NationStates Jolt Archive

In school, what do they teach you about the history of America, and the role they played in wars allied with you and against you? Because here in America they teach us about the history of Britian/England, and the roles you played in wars allied with us and against us. Just wondering.

evenin.. erm really not that much at all. it tends to be more British history and European history. However they do talk about American in the Colonial Period. And in the second world war they do but nothing specific really

They teach about American history between the two wars as well.

Well erm…we learnt that you slaughtered native Americans, got bombed at Pearl harbour, almost cost us WWI and that the scouts were founded by a Nazi

I don’t think the first one is entirely fair on the U.S but then again I never paid attention in school:p

edit: and we learnt about prohibition and how to make moonshine

They taught me very little just the basic dates, eg pearl harbour, When you joined the wars but apart from that all i learnt about america is of my own doing.
Question? this is in no way meant to be offensive but are you taught that you won the war by yourselves because that is how you are portrayed by the media over here.

We did the whole gold rush, indians, mormons, cowboys, manifest destiny thing.

Basically inter-wars and cold war.

They taught me very little just the basic dates, eg pearl harbour, When you joined the wars but apart from that all i learnt about america is of my own doing.
Question? this is in no way meant to be offensive but are you taught that you won the war by yourselves because that is how you are portrayed by the media over here.

Which war?

We were taught next to nothing about American history, although we were told that the USA's involvement in WWII wasn't quite what 'they' make it out to be in Hollywood.

The two world wars, although i know you won the war of independance we were never taught about dates or even the politics and motivation behind it.

we learnt about slavery,and the civil rights movement, the depression up to nixon,vietnam and korea and the cold war.Quite a lot really.

The two world wars, although i know you won the war of independance we were never taught about dates or even the politics and motivation behind it.

We were told that if we hadn't joined WWI, you would've gotten your asses kicked. Same with WWII. And we started the Revolution because Parliament decided to make laws for the colonies even though they were an ocean away. And apparently, the French didn't win the war for us. They were just there as a way to finish the war up quickly.

that the scouts were founded by a Nazi




inthought that was in england by that guy with the wierd name that i cant spell. baden poul? thats were the "bp" boats are named after anyway. when you saymean scouts, i assume you mean sea and boy scouts and not were it gets its name from.

We were told that if we hadn't joined WWI, you would've gotten your asses kicked. Same with WWII. And we started the Revolution because Parliament decided to make laws for the colonies even though they were an ocean away. And apparently, the French didn't win the war for us. They were just there as a way to finish the war up quickly.

In contrast, the way I was taught, you did not win the World Wars, you merely helped to bring a quick end to them. Also, that the French basically won the entire war for you.

In primary school, and the early years of high school, I was taught the basic overview of all American History up until the end of WW2, and the rest was covered by my own research.

The way I was taught, you did not win the World Wars, you merely helped to bring a quick end to them. Also, that the French basically won the entire war for you.

In primary school, and the early years of high school, I was taught the basic overview of all American History up until the end of WW2, and the rest was covered by my own research.

Not only that but the american economy was built on the wars, which makes them as bad if not worse than the nazis due to the fact they knew they were wrong.

In contrast, the way I was taught, you did not win the World Wars, you merely helped to bring a quick end to them. Also, that the French basically won the entire war for you.

In primary school, and the early years of high school, I was taught the basic overview of all American History up until the end of WW2, and the rest was covered by my own research.

WWI, yeah, probably we only helped to bring a quick end. The flu outbreak would've stopped it anyways. WWII, maybe. I mean, who performed D-Day? Who gave you more pilots and more planes? Sure, there was Russia, but if we hadn't opened a Western front, Russia might've been pushed back. Just speculation. And the French certainly won the whole war for us. They gave us a navy, expert officers, more troops, more guns, everything.

We did the whole gold rush, indians, mormons, cowboys, manifest destiny thing.

We did the same at GCSE. I was pissed because they changed exam boards just before I started the course, so we would've done the Cold War.
We did do the depression and the interwar stuff as well.

WWI, yeah, probably we only helped to bring a quick end. The flu outbreak would've stopped it anyways. WWII, maybe. I mean, who performed D-Day? Who gave you more pilots and more planes? Sure, there was Russia, but if we hadn't opened a Western front, Russia might've been pushed back. Just speculation. And the French certainly won the whole war for us. They gave us a navy, expert officers, more troops, more guns, everything.

D-day was a combination of all the Western Allied nations, not just the American (Gold, Juno and Sword anyone?).

D-day was a combination of all the Western Allied nations, not just the American (Gold and Sword anyone?).

