Revisionist history being taught in Europe?

[Skybird]

I do not realise an intention here. But I know that many people over here got tired of "USA here", "USA there", and "nothing without USA".

How to weight the war efforts of the many countries is not easy to judge. USA was a great contributor of weapons and materials, and these were one decisive factor to beat Nazi Germany. But without wanting to downplay American losses (ranking amongst the lowest of all major nations) - the real heavy deathtolls were payed by other countries, bot Allies and Axis. Without the not less decisive stubborness of the British, and the not less decisive self-sacrificng combat-spirit of the Russians, these material contributions would have been not sufficient by themselves.

Maybe one only needs to see the US efforts and sacrifices in an exaggerated way, then opinions putting them into relation to other nations' investements maybe appear to sound as downplaying the US role completely. See the complete picture. US was one participant in the war - but not the only one.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

See the complete picture. US was one participant in the war - but not the only one.

That is true, the Brits were a major contributor, and the Russians self sacrafice (Well, this is a missnomer since it wasn't self sacrafice, it was Stalanist forced sacrafice or excution - which is more noble?).

However, Germany had the power to take on Russia and the British at the same time. Only when the Americans entered the war did things turn.

One more thing people forget, AMerica almost single handedly defeated the Japanese at the same time it was forcing its way across Europe.

Its amazing to see people write that America had no hand in WWII. Its actually disgusting and the half million US troops that died over there must be turning in their graves.

-S

PS Do people think for a second that Japan would start attacking Russia from the opposite side if it wasn't worried about AMerica? Russia would have been defeated and we would all be speaking German right now.

[joea]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

That is true, the Brits were a major contributor, and the Russians self sacrafice (Well, this is a missnomer since it wasn't self sacrafice, it was Stalanist forced sacrafice or excution - which is more noble?).

Good points but I strongly disagree with the bold, I've read enough and spoken (IRL and on the net) with enough researchers and especially Russian and those from other ex-Soviet republics to know the patriotic feeling in Russia was genuine. Foreign devils are always worse than one's own, besides, the Slavs faced extermination in a way even Stalin's oppression did not...and believe it or not there was a great deal of genuine enthusiasm for communist ideals.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by joea

Good points but I strongly disagree with the bold, I've read enough and spoken (IRL and on the net) with enough researchers and especially Russian and those from other ex-Soviet republics to know the patriotic feeling in Russia was genuine. Foreign devils are always worse than one's own, besides, the Slavs faced extermination in a way even Stalin's oppression did not...and believe it or not there was a great deal of genuine enthusiasm for communist ideals.

I hear ya, but what about the advance or be shot portion of it? That is what I mean. ANyway, yes, they were very patriotic and probably most of them didn't need this warning.

-S

[joea]

Well, my info is that has been exaggerated somewhat. If you're thinking about Stalin's "Not a Step Back" order it was issued in the summer of 1942 or therabouts when the situation, after the miracle of saving Moscow in 41, had been reversed.

Anyway, the revisionist history in Europe I am concerned about is the rise of the xenophobic and anti-semetic extreme right.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by joea

Well, my info is that has been exaggerated somewhat. If you're thinking about Stalin's "Not a Step Back" order it was issued in the summer of 1942 or therabouts when the situation, after the miracle of saving Moscow in 41, had been reversed.

Anyway, the revisionist history in Europe I am concerned about is the rise of the xenophobic and anti-semetic extreme right.

Give the young people a future perspective and a possebility to have a job in fair conditions, and the problem for the most will shrink dramatically again. It is not by random chance that neonazism is strong in those areas of Germany where the economic future is grim and availability of jobs is low. Poverty is good hunting ground for extremists - political and religious as well. The strength of the alpha wolf needs the weakness of the others.

Anti-Semitism and Neo-Nazism will never be zero, though. If it would remain at controllable and non-threatening levels, we should be satisfied, I think - pragmatism.

[Penelope_Grey]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

However, Germany had the power to take on Russia and the British at the same time. Only when the Americans entered the war did things turn.

That is not strictly true SUBMAN, the tide began to turn as early as late 1941 when Rommel was beginning to lose in Africa, to the British I might add . Of course, the battle of Stalingrad and the onset of the Russian Winter, that was what stopped the Armies of the Reich dead in their tracks.

Though Lend-Lease cannot be ignored for its usefulness and assistance not to mention American finance. And Kudos where its due the invasion of German controlled territory and Germany itself.

Though, America can pat herself on the back all she wants, fact remains, if Japan had not have attacked Pearl Harbour, America might have been quite happy to remain neutral and watch Europe and Asia tear itself apart slugging it out to the finish.

