is bad.

BOY DOES HITLER LOVE PACHINKO!!!!

[MarkM]

In WWI the Americans joined in 1917...as already pointed out...ask a man in the street as to why they think America joined in they will mostly tell you this was due to the Mauritania being sunkl...That ship was sunk in 1915. The actual reason was that the British decoded a German High Command message (we had the codes for the pretty much the entire war but didn't act on them totally so as not to alert the germans we could translate their orders, much the same as the Enigma code in the WWII was cracked well in advance of any film you might see by the British and also not acted upon in case we tipped our hand) that was intercepted urging the Mexican's to invade the US (pretty silly considering they were having a civil war at the time but..)
When America arrived in France to fight many of their soldiers were lost due to the American Generals attempting attack stratagies that had several years before been proved to be too costly but the American Generals refused to listen and huge losses were the result. Whilst arrogance could be used as a defence America had not a fought a war of any concequence for many years so tactics etc were totally out of date and unfortunately the result was a lot of needless deaths.
To be totally fair our own Generals were so far up their own behinds they couldn't see the needless deaths that had occured in some of thier own pushes. WWI was not won by one battle, it was just costing too much in both money and lives on both sides.
One of the reasons for the start of WWII given by the Germans was that they hadn't actually lost...that and the French had demanded huge payments for the losses inflicted upon them...so much so that the French actually invaded part of Germany after the end of WWI to try and force Germany to get some of this money back which was reasonably successful money wise. But the collapse of the German economy following this was one of the elements that helped the rise of the Nazi's.

As far as the daylight bomber campaign is concerned, the Americans had a better bombing site but had only trained in daylight so it would have been madness to send them over at night despite the losses they would get although they figured since they could fly so high they would be safe..which was quickly proved to be wrong but it still continued. America's involvement in WWII until Pearl Harbour was a financial one. Many times they were asked by Churchill to enter the war but he was refused. After Pearl Harbour this changed as America could hardly fight the Japanese (which the British were already doing) and not come in on the same side. The Failure of the League of Nations (which was the idea of the American President but lost support in congress) was partly to cause this length of time before America formally entered the war. Had American joined the war when it began it's industrial might would have been a deciding factor in time to have saved a lot more lives. Of course history is easy to say what if after the facts but as the first post in this thread is asking how are these facts presented elsewhere. I would say that if you are to ignore political slant (American imperialism as touted in the media today) then it is misinformation a bit like chinese whispers (I don't know if that translates in America) that is the real problem.
All countrys will have a slightly different perspective on things but in general I have found that the english teachings are accurate warts and all.
I met an American a few years ago at the WC who avidly collects WWII books on Battles and Campaigns and deliberately buys english books as he has found that American accounts were too fanciful and his own words were that some units were travelling several hundreds of miles and then coming back to do something else (on foot btw) and often glossing over that some units were merely support units and often saw very little action in the battle they were supposed to have won for the allies...this is an American saying this not me so you can draw your own conclusions from that.
It cannot be said that America's eventual full involvement in WWII didn't help to bring it to an end but when you consider that England had been alone against Germany and Japan for 3 years we weren't about to be totally overrun...although hindsight shows that in 1940 the Germans could have invaded without a great deal of resistance but they thought we were stronger than we actually were.

[Buff]

the french army was full of horrible generals and in general couldnt coordinate, the Free French fought valiently after their nation had fallen.

thats what is tought in schools these days........
in reality there were the Vichy French......most actually believed the Germans were going to win.....so why fight 'em when you can join 'em?

Also, I lived in Japan.....the whole '35-'45ish period is kinda ignored in their history......like it didn't happen.

perspectives are all great, but what happenned in WWII is fact.......same as in Korea. Or Vietnam.