Yes, but we gave you all the ships needed.

WWI, yeah, probably we only helped to bring a quick end. The flu outbreak would've stopped it anyways. WWII, maybe. I mean, who performed D-Day? Who gave you more pilots and more planes? Sure, there was Russia, but if we hadn't opened a Western front, Russia might've been pushed back. Just speculation. And the French certainly won the whole war for us. They gave us a navy, expert officers, more troops, more guns, everything.

Hitler was months away from death, the americans arrived just as he lost all skill at leadership.

Yes, but we gave you all the ships needed.

You provided a proportion of the ships needed. There were 5000 ships used provided by 8 countries. The US provided the largest share, but they did not provide all the ships needed.

Ah, so you're saying we Americans are worse than Nazis? Hm, very nice.

As for the French in the revolution, they did very little for us in combat. That's some of the basis for the whole "freedom fries, not French fries" thing.

WWII: I'm sure the American media exaggerates our role, and the UK media belittles it.
However, I do know that if Japan hadn't gotten us out of our neutrality state, than the war would have gone much worse for Europe.

I was pissed because they changed exam boards just before I started the course, so we would've done the Cold War.


Why? whats so good about the cold war?

You provided a proportion of the ships needed. There were 5000 ships used provided by 8 countries. The US provided the largest share, but they did not provide all the ships needed.

We gave you the landers.

As for the French in the revolution, they did very little for us in combat. That's some of the basis for the whole "freedom fries, not French fries" thing.

They gave us ships. We had none. They gave us expert officers. We had little. They gave us troops. We had some, but needed much more. They gave us guns. We had some, but needed much more.

This may not be so much as what I was taught in school as what I have been taught overall but basically:

We would have died without french help, though apparently that is downplayed alot. (Our Revolutionary War)

We learn Slavery, very brief coverage of Civil War, a little about the French and Indian war to lead into our Revolutionary War, maybe some mention of 1812, WWI, not so much, essentially that we went in there. Definitely some spin on us saving everyone else.

After that, token stuff from WWII to now. I assume we might learn more in Highschool. (Whatever comes before college)

WWI, yeah, probably we only helped to bring a quick end. The flu outbreak would've stopped it anyways. WWII, maybe. I mean, who performed D-Day? Who gave you more pilots and more planes? Sure, there was Russia, but if we hadn't opened a Western front, Russia might've been pushed back. Just speculation. And the French certainly won the whole war for us. They gave us a navy, expert officers, more troops, more guns, everything.

I admit, America was a very powerful ally, without you we would certainly not have been able to achieve the same success we had with the D-Day and subsequent operations. However, I think the Russians may have powered through Steam Roller style regardless. At least you helped us stop Russia from taking more territory than it already had, which was already quite a bit, if anything Russia "won" the war in terms of territory taken. But the thing is, I hate the notion of American children grow up thinking that the US Army won the entire war by themselves, brushing other, smaller countries present from the very start of the war under the carpet. One on occasion I conversed with a young man that claimed that the US Army captured and executed Hitler themselves (Though I admit, he didn't seem that well eductated anyway.). :confused:

But the thing I hate even more is the fact that you guys think that we Brits still "owe you", for it. :mad:

One of the main courses I did was on the American west from the 18th to 20th century.

Hitler was months away from death, the americans arrived just as he lost all skill at leadership.

So they arrived just before he was replaced by someone far superior?

D-day was a combination of all the Western Allied nations, not just the American (Gold, Juno and Sword anyone?).

Oh come on. Everybody knows the limeys and canucks were having tea and a beach party!

Hitler was months away from death, the americans arrived just as he lost all skill at leadership.

Skill of leadership? Never studied the Eastern front?

But the thing is, I hate the notion of American children grow up thinking that the US Army won the entire war by themselves, brushing other, smaller countries present from the very start of the war under the carpet. One on occasion I conversed with a young man that claimed that the US Army captured and executed Hitler themselves (Though I admit, he didn't seem that well eductated anyway.). :confused:


Well? Don't blame the educational system. They don't teach it that way. Most of these simpletons get their WWII knowledge from TV and movies.

Heck. I remember reading one teen saying the axis powers were Germany, Japan and England.


But the thing I hate even more is the fact that you guys think that we Brits still "owe you", for it. :mad:

Nahh you are our colony. Why should you owe us? :p

Well? Don't blame the educational system. They don't teach it that way. Most of these simpletons get their WWII knowledge from TV and movies.

If they are getting this knowledge from TV then the eductation system obviously isn't enforcing their version well enough.

