I always wonder how history is taught in other countries, and for the World Wars I think the way teach is always very different, because it was a huge part of the world, and it all washed up on our shores, or crossed our borders in other cases, very differently. Our World War education is very big on glorifying US involvement, but I wonder how it changes across the atlantic.
25 comments
First of all it depends on the federal state you are in and second the type of school you attend and how old the pupils are.
The US didn’t play a big role in history lessons, except for their entry into WW2.
I think in general the actual “business of war” is discussed much less in Europe than it is in the United States. Noone learns at what dates which battle took place where. Noone would know any of the commanders or units involved, etc. It all stays on the political level followed by a discussion of the atrocities commited.
For obvious reasons the world wars aren’t discussed as in depth in Switzerland as they are in countries that participated.
For both world wars Swiss education boils down to: “Look at the atrocities commited by all sides, thank good Switzerland did the sensible thing and stayed out of it. Now let’s look at how Switzerland used a combination of smart international politics and military deterrence to largely ensure it’s neutrality”. Followed by a brief discussion of when and why neutrality was violated and by whom.
Well… I’m french, so it’s quite a sensible question 🙂
For decades, because of the cold War, we were told that americans saved us almost alone in WW2. Practically not a word about the Soviets. And, because part of our government surrendered, we also were told how the resistance and de Gaulle played a key role. Even if it’s true, all of this was exagerated.
With time, the storry telling changed. Today, in History classes, we talk about the role of the russian front in the defeat of the wehrmacht. And we recognize the horrible role of the Vichy government in the deportation of dozens of thousands of jews and other minorities. And if we still recognize the major role of the US army in the liberation of France, we also acknowledge how the course for the liberation of western Europe was a “War in the War” between USA and USSR.
The “surrender” thing started when de Gaulle wanted to leave NATO and it was used again when Chirac used his veto against the second War in Irak. When i learned that Nolan was preparing a movie about Dunkirk, i was hoping he would show the truth about the french army holding the city, paying with their lives to give time for the brits to flee. I was disappointed… It’s a sensible question for me because my great grand father fought in Dunkirk and was made prisoner for the rest of the war. It was still a fresh wound when i was big enough to learn about it…
Concerning the first World War, since it’s so old and, let’s be honest, everyone involved in this War was equally guilty, there is less storytelling. The US involvement is seen as a turning point because it broke the lines, but not that much of saviors. The war was already starting to move from the trenches when the US came. I know many americans i met see their involvement as very important, but french, brits, belgians, germans etc… Had been fighting and killing each other for 3 years of the worst bloodbath the world had ever known.
Yeah…US isn’t very respected. I have some American friends and they don’t seem to know how small their attribution to the battles in Europe was in practice. Essentially, we were taught that most of the US’ help was funding the forces and fighting the Japanese(which, granted, isn’t a small thing by any measure). It’s described at most as an equal contributor to the war. It’s kind of ridiculous hearing people compare American losses in WW2 and their civil war, since they effectively waited until the last moment to start combat against axis powers. Also, dropping the atomic bombs on Japan is described as the biggest history fuck up on the allies side, as it was a completely unnecessary and a sadistic act. That kind of lost America any trust it gained. Sure, you did undoubtedly fight in the war, but your losses weren’t as big as those of the others involved.
It’s not something we spend that much time on. We’re taught more about the Holocaust and all the associated atrocities than about which allied country joined the war in which year and how many bullets they each fired and how shiny their tanks were.
Americans ASSISTED in the victory of WW2.
That is literally what we are taught. And its absolutely true, the Americans showed up at the very end of the war, full force, but Germany was already desperately weak.
While US is often glorified in Poland, WW2 is rarely part of it, mostly because Nazis in Europe well in full retreat when US landed in Italy, not to mention France (although huge lend-lease help towards the USSR is mentioned).
WW1 is different – thanks to president Wilson Poland regained its independence after 120 years of German-Russian-Austrian occupation.
US Army got to Pilsen but couldn’t continue due to the deal with USSR. I am sure today some people think it would have been better if they marched on and liberated more land from the Nazis. I am no historian so I don’t know if it would change anything. My grandpa lived in that Western area and yet was a staunch communist all his life.
WWI: *crickets sound*
WWII: They helped the Soviet Union with lend-lease program, fought against the Japanese (and nuked them in the end) but only arrived personally at the European front when the war was already nearing its end, mostly preventing the outcome where Germany would’ve been entirely captured by the USSR.