Not that I would blame them for doing that. But I think where a lot of this "revisionist" idea is coming from is that America for decades has churned out a variety of films showing themselves to be the hero of the hour and the one that singlehandedly saved the world from the evil of the Reich, oh and Britain and France and the other allies whoever they are lent a hand too. Take U-571 for example, the most recent one, according to that the US Navy got an enigma box before the Royal Navy did.

I think its all to easy to look back and say oh America, without them we'd have been stuffed, end of. The devil is in the detail, maybe this is all being read wrong and perhaps history is focussing on our accomplishments in the war and what the European powers did to fight the Nazis and the successes we made. Thats not to say that the contributions of the USA are overlooked, we know full well you singlehandedly stuffed the Japanese and assisted us at the same time in the final battles with the Reich, and with lend lease and money etc. And yeah, I think most of us know in Europe without America things could have been a LOT more ugly than they were.

To my mind, if you can pat yourselves on the back for what you succeeded in doing in the war, why can't we do the same for our successes in the war? A long time has been spent looking at what Uncle Sam did and being grateful, maybe, people want to know what we did.

That's what I think anyway.

You are a very thoughtful young lady, Penelope_Grey.
Britain certainly deserves its place in history for fighting the German hord.
The US 'peace/isolation' movement was very strong at the outset of the 'European' war. Charles Lindberg (first solo cross Atlantic flight) was a spokesman for letting Europe fight its own war. Much like today, the opposision wanted to let those fighting for freedom languish.

I have no problem what so ever giving the British, Canadians, Australians even the French due credit for their efforts. Very galant they were.

Galantry, however, does not win wars, or peace, undenialable force and uncommon foresight does.

[Penelope_Grey]

Well thankyou , though personally, I feel debate like this is useless because anything to the contrary of what happened is pure conjecture. You can say, without USA Europe would not have beat the Nazis, and I could say, well, yes we could have. And we'd go round and round in circles. History is a lot like Science, if you stick to the facts and interperet them as objectively as you can what you get is as close to accuracy as it can be without being there youself.

Personally I see it from the point of view we know what America did and how invaluable their assitance was but its nice to see what we accomplished before the American forces joined us. There is nothing wrong with that, much like there is nothing wrong with you knowing and learning about what you did to beat the Japanese.

My comment to the thread starter is simply this. Just because Europe is examining what Europe did to fight and help beat the Nazis, does not mean that Europe is denying that simple of all facts, America fought with us, both financially and then physically. What is most important to remember above all else, the Nazis were beaten and got rid of.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

Very True!

Hitler knew US would enter the war. Hitler wanted to set the date. Japanese beat him to it. US could not stay neutral. Hitler would have looked at like aiding the enemy. The US was for a tidy sum of money. Besides, the uboats starting sinking US vessels and US warships. Kind of hard for Hitler to hide that. It was only a matter of time. Japan set the time.

In a nutshell.....HOLLYWOOD booha! It is all about money. No one wants to pay to see their boys fail. U-571 was pure rubbish! The only two movies about the British I know is Battle of Britian and Bridge over the river Kwai. Everything else is Hollywood imagination and twisting of the truth for the gain of dollars. Furthermore, the Brits had an enigma box from a German weathership before the capture of the enigma off a uboat.

I do believe without the US helping the war would have gone on for years. But, as luck would have it, we became Allies and fought side by side for a common good. The best part is the US and Britian have stayed Allies As far as being grateful to the US. Not so much. Maybe grateful for the young men and women who gave up their youth to fight for another in their own country. Be grateful for the people not the act itself.

[CCIP]

I'd point to the other side of it - shouldn't we all be finally happy that things like the Eastern Front are getting their due attention? I've been pretty shocked with some (non-military-enthusiast) lack of knowledge about the Soviet role in the war, and many other campaigns.

I don't know about the Soviets winning alone - but what I can tell you is that any historian that thrives on "what-ifs" is NOT a historian but a quack. That is not how you get your facts and teach history.

As for the Soviet "fighting because Stalin said so" - ridiculous. Considering the absolute ruthlessness of the German occupation, which everyone knew about, I don't think it's any surprise that the Soviets fought the way they did. Use of suicide tactics was rather widespread - orders might force soldiers to go out and fight, but only a personal and fanatical belief in your cause will get you to blow yourself up, or fly your plane into the enemy, or something along those lines.
Likewise, it should be kept in mind that there is a very unfortunate Russian trait which predates the Soviet era by centuries - the disregard for human lives in war efforts. It wasn't Stalin who invented it - far from.