Nahh you are our colony. Why should you owe us? :p

:(

If they are getting this knowledge from TV then the eductation system obviously isn't enforcing their version well enough.
:(

Well? Unless they start using sack beatings; they can only do so much.

To the average American perspective, WWII is becoming ancient history.

There are only so many of us that remain interested. My interest is from my Granddad. He fought in 39 and was part of the 1st Polish Independent Parachute Brigade.

We gave you the landers.

You gave us some of the landers. Most of the LCI's (Landing Craft Infantry) were provided by the US through lend lease, however the LCT's (Landing Craft Tank) were designed and built in the UK. For the landings to be a success all the classes of lander were required.

[QUOTE There are only so many of us that remain interested. My interest is from my Granddad. He fought in 39 and was part of the 1st Polish Independent Parachute Brigade.[/QUOTE]

Were they the ones that were wiped out at arnhem along with the british airborne?

my grandad was in a parachute regiment, he got a medal (i dont know which one though), its been ages scince ive seen him and hes gone round the bend a bit

Ah, so you're saying we Americans are worse than Nazis? Hm, very nice.

As for the French in the revolution, they did very little for us in combat. That's some of the basis for the whole "freedom fries, not French fries" thing.

WWII: I'm sure the American media exaggerates our role, and the UK media belittles it.
However, I do know that if Japan hadn't gotten us out of our neutrality state, than the war would have gone much worse for Europe.

Many of the occupied cities were overthrown by the resistance by the time the Allies showed up. For a while, DuGaulle's biggest worry was that the resistance would overthrow the Nazi's so early that the Nazi's would have time to come back and quell the resistance before they had to deal with the Allies.

And that's an American education speaking.

[Edit] oh, I see this may have been a reference to the Revolutionary War. Never mind.

Well? Unless they start using sack beatings; they can only do so much.

To the average American perspective, WWII is becoming ancient history.

There are only so many of us that remain interested. My interest is from my Granddad. He fought in 39 and was part of the 1st Polish Independent Parachute Brigade.

Really? It seemed to me that there was so much interest that I've heard The History Channel called "The Hitler and Washington Channel," because it's focuses, aside from shows about power tools and construction, is mostly WWII and the Civil War.

I took GCSE History and overall we are taught about Slavery (pre GCSE) martin luther king stuff and for GCSE's we learnt about prohabition the boom years and the depression (not alot on WW1 but did cover it) stoping in 1941 when America decided to join WW2 other examining boards do cold war stuff but we didnt. So absoulutley nothing at all about inderpendance etc for when i was at school.

There are only so many of us that remain interested. My interest is from my Granddad. He fought in 39 and was part of the 1st Polish Independent Parachute Brigade.

Were they the ones that were wiped out at arnhem along with the british airborne?

Nah the 1st Airborne was pretty well reduced to ineffective.

The Poles took 23% casualties.

Really? It seemed to me that there was so much interest that I've heard The History Channel called "The Hitler and Washington Channel," because it's focuses, aside from shows about power tools and construction, is mostly WWII and the Civil War.

Well? I think if they are interested it's because of a link.

But, that's not always the case. I remember reading an obit. I nomally don't read them but I was turning pages and this guy filed a 1/3 of the page.

It turns out the his son didn't know much just that dad was in the war. Going through his stuff, he found photos of his father shaking hands with Patton, Ike and Churchill. :eek:

The son said "that was dad" he didn't view the war as some great event. It was just a job that needed to be done.....

Interest in WWII seems to be more about movies ala private ryan and the crap for a movie Pearl Harbor then learning what actually went on.

I don't remember ever being taught anything specifically about American history; America would only be mentioned if they were around in the same conflict as Britain. There was much more focus on European and British history; you know, our history. Sorry to destroy your ego, but your history just isn't that interesting to anyone else.

Without the aid of the French, America would have lost its bid for Independance.

End of story.

As for WW2, The US played a pivotal role in the liberating of Europe.
Its unfortunate that so many idiot red-necks think we won that conflict by ourselves.

Without the Tommy's and the Ruskies, we would all likely be speaking German right now.

On the contrary, its highly doubtful that they could have pulled off a victory without us.

So...the simple truth is that it took a combined effort from the UK, Russia, and the US, (dont forget our brave Aussie friends, as well as the French)
to defeat the Axis powers in Europe.

The Pacific theater, you can thank us for.

I don't remember ever being taught anything specifically about American history; America would only be mentioned if they were around in the same conflict as Britain. There was much more focus on European and British history; you know, our history. Sorry to destroy your ego, but your history just isn't that interesting to anyone else.

Kind of an arrogant bastard aint yeh?