Not as heroic as you’re taught i’m sure 🙂
We of course acknowledge the massive aid at the end of the world wars we got from the Americans, but most of our cities were actually liberated by Canadian and British troops. In Wallonia there were more American troops so maybe they get more credit there. But in general, we were taught more about the Russian sacrifices on the east front than American involvement.
However, we also learn how the Americans were hesistant at the start of the wars, to not hurt their economy. We definitely don’t see you as ‘our heroes’. Greatful for the aid, albeit too late. Also the plan to rebuild Europe was basically a big scheme to fill our continent with American companies and debt. It made me get the feeling the US only got in the wars at the end to make profit and a slice from the winning pie.
Also the fact the US threw the amotic bomb does not sit well.
It’s been a while since I actually attended school, so maybe my memories are clouded with my bias. In short: America gets love and credit but with a big grain of salt and not more than other allied countries.
It’s important to note that what you get taught can differ somewhat between secondary schools, teachers or education levels, but in my case (just the American parts) were like this:
– World War I: The coverage of World War I in general was somewhat limited in my secondary school (likely due to the fact that the Netherlands was neutral at the time), but we did get taught that Germany’s unrestricted submarine war and the Zimmerman telegram contributed to the US joining the war near the end of the conflict. It was a detail that had to be mentioned, but we didn’t really learn much more than that when it came to America’s role in the actual war. Woodrow Wilson’s role in the Paris peace treaties, his ideas of (limited) self determination and his role in setting up the League of Nations got a lot more attention.
– World War II: We learned about American lend lease and its effects, Pearl Harbor and America’s entry into the war, D-Day, American involvement in the liberation of the Netherlands alongside the Brits, Canadians, French and Polish (particularly focussing on Market Garden), a rough overview of America’s role in the war in the Pacific and the US dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When it came to learning about the actual fighting in the war, the focus was mostly on the Germans, the Soviets, the Americans and the Brits, but we never really discussed in secondary school about which of the Allies contributed the most. In general the focus of our World War II lessons laid more on the occupation of the Netherlands and on the Holocaust and not so much on the battles across the world.
From my education (Norway), the US wasn’t mentioned during ww1. In ww2 they supposedly came in at the end when everything was kind of finishing and helped end it. Then, when it was already done, they kind of just kept going with nuking Japan and something else that I don’t really remember. I just remember it coming kind of out of nowhere as the war was supposedly already over. (I do realise this might not be what actually happened, but this is what I was taught in school)
not much actually.
i remember teacher say like germany attacked us bc allies let them and even forbid us from resistance and then soviets, americans,UK and resistance in other countries made it possible to beat them.
but ye americans weren’t that major in our education.
We learn a lot about the Third Reich but relatively little about the war itself. And when we talk about the allied involvement its foremost about the Soviet Union and then the UK. America only becomes more important in the post war period in Germany.
WW1
– rather technicalities about the involvement in the West front
-importance of W. Wilson for the independence of Czechoslovakia
WW2
-Pacific theater only briefly. Something like Pearl Harbor – some fighting – nuking Japan
-lend and lease programme for USSR
-involvement in the landings in Italy and Normandy
-Yalta conference, where US are sometimes considered to be co-responsible in throwing us into USSR hands
-liberating of the western part of our country by western allies.
Certainly the United States is seen as the needle of the scales in the two world wars, thanks to its large population and powerful industry. Speaking of something more limited to Italy, it is true that Woodrow Wilson was the one who most opposed the cession of Fiume (Italian name of Rijeka) and Dalmatia to Italy in 1919, and this was at the origin of the nationalist myth, later ridden by fascism, of the ‘mutilated victory’ (according to which the Entente had betrayed us by not giving us the promised territories that we were entitled to for the enormous sacrifice of human lives in the First World War), but since the Second World War, this story has lost much of its bite, and the idea has either passed into history or been forgotten by most. For the Second World War, the memory is decidedly more positive, because many saw the USA (and many still do), even though in the post-war liberation rhetoric, the partisans were always the absolute protagonists, compared to the Americans.
WWI: Basically nothing but a brief overview, like maybe 5 minutes once.
WWII: Pacific theatre and Normandy but that’s about it. We talk way more about our neighbouring countries, the Soviets, what happened in North Africa, the camps, and what our country did, good abd bad things.
