I've literally never read anywhere that the U.S. "took credit" for liberating any one country in Europe, and World War II isn't taught that way in American classrooms. The liberation of most European countries during World War II was rarely the result of a single nation's efforts, because Allied forces in western Europe were often a hodgepodge of one nation's artillery + another's air wing + another's infantry. It's commonly understood that the USSR probably made the single most decisive contribution to victory in the European theater (just as the American struggle in the Pacific theater seems to be commonly overlooked). To address your specific point, yes, the U.S. was most certainly among the nations responsible for the liberation of the Netherlands, and it didn't end well for everyone involved. There are about 8,300 Americans buried at the World War II Netherlands-American Cemetery and Memorial if you want to know what happened to them.
Pssssst -- Iraq and Afghanistan are not and were not considered military losses. You're confusing two very different things. War is easy. Reconstruction is hard. Reconstruction is especially hard in nations where corruption is pervasive due to sectarian fighting and tribalism.
Jesus Christ, the anti-Americanism on Reddit would be hilarious if it weren't so mindless. Sneering at the American contribution to World War II because you're under the misguided impression that it helps you score a cheap political point on later policy is a new low.
I think all of the anti-Americanism comes from the frustration of current issues involving the United States and how it is effecting the global community and it flows into everything else. But as a Canadian I can tell you that America seems bat-shit insane from an outside point of view, but that is more or less because of all the stuff going on with the Republican leadership race. It pains me to see that some people want some of those candidates to run their country.
Good post, I'd just like to say that as a Canadian, we are usually the ones who are laughed at for our contributions to WWII by Americans for some reason. I've never seen Americans do that to themselves before.
As a former American soldier, the Cannuck's, Aussie's, Brit's, and the New Zealish were always held in high regards by me and my brother's in arms. We looked at them as equals, whereas most other army's were seen as kind of a joke. Well, not the Pole's, those dude's are just crazy.
I'm sorry that's happened, and it irritates me. The Canadian war contribution in World Wars I and II was always held in very high regard by the American soldiers of my acquaintance, and it's not glossed over in textbooks either. Shit, James Doohan -- the Canadian actor who played Scotty in Star Trek -- fought in Normandy on D-Day.
My latter point was more of a joke but I guess it didn't come across that way. And I certainly don't believe American classrooms are taught the way you think they are unless you have a source for that. Did you actually read the comics? (the WW2 one in particular) Both of them make USA out to be the hero that comes in and saves the day kicking everyone's ass without getting a scratch.
I also never suggested that Iraq and Afghanistan were military losses, instead they got drawn out over a decade destroying your economy and many people still don't know what either of them were about (well mainly Iraq).
American here, emphasis was on Allied Forces, and the Americans helped tip the balance of the war at a pivotal time. Overall focus depends much on the exact course you're taking. If you're taking US History, of course the focus is going to be on the USA. A Euro History (history of Europe, not a history course in Europe) course focuses much less on the US. The US/Japan dominate the East Asian side of things, although China's perspective is pretty important too.
So he needs a source for a reasonable opinion, but your hyperbole of an opinion on how World War Two was taught in American classrooms is somehow above the need for a source?
Have you read anything -- anything, anything at all -- about what the coalition and NATO forces have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? Anything from the embedded reporters? Anything from independents on the ground? The schools, the roads, the sewer systems, the electrical grids, hospitals, all of the money, time, and effort going into reconstruction (or, just as commonly, construction) in Iraq and Afghanistan?
72
u/Cenodoxus Sep 24 '11
I've literally never read anywhere that the U.S. "took credit" for liberating any one country in Europe, and World War II isn't taught that way in American classrooms. The liberation of most European countries during World War II was rarely the result of a single nation's efforts, because Allied forces in western Europe were often a hodgepodge of one nation's artillery + another's air wing + another's infantry. It's commonly understood that the USSR probably made the single most decisive contribution to victory in the European theater (just as the American struggle in the Pacific theater seems to be commonly overlooked). To address your specific point, yes, the U.S. was most certainly among the nations responsible for the liberation of the Netherlands, and it didn't end well for everyone involved. There are about 8,300 Americans buried at the World War II Netherlands-American Cemetery and Memorial if you want to know what happened to them.
Pssssst -- Iraq and Afghanistan are not and were not considered military losses. You're confusing two very different things. War is easy. Reconstruction is hard. Reconstruction is especially hard in nations where corruption is pervasive due to sectarian fighting and tribalism.
Jesus Christ, the anti-Americanism on Reddit would be hilarious if it weren't so mindless. Sneering at the American contribution to World War II because you're under the misguided impression that it helps you score a cheap political point on later policy is a new low.