He didnt imply that iour history was anymore important than anyone elses.

He was merely asking what, if any, parts of it you learned in the UK.

Get over yourself.

Kind of an arrogant bastard aint yeh?

He didnt imply that iour history was anymore important than anyone elses.

Kind of an unpleasant character, ain't yeh?

I didn't imply that your history was less important than anyone elses. I pointed out that a nations history is generally only interesting to the nation itself.

But don't let a small little thing like reality stand in the way of your weak insults.

Ah, so you're saying we Americans are worse than Nazis? Hm, very nice.

As for the French in the revolution, they did very little for us in combat. That's some of the basis for the whole "freedom fries, not French fries" thing.


Using the phrase freedom fries is a good basis for bitchslapping someone.

I learnt about the US between the world wars, and a little before that, as well as some stuff about the Cold War. I also learnt a little about the civil rights business also.

Didn't learn much British history other than the first world war.

sis for the whole "freedom fries, not French fries" thing.

WWII: I'm sure the American media exaggerates our role, and the UK media belittles it.
However, I do know that if Japan hadn't gotten us out of our neutrality state, than the war would have gone much worse for Europe.
Yes, but it's also a harsh fact that the main brunt of the land fighting was actually done by the Russians under Stalin.

We don't get that mentioned much, but I suspect you get taught that even less. Although it's probably more accurate now then it was in the Cold War...

Without the aid of the French, America would have lost its bid for Independance.

End of story.
Correct.
As for WW2, The US played a pivotal role in the liberating of Europe.
Its unfortunate that so many idiot red-necks think we won that conflict by ourselves.
Please write to Hollywood and remind them of this also.
Without the Tommy's and the Ruskies, we would all likely be speaking German right now.
I agree, that'd be tragic, German being a difficult language and all.
On the contrary, its highly doubtful that they could have pulled off a victory without us.
The Russians won. It's that simple.

The UK and US stopped the Red Army taking over all of Europe. This is all that it really did for the war effort, the Germans already had most of their troops over on the eastern front by D-Day.
So...the simple truth is that it took a combined effort from the UK, Russia, and the US, (dont forget our brave Aussie friends, as well as the French) to defeat the Axis powers in Europe.
I disagree. By June 1944 the Axis had lost. Hell, by June 1943, the Axis had lost.

Letting the Russians regroup = a loss for any invader. Because they are an astonishingly resilient and determined people.
The Pacific theater, you can thank us for.
Woohoo you saved... urmm... hmm...what British interests were there... hmm...

Hong Kong. Well played.

And the Russians were also there by the end of the war (and faring very well!), so really everyone else could have gone home and let them win the whole war for everyone.

its argueable that China would have been better in Japanese hands, even at the rate of attrocities they were supposed to be commmiting there, many of which i rather suspect Mao embelished just like he did all his history, they could hardly do worse than Mao. On the other hand they would have continued to be Nazis, but then again Nazi propoganda didn't sit well with Japanese culture it would probably have dissolved quite quickly.

God knows anything that would have changed history to reverse americas corporate dominance of the world, the spirit of absolute amoral greed it promotes has done more harm in 50 years than anyone else has managed to do, even the romans deforesting southern italy or the christian churches destruction of the spirit of inquisition and invention supported by hellenistic cultures... well maybe not that, that did a lot of harm.

In school, what do they teach you about the history of America, and the role they played in wars allied with you and against you?

History of America? Some stuff about pioneers and trappers. History of American wars? Nada.

As for WW2, The US played a pivotal role in the liberating of Europe.
Its unfortunate that so many idiot red-necks think we won that conflict by ourselves.


Hey, at least the French recognise to whom they most owe for their eventual liberation...

http://www.everest-cin.com/images/plan.gif

In school, what do they teach you about the history of America, and the role they played in wars allied with you and against you? Because here in America they teach us about the history of Britian/England, and the roles you played in wars allied with us and against us. Just wondering.

GCSE history: america's involvement in WW2; the great depression; some stuff on the war of indipendance iirc

A-level history: didn't do it myself, but Glitziness is taking two units in the subject at the moment: one on Chinese history, and one on American history :)

University: depends on the univeristy and the course. personally a lot of my politics degree focused on america's involement in current and past political affairs, as well as america's involement in the formation of the EU (the werner plan, etc)


i guess the thing is we have enough history of our own in europe (too much to teach, really, considering the vast array of cultures that've been and gone in the last couple of millenia), so focusing on one countries' actions in the last 200 years or so would be really quite narrow...

Woohoo you saved... urmm... hmm...what British interests were there... hmm...

Hong Kong. Well played.


