I am assuming Churchill doesn't come up in public school very often because he isn't part of the state corriculum. The facts are presented in highschool surronding WW2. Hitler is the main focal point because he of course is credited for starting the War. I think going into great detail about Churchill becomes more suited for politics than it does high-school-level world history.
Well it depends on the geographic location of the school. Each state and each school district sets its own curriculum. The federal government attempts to encourage states and local school boards with monetary incentives, but ultimately it is the responsibility of the state and local school board to determine the curriculum and what is or is not taught in the classroom. So a person in New York could be taught one thing and someone in Kansas City could be taught something else. Given that many Americans can’t tell you the three branches of their government, I wouldn’t be too surprised to find that many are unaware of the role the Soviet Union played in WWII. Overall, I am not happy with the US system of compulsory education. I think our system of compulsory education has plenty of room for improvement.
Going back to the original question, perhaps it may prove informative to invite foreign teachers from Germany, Russia or France to come over and give a lesson as they would teach the history to their students. This might help the students gain some greater insight, learn different aspects and discover how history maybe perceived differently from other foreign perspectives. It certainly wouldn't hurt them to learn about cultural bias either.
Well it happens already, mostly at post-secondary level. Two, innate in your statement is the notion that bias flows one way. Cultural bias doesn’t only flow in one direction. Cultural bias is not a one way street, it is a two way street. It flows in many directions and in many places. It is ubiquitous.
japan initiated WW2 by invading manchuria. this led to the US embargo on japan which led to the events of pearl harbor.
germany suffered her first defeat at the hands of the ruissians and could have adversely affected german morale to the point of no recovery. thousands of russians gave their lives to this effort.
Well that is true for the Pacific front of the war, but not so much for the European front of the war. It overlooks the Nazi role, Soviet, and Italian roles in starting WWII.
First, Russia didn’t exist as a country during WWII. It was the Soviet Union. And two, the Soviets were not responsible for the first Allied victory of WWII. The Greeks are the Allied forces credited with the first Allied victory against the Axis powers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Greece_during_World_War_II And three, millions of Soviets lost their lives during WWII, not mere thousands. And they lost their lives for many reasons including the fact that they were badly beaten by the surprise Nazi attacks, their military was severely weakened by Stalin’s paranoid purges, incompetent leadership, and reckless and aggressive battle tactics. Soviet military deaths during WWII were 2 to 3 times greater than those of Nazi Germany for the entire war! That is what happens when you use your troops as cannon fodder. And that is not something to take pride in. “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” – George S. Patton, American WWII General It is important to remember that the Nazi’s and Soviets were allied (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) until the Nazi’s terminated the alliance with an invasion of the Soviet Union in June of 1941.
Honeslty can't remember, public schools are a mess, Learn far FAR more in college and after years of reading non-fictions for fun have covered, pilled over and over, what ever it was I learn in high school that I honestly can't rememberr what they taught me about WW2. My peeve is usually with japan and how they make sure to be as vague as possible about this histroy with their kids... for some reason.
It seems if Asguard is indeed correct and you are also correct about foreign teachers already visiting and giving lessons then they need to be getting better teachers. I really find it hard to understand how a german or russian teacher is not going to teach the students about Russia's role within the war. Perhaps schools do have visiting teachers but just not often enough to make a real difference, that sounds a more likely explanation. I agree with you about cultural bias though, I wasn't trying to suggest it was a one way only phenomia - but merely that with exposure to foreign perspectives they would become more enabled and equipped to recognise it when the came across it in the future.
they weren't allies, they had a non aggression pact, it the Soviets wanted to stay out of the war, same as the US actually Well this just proves my point, the start of the war wasn't when the US joined in 1941 it was when Hitler invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. There were lots of little wars like the italian war with ethopia, the spanish civil war and the Japanise invasion of china which lead up to this but this is the official start of the war
Well it was more than just a non-aggression pact. It was also an agreement to jointly carve up Eastern Europe (i.e. Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland). I think that by anyone’s definition that counts as an alliance.
you mean like when France and England made an agreement with Germany to allow them certain countries without contest as long as that's all they took? Would you say France and England were Germany's allies too?
Huh, no. The Munich Agreement was an appeasement to avoid warfare. Prior to the Munich Agreement the UK and France had tried unsuccessfully to thwart Nazi aggression and annexations. The Munich agreement was a last ditch agreement with Germany to stop Nazi expansionism and militarism and avoid another world war. It didn’t work. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union, which as previously noted, divided up Eastern Europe between the signers (i.e. Germany and The Soviet Union) in exchange for mutual cooperation. Under the pact, certain countries and portions of certain Eastern European countries were apportioned to The Soviet Union and others to Germany – see the difference? The UK and France got nothing out of the Munich Agreement but a promise that Nazi Germany would not annex or invade any other lands – a promise that Nazi Germany almost immediately broke and which resulted in WWII.
The Soviet invasion of Poland vividly demonstrates that the only reason we allied with the USSR during WW-2 is that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. They got what they deserved in their invasion of Finland
well maybe someone needs to tell those kids that japan was second only to the nazis in their brutality. on the other hand they were fierce formidable fighters. the defenders of iwo died almost to the last man, very very few surrendered. japan wasn't bad, her military machine made her that way. it's the same old story, "we are destined to rule the world ! ! !" many have tried, all have failed.
But Japan didn't want to rule the world. Japan wanted to control the oil and natural resources in what they called the 'southern resource area', the southern pacific and australia.
"I was only following orders," is not a valid excuse. War crimes always come down to individual reponsibility.
If Japan only wanted "the southern resource area" and not to rule the world, why did they invade and occupy Alaska, Korea, or Manchuria none of which are south of Japan? And I don’t recall much in the way of resources (e.g. oil) on most of those Pacific Islands Japan invaded and occupied during WWII.
Realistically, nobody thought in terms of ruling the whole world. It would probably be more correct to say that Japan wanted to rule their part of the world. So did Germany. So did the USSR. (So did the USA, for that matter.) The war was caused by differing opinions on what "their part" ought to be.