Anyway, as for 'who won the war' - well of course everyone won the war. I don't know what war exists in someone's fantasies, but the WWII that happened COULD NOT have been won without the British; COULD NOT have been won without the Soviets; COULD NOT have been won without the US; COULD NOT have been won without everyone else - nor without Hitler's lovely mistakes.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

That is not strictly true SUBMAN, the tide began to turn as early as late 1941 when Rommel was beginning to lose in Africa, to the British I might add . Of course, the battle of Stalingrad and the onset of the Russian Winter, that was what stopped the Armies of the Reich dead in their tracks.

I don't agree. I would call it - some successes. The Germans were still completely capable of mounting offensives and even still did when the US entered into Africa. It could have turned back at the British at any point up until that point.

Though Lend-Lease cannot be ignored for its usefulness and assistance not to mention American finance. And Kudos where its due the invasion of German controlled territory and Germany itself.

I never said that the UK wasn't a part of it - and they were an important part of it. I doubt this would have happened though if the US couldn't build 10 tanks to 1 German tank and then deploy them!

Though, America can pat herself on the back all she wants, fact remains, if Japan had not have attacked Pearl Harbour, America might have been quite happy to remain neutral and watch Europe and Asia tear itself apart slugging it out to the finish.

Are you kidding? I hope so. It was well known at the time as well as well known now that we were looking for an excuse to come to the aid of our British brothers. Germany wanted to wait but Japan knew that the US would enter at some point whether they attacked or not, and to stall the US in the Pacific, decided to strike first.

Not that I would blame them for doing that. But I think where a lot of this "revisionist" idea is coming from is that America for decades has churned out a variety of films showing themselves to be the hero of the hour and the one that singlehandedly saved the world from the evil of the Reich, oh and Britain and France and the other allies whoever they are lent a hand too. Take U-571 for example, the most recent one, according to that the US Navy got an enigma box before the Royal Navy did.

That movie was terrible. I hope you aren't serious about this. I don't think anyone in America took it seriously either. It was Hollywood cr*p. I've never been disappointed as much as that after walking out of the theatre, nor did I see anyone else thinking they got their moneys worth. The British had the first enigma machine as I know it. But if you know anything about Enigma machines, this only works for so long as new rev's come out and are distributed. They need to capture throughout the war. The US got one off the US coast somewhere as well.

I think its all to easy to look back and say oh America, without them we'd have been stuffed, end of. The devil is in the detail, maybe this is all being read wrong and perhaps history is focussing on our accomplishments in the war and what the European powers did to fight the Nazis and the successes we made. Thats not to say that the contributions of the USA are overlooked, we know full well you singlehandedly stuffed the Japanese and assisted us at the same time in the final battles with the Reich, and with lend lease and money etc. And yeah, I think most of us know in Europe without America things could have been a LOT more ugly than they were.

Please don't say 'final' battles - that is complete rubbish as you UK'rs like to say. I think you would have never defeated Germany without the US help. You would have ended in a stalemate.

To my mind, if you can pat yourselves on the back for what you succeeded in doing in the war, why can't we do the same for our successes in the war? A long time has been spent looking at what Uncle Sam did and being grateful, maybe, people want to know what we did.

That's what I think anyway.

I don't think a single person could ay that the British did nothing in the war. The proper question is, could America have defeated the Germans without their help? The answer is no. Could they have defeated them without the help of the Soviets? The answer is no. Technically, the US could have, but in actuallity, it would have been long and bloody unless the atomic bomb was used. The long and bloody part is the very reason the US could not take on Germany and win - it has to do with democracy. In a democracy, the people cannot and will not wage war for over a certain number of years. The same thing is happening today in Iraq. The same thing is also happening to the British in Iraq. It is an impossibility. The people tire of the war and pullout out. The only time this is not a factor is when you have no choice due to invasion. This is the down side of any democracy.

WWII was won in the west because both the British and the Americans worked together. Without either, Germany would probably still be controlled by the Third Reich. I think the Soviets would have continued on longer if the West gave up, but doubt they would have defeated Hitler either. Only the combination of all three saved the day.

One more thing - The atomic bomb was given the go ahead for Nagasaki and Horoshima simply because the US gov didn't think the American people had the stomach to finish the job. They were probably right.

Just my 2 cents.

-S

[Penelope_Grey]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I don't agree. I would call it - some successes. The Germans were still completely capable of mounting offensives and even still did when the US entered into Africa. It could have turned back at the British at any point up until that point.