Malaysia, India, Singapore?

I don't remember ever being taught anything specifically about American history; America would only be mentioned if they were around in the same conflict as Britain. There was much more focus on European and British history; you know, our history. Sorry to destroy your ego, but your history just isn't that interesting to anyone else.

:D

So you don't know anything and yet you judge?

Sweet ignorance is indeed a comforting friend.

In school, what do they teach you about the history of America, and the role they played in wars allied with you and against you? Because here in America they teach us about the history of Britian/England, and the roles you played in wars allied with us and against us. Just wondering.

I don't remember learning much about America at all. It was mentioned when we learnt about the World Wars, that's pretty much it. We have far too much of our own history to learn about ;)

Correct.

Please write to Hollywood and remind them of this also.


Psst. You know Hollywood makes movies right? You know those films that are not documentaries.


I agree, that'd be tragic, German being a difficult language and all.

actually German is rather easy.


The Russians won. It's that simple.

Actually no. The allies won. D-Day would have failed without Bagration and Bagration probably would not have been so decisive without D-Day.


The UK and US stopped the Red Army taking over all of Europe. This is all that it really did for the war effort, the Germans already had most of their troops over on the eastern front by D-Day.

Yes. And they had another 20 Divisions they could have called on if it was not for D-Day.


I disagree. By June 1944 the Axis had lost. Hell, by June 1943, the Axis had lost.

Letting the Russians regroup = a loss for any invader. Because they are an astonishingly resilient and determined people.


Don't be talking about the Eastern Front. I kind of suspect you know only the very basics.

Determination was a part of it and yet the major blunders by the Germans in their handling of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. They hated the Soviets and would have fought the Partisans if the Germans hadn't of mistreated them.


Woohoo you saved... urmm... hmm...what British interests were there... hmm...

Hong Kong. Well played.

Hmmm Australia not being invaded was very well played indeed.

And the Russians were also there by the end of the war (and faring very well!), so really everyone else could have gone home and let them win the whole war for everyone.

They never would have made it past the Imperial Fleet if it hadn't been decimated by the US Navy.

Hey, at least the French recognise to whom they most owe for their eventual liberation...

http://www.everest-cin.com/images/plan.gif

Actually they do.

I saw a short about vets returning. One was getting the "stinking american" treatment until he saw the D-Day vet cap and then it was like a long lost friend had returned.

In contrast, the way I was taught, you did not win the World Wars, you merely helped to bring a quick end to them. Also, that the French basically won the entire war for you.

Um, "France" and "won the entire war" cannot go together in the same sentence :D

You gave us some of the landers. Most of the LCI's (Landing Craft Infantry) were provided by the US through lend lease, however the LCT's (Landing Craft Tank) were designed and built in the UK. For the landings to be a success all the classes of lander were required.

Yes, but how many of the tanks and infantry were supplied by us? And let's say you had the tanks. Do you think tanks themselves could've won D-Day?

The Russians won. It's that simple.

The UK and US stopped the Red Army taking over all of Europe. This is all that it really did for the war effort, the Germans already had most of their troops over on the eastern front by D-Day.

I disagree. By June 1944 the Axis had lost. Hell, by June 1943, the Axis had lost.

Letting the Russians regroup = a loss for any invader. Because they are an astonishingly resilient and determined people.

And the Russians were also there by the end of the war (and faring very well!), so really everyone else could have gone home and let them win the whole war for everyone.

Yes, let them win the whole war. Let them spread totalitarian communism through all of Europe besides Britian, Africa, all of Asia, and the Pacific islands besides Australia and New Zealand. There would still would still be democracy in the world if we let them do that. :rolleyes:

They gave us ships. We had none. They gave us expert officers. We had little. They gave us troops. We had some, but needed much more. They gave us guns. We had some, but needed much more.

France supplied us with 90% of the gunpowder we used. It was also the French fleet that blocked the British generals escape at Yorktown

Yes, let them win the whole war. Let them spread totalitarian communism through all of Europe besides Britian, Africa, all of Asia, and the Pacific islands besides Australia and New Zealand. There would still would still be democracy in the world if we let them do that. :rolleyes:

After Indonisa, Congo, Chile, Iraq, and Pre-Castro Cuba, America hasn't been great on democracy overseas.

After Indonisa, Congo, Chile, Iraq, and Pre-Castro Cuba, America hasn't been great on democracy overseas.

Yeah, but I mean the rest of the world. Europe. Asia. Canada. Pacific islands.

Don't be talking about the Eastern Front. I kind of suspect you know only the very basics.