As for WW I, this war don’t get as much attention as for WW II. Mainly because our country was neutral and therefore not much involved (we only received lots of refugees from Belgium). So for WW I, we didn’t learn much about the role of the USA. As far as I know, the USA played a smaller role compared to the main actors in this war.
As of the WW II. The USA has been seen as one of the countries who liberated Europe although as far as I know our country was liberated by the Brits, Canadians, Poles as well.
As far as I know the Americans entered WW II quite late, but with the extra forces from the USA the allied forces gained the upper had in the Western Front. Of course we know about Pearl Harbor but we didn’t learn that much about the pacific front (other the the Dutch Indies) Most of the WW II we taught is either the basics of major events and more in detail the events which is related to our own country.
Well…
WW1: “Everything is fine… lets make a peace treaty with new borders… oh, USA joined, we are out.”
WW2: “See, we are winning, wohooo…. whats that? Why is the USA sending thousands of tanks and planes to UK and Russia?…. Well, HOW much material they send?”
The US contribution is certainly recognised, but there are a number of parallel threads that go alongside. America didn’t get involved quickly in Europe, and for several years left us swinging. The support they eventually provided was only really in the form of sales/loans which we were still paying off until about 10 years ago.
Once the US pulled it’s finger out US servicemen came over here and didn’t shower themselves in glory. There was a lot of unrest with locals, the US servicemen being generally quite ignorant of the rationing and hardships the locals were going through.
There was also Jim Crow racism that got brought across the pond. Look up the Battle of Bamber Bridge, the Park Street Riot, and others.
In general the US involvement in WW1 is merely a footnote in Italian history school books, more focused on its support role in regards to shipping goods rather than actual military operations.
There’s more talk regarding the “mistreatment” of the Italian diplomats at the peace talks by Woodrow Wilson and how hypocritical his 14 points were.
For WW2 the US gets the most attention for its role in the Italian Campaign and Liberation War, for which they have been considered the only contributors along the British since the post war period, though in recent years the other Allied countries are starting to be valorized more and more (like Canadians, Brazilians and Polish).
Regarding the overall US involvement in the war there are some paragraphs that talk about the attack on Pearl Harbor, the campaign in Tunisia, D-Day and the war in the Pacific, but it is extensive or really in depth.
The history programs of both world wars focus mainly on Italy and the Italians.
In World War 1 it’s barely mentioned. The sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmermann telegraph are mentioned but we didn’t learn about specific battles that America participated in. Wilson’s 14 points comes up a lot with regards to the peace treaties and how in the end the US kind of walked away from the peace talks.
In world war two the usual things are mentioned like Pearl Harbour, Iwo Jima, Normandy, the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuclear bombs. The main focus however is on the Eastern Front and that is what’s taught in detail.
I don’t think we spoke about the United States in any notable capacity, and aside from the fire-bombings and nuking of Japan, the pacific war was more of a sidenote.
In the end, when we covered this era of history, it was for the purpose to learn about the post-war turmoil in Europe; the rise of fascism and how the Third Reich came to be. Then it was all about the holocaust.
We didn’t participate in ww1 so not much from that in general.
In ww2 it’s taught pretty neutrally. Americans were essential in the western front and propped the soviets a lot. We were a part of the eastern front I guess and fought against the soviets so our paths didn’t cross, not in good or bad.
We are taught about the pacific theater too but obviously not in the same depth as the european one.
I don’t know what to conclude. Americans were definently one of the good guys according to our history teaching, but techically on the opposite side to us. Geopolitics are odd sometimes.
It’s been too long since I’ve looked at ww1, so I won’t comment.
For ww2 the USA involvement is considered way too late from a British perspective, the food and other aid came at a very high price. There’s a feeling that Germany would have been unlikely to invade mainland Britain, especially given the aerial and navy supremacy, it would be a matter of time, given the Russian offensive, that Britain and its empire would have been able to launch a counter offensive, but the USA involvement accelerated it. The USAs main fight was against Japan and in Pacific theatre isn’t really in the consciousness of the british public.
It was publicly stated many times by leading politicians, that without the USA, Russia wouldn’t have stopped in Berlin and would have run over Europe, stalin was not seen and has never been seen as the good guy, but an alliance with the devil.
There’s a Churchill quote:
“If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
In reference to him praising Stalin.