Determination was a part of it and yet the major blunders by the Germans in their handling of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. They hated the Soviets and would have fought the Partisans if the Germans hadn't of mistreated them.[/QUOTE]

All of Russia that was taken over by Germany would've fought against Stalin if Germany hadn't mistreated them... but I think that while Russia couldn't have won it alone, they did more for winning the war then any other allied country. They had to deal with the largest invasion ever... Operation Barbossa 7 Million Men. What was the most decicive war in World War II? Stalingrad and who took the bulk of the losses? Russia

Don't be talking about the Eastern Front. I kind of suspect you know only the very basics.

Determination was a part of it and yet the major blunders by the Germans in their handling of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. They hated the Soviets and would have fought the Partisans if the Germans hadn't of mistreated them.

All of Russia that was taken over by Germany would've fought against Stalin if Germany hadn't mistreated them... but I think that while Russia couldn't have won it alone, they did more for winning the war then any other allied country. They had to deal with the largest invasion ever... Operation Barbossa 7 Million Men. What was the most decicive war in World War II? Stalingrad and who took the bulk of the losses? Russia[/QUOTE]

Actually I think Bagration was more decisive and really showed what the Soviets could do.

Stalingrad was a gift from Hitler.

Or, for that matter, Kursk. Or D-Day. Or the Battle of Britain. There were lots of 'decisive' battles in WWII, some less so than others. Certainly, both Bagration and Stalingrad were up there, but they were grouped with several others.

I do contend that American troops, tanks and material were the major part of victory in World War Two, coupled with Soviet bloody-mindedness. The Germans suffered from having to exponentially more powerful nations attacking them from two sides, which they were forced to defend. The Eastern Front is made up of a mostly level plain which armies can cross relatively easily-- which is why Russia has been subjected to invasion several times. Had there been a significantly reduced Western front, Germany would have been better able to concentrate its forces on the Soviets, although it's not clear that this would have done any good.

Certainly, American involvement was vital to the success of the western front. British manufacturing ability, while impressive, was simply not on par with that of the United States. It would have been impossible for Britain to produce the Valentine or Crusader tanks in sufficient numbers to replace the Sherman had the US not been a part of the war, likewise as far as supplying manpower is concerned. While Britain's long naval tradition would have made up for the lack of American ships (so I believe, it's open to debate), no single nation could have provided the number of willing young men that we did. Obviously, the British Empire's number of beaches outdid the number of beaches landed upon by the Americans (3:2) but the continued supply of troops eventually proved vital on the march east.

Well erm…we learnt that you slaughtered native Americans, got bombed at Pearl harbour, almost cost us WWI and that the scouts were founded by a Nazi

I don’t think the first one is entirely fair on the U.S but then again I never paid attention in school

edit: and we learnt about prohibition and how to make moonshine

Haha...I love you.

Without the aid of the French, America would have lost its bid for Independance.

End of story.

As for WW2, The US played a pivotal role in the liberating of Europe.
Its unfortunate that so many idiot red-necks think we won that conflict by ourselves.

Without the Tommy's and the Ruskies, we would all likely be speaking German right now.

On the contrary, its highly doubtful that they could have pulled off a victory without us.

So...the simple truth is that it took a combined effort from the UK, Russia, and the US, (dont forget our brave Aussie friends, as well as the French)
to defeat the Axis powers in Europe.

The Pacific theater, you can thank us for.
Amen. I hate USA, but in all realism they really did 'save our arse' in WWII (Like they claimed to have done for everyone else). If it weren't for you guys, well, we really would be speaking Japanese right now. Britain rejected us in the single most heinous betrayal in Aussie history. They weren't coming. All of europe was tangled in shit. All of Asia was conquered. USA really was our last hope. I mean the Aussies were good soldiers and all, but they were simply no match for the Japanese war machine. You know what Winston Churchills response was to our pleas for help? "How about you send the rest of your soldiers to the western front, so we can save england first. We'll let the Japs conquer Australia, then once britain is safe, we'll re-conquer Australia from the Japs!". Shortly after Australia transfered it's bitch-nation status from UK to US. Good move actually.

I disagree. By June 1944 the Axis had lost. Hell, by June 1943, the Axis had lost.


I might advise that your consult Marshall Zhukov on this matter, because he seems to have a tremendous disagreement with you.

Yes, but how many of the tanks and infantry were supplied by us? And let's say you had the tanks. Do you think tanks themselves could've won D-Day?

Again, as I accepted early on, the US provided the bulk of forces, but you seem to be trapped in this idea that you did everything without any other Countries. This is patantly wrong.
Yes, the US provided equipment and manpower. Yes, without US assistance an assault on Western Europe would, more than likely, not have been succesful. However, you did not win the war. The US forces fought alongside their allies and together were able to bring about the end of the war.

Yes, but how many of the tanks and infantry were supplied by us? And let's say you had the tanks. Do you think tanks themselves could've won D-Day?

We needn't raise the issue that the only tank worth having for the Allies in Normandy when it came to tank-on-tank combat was British made, need we?

We needn't raise the issue that the only tank worth having for the Allies in Normandy when it came to tank-on-tank combat was British made, need we?

Yes, but without the Shermans how could you get past the hedgerows? All the barriers set up by the Germans?

Well erm…we learnt that you slaughtered native Americans, got bombed at Pearl harbour, almost cost us WWI and that the scouts were founded by a Nazi

I don’t think the first one is entirely fair on the U.S but then again I never paid attention in school:p

edit: and we learnt about prohibition and how to make moonshine

They guy who started the scouts was a Brit. who got the idea from Sherlock Holme's Bakerstreet Irregulars. How's that Nazish and whats it got to do with the US?

Yes, but without the Shermans how could you get past the hedgerows? All the barriers set up by the Germans?

Churchill AVRE's or Centaur dozers backed up by Crocodiles and Cromwells?

Um, "France" and "won the entire war" cannot go together in the same sentence :D

Unless we're talking about World War One. In which case they pretty much did...

Yes, but without the Shermans how could you get past the hedgerows? All the barriers set up by the Germans?

We also needn't forget that the British and the Canaidians tried their own little naval landing before D-Day and that did not turn out so well.

We also needn't forget that the British and the Canaidians tried their own little naval landing before D-Day and that did not turn out so well.

The US practice run at Slapton Stands was however a roaring success.*





* a blatant and bare-faced lie.

Yes. And they had another 20 Divisions they could have called on if it was not for D-Day.

You know there were...hmm...about 400 German divisions on the Eastern front, 17 in Yugoslavia fighting partisans, and a whole 40 in France?

I admit, America was a very powerful ally, without you we would certainly not have been able to achieve the same success we had with the D-Day and subsequent operations. However, I think the Russians may have powered through Steam Roller style regardless. At least you helped us stop Russia from taking more territory than it already had, which was already quite a bit, if anything Russia "won" the war in terms of territory taken. But the thing is, I hate the notion of American children grow up thinking that the US Army won the entire war by themselves, brushing other, smaller countries present from the very start of the war under the carpet. One on occasion I conversed with a young man that claimed that the US Army captured and executed Hitler themselves (Though I admit, he didn't seem that well eductated anyway.). :confused:

But the thing I hate even more is the fact that you guys think that we Brits still "owe you", for it. :mad:

I don't think you or anybody else owes us a damn thing.

Except for a little appreciation once in a while for the good that we do.

Instead of the constant griping and complaining and saying how horrible of a country we are. Honestly, it's getting old

Or, for that matter, Kursk. Or D-Day. Or the Battle of Britain. There were lots of 'decisive' battles in WWII, some less so than others. Certainly, both Bagration and Stalingrad were up there, but they were grouped with several others.

I do contend that American troops, tanks and material were the major part of victory in World War Two, coupled with Soviet bloody-mindedness. The Germans suffered from having to exponentially more powerful nations attacking them from two sides, which they were forced to defend. The Eastern Front is made up of a mostly level plain which armies can cross relatively easily-- which is why Russia has been subjected to invasion several times. Had there been a significantly reduced Western front, Germany would have been better able to concentrate its forces on the Soviets, although it's not clear that this would have done any good.

Certainly, American involvement was vital to the success of the western front. British manufacturing ability, while impressive, was simply not on par with that of the United States. It would have been impossible for Britain to produce the Valentine or Crusader tanks in sufficient numbers to replace the Sherman had the US not been a part of the war, likewise as far as supplying manpower is concerned. While Britain's long naval tradition would have made up for the lack of American ships (so I believe, it's open to debate), no single nation could have provided the number of willing young men that we did. Obviously, the British Empire's number of beaches outdid the number of beaches landed upon by the Americans (3:2) but the continued supply of troops eventually proved vital on the march east.

Britain's industrial output exceeded that of Germany on most measures by 1941/early 1942.
Had Britain made the same desperate effort as Russia or Germany, we could have won the war without the USA, at least in Europe, though not in Asia.
Whether we would have been in a state to appreciate the spoils of that victory is truly questionable.

...we could have won the war without the USA, at least in Europe...

Isn't it great how the Allied and Axis minors always get completely left out of this kind of discussion here?

I don't think you or anybody else owes us a damn thing.
Ok, that's good so far.
Except for a little appreciation once in a while for the good that we do.
Interesting one...well, we all want to be appreciated.
Instead of the constant griping and complaining and saying how horrible of a country we are. Honestly, it's getting old
You need to recognise that as with all nations, we are divided amongst ourselves. And some people, due to their own intellectual bankruptcy, blame all the world's ills on the United States. Many more criticise only when the USA does something wrong. It should be recognised that this is quite often, though no worse and much better than many other countries.

(Bold is mine).

Isn't it great how the Allied and Axis minors always get completely left out of this kind of discussion here?

If you prefer, Britain, along with the Empire and Dominions, and remnant Free French and Poles, could have defeated Germany and her allies. Point stands.

You know there were...hmm...about 400 German divisions on the Eastern front, 17 in Yugoslavia fighting partisans, and a whole 40 in France?

Well master of the obvious.

The point remains, both assaults needed each other.

Bagration might not have been the sucess it was if the Soviet air wasn't free to straff and bomb the retreating Germans at will.

All of Russia that was taken over by Germany would've fought against Stalin if Germany hadn't mistreated them... but I think that while Russia couldn't have won it alone, they did more for winning the war then any other allied country. They had to deal with the largest invasion ever... Operation Barbossa 7 Million Men. What was the most decicive war in World War II? Stalingrad and who took the bulk of the losses? Russia

Actually I think Bagration was more decisive and really showed what the Soviets could do.

Stalingrad was a gift from Hitler.[/QUOTE]

Germany did not give anything for free. Stalingrad was just the German High Command being stupid like yep we got 98% of the city yea we almost won it. Shit Russian counterattack. German Army Surronded. Aha! Let's try to break through crap we can't and thus Stalingrad was liberated by the Russians. Kursk falls under the same "German High Command being stupid" because it was their last hope to stop the Russian advance and they lost in a fight with around 180 German tanks (one of the last advancing German Panzer divisions) and about 500 Russian T-34s (arguably the best tank ever made) which battle was Bagration though...didnt learn about that

I did post 1945 Political History at school, in that we did McCarthyism, Kennedy and the Vietnam war. Also a bit on the rise of the Civil Right's movement.

History when i was at school (left in 1988), consisted of two paths, Social history or Political, once you got to the last 2 years. Pre 14 years old it was mainly Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Medieval, Discovery period (inc. Columbus and Pizarro) and Elizabethan. British history tends to be very periodical, as evidenced by the categories above, conquest periods have been very distinct and so this leads to a rich tapestry to learn. Modern History, which most US would come within does tend to be taught to older students, to build on the earlier education involving the pre-modern.

I must say though, being a history nut still, I have learned that huge swathes of what i was taught at school are complete rubbish, mainly to be fair i think because to teach any historical period or even event properly is so in depth it's beyond any realistic lesson time.

Germany did not give anything for free. Stalingrad was just the German High Command being stupid like yep we got 98% of the city yea we almost won it. Shit Russian counterattack. German Army Surronded. Aha! Let's try to break through crap we can't and thus Stalingrad was liberated by the Russians. Kursk falls under the same "German High Command being stupid" because it was their last hope to stop the Russian advance and they lost in a fight with around 180 German tanks (one of the last advancing German Panzer divisions) and about 500 Russian T-34s (arguably the best tank ever made) which battle was Bagration though...didnt learn about that

High Command didn't even want Stalingrad. Hitler wanted it. High Command knew the Russians were about to counter attack and Hitler said no retreat. Even when begging to break out; Hitler said no.

T-34 was a good tank. Panzerfausts could take them our rather easy however.

The JSII was far superior. Only an 88 could take them out until the King Tigers appeared. The problem with the KT's is that Germany only built about 500 while there were about 3500 JSIIs.

Unless we're talking about World War One. In which case they pretty much did...

Not even then. Conveiniently forget the other fronts, such as the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Front.

Not to mention the huge British & Commonwealth forces contribution (the first of which practically halted the initial early advances to Paris, resulting in the trench warfare stalemate)

The RAF and British tanks also provided great assistance, as did the US entry much later in the war.

The American West, other than that not a lot really.

A little about the Depression, as part of the 'between the wars' history, and touched on their role as war material suppliers and why/how they became combatants in the second world war. Otherwise, nothing specific at school; I think the lack of teaching about the US is because American influence was very localised until the 20th C., so if you're focusing on previous periods in history, it's not really going to get a big mention. In Modern Studies and Politics, though, there was a lot of work to do on America, including a much more in depth look at the US in the 20th C.