Yes but, it didn't. The British forces in Africa were getting the better of the Germans which is why U-Boats were being directed to the Med to help secure the German supply lines. A' La Das Boot. It was Britain that first turned the tide in the Africa situation, before America landed a single soldier there. This is what I mean, the whole point, I'm not downplaying America's role, that's impossible to do. But, to say that all we did was "some successes" yes they were capable of retalitating and did but the fact remains the British were beating back the Germans there before America came along into that fight. Not saying America didn't help it was a HUGE help, made a big difference in the continuation of the fighting everywhere, but can we please have some kudos for when we took on Germany one on one and succeeded?

What about the Battle of Britain, was that just "some success" too SUBMAN? Or did we or did we not defeat, single handed, the German Luftwaffe and throw a wrench into Hitler's plan to conquer us? We may have been lucky, and, resorted to treachery to get it done (bombing German cities) but this is my key argument, I want to see the British forces get the credit for the efforts we made against one hell of an evil Gentleman with a funny facial hair arrangement.

Are you kidding? I hope so. It was well known at the time as well as well known now that we were looking for an excuse to come to the aid of our British brothers. Germany wanted to wait but Japan knew that the US would enter at some point whether they attacked or not, and to stall the US in the Pacific, decided to strike first.

No, I am not kidding. What is also well known, is that the American Government was the one who wanted to come into the war, most of the American population was not interested in joining the fight. As was posted here previously by waste Gate. It took Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour, and a declaration of war from Japan's ally Germany before America said "ok, lets get it on".

That movie was terrible. I hope you aren't serious about this. I don't think anyone in America took it seriously either. It was Hollywood cr*p. I've never been disappointed as much as that after walking out of the theatre, nor did I see anyone else thinking they got their moneys worth. The British had the first enigma machine as I know it. But if you know anything about Enigma machines, this only works for so long as new rev's come out and are distributed. They need to capture throughout the war. The US got one off the US coast somewhere as well.

I am serious. I wouldn't mention it in a serious discussion if I was not serious. Yes it was a terrible film and not good enough to use as toilet paper. But the fact remains its just one recent example in a long line of hollywood extravagance where America once again covers herself in glory and singlehandedly thrashed the Germans. What bothered me at the time, how many people will watch that and think that it was America that got the enigma machine?

Please don't say 'final' battles - that is complete rubbish as you UK'rs like to say. I think you would have never defeated Germany without the US help. You would have ended in a stalemate.

Doesn't really matter what you or I think what could have happened without the US help, because events didn't pan out that way. Right on up till the invasion (1944 onward), fact remains, Germany's chief opponents were us, and the Russians, not the US. I agree though, chances are without the US involvement, bringing the Nazis down could have been extremely difficult and perhaps ended in a stalemate. Probably would have, some shaky peace would have to be cobbled together. The real truth is we can thank our lucky stars that it didn't and the Nazis were got rid of.

I don't think a single person could ay that the British did nothing in the war. The proper question is, could America have defeated the Germans without their help? The answer is no. Could they have defeated them without the help of the Soviets? The answer is no. Technically, the US could have, but in actuallity, it would have been long and bloody unless the atomic bomb was used. The long and bloody part is the very reason the US could not take on Germany and win - it has to do with democracy. In a democracy, the people cannot and will not wage war for over a certain number of years.

I think you'd have had to resort to Atomic bombs to beat the Germans if you tried to fight them alone. But having said that, what I think could have happened is irrelevant because events didn't pan out that way. Pure conjecture nothing more.

The same thing is happening today in Iraq. The same thing is also happening to the British in Iraq. It is an impossibility. The people tire of the war and pullout out. The only time this is not a factor is when you have no choice due to invasion. This is the down side of any democracy.

Well to my mind Iraq should not have been invaded at all. But that is another can of worms entirely. Besides, now is the time to pull out, Saddam is dead, and a new government set up so therefore time they stood on their own two feet.


Yes, it was a team effort in bringing down the Reich. But, all three had their own stand alone accomplishments and if there are books which say well done Britain for your successes, or books that say well done mother russia for your accomplishments, then that is not overlooking America as seems to be suggested here in this thread, because god knows America in various media forms has certainly patted herself on the back for her, credit where it is due, considerable efforts in WW2.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

Yes but, it didn't. The British forces in Africa were getting the better of the Germans which is why U-Boats were being directed to the Med to help secure the German supply lines. A' La Das Boot. It was Britain that first turned the tide in the Africa situation, before America landed a single soldier there. This is what I mean, the whole point, I'm not downplaying America's role, that's impossible to do. But, to say that all we did was "some successes" yes they were capable of retalitating and did but the fact remains the British were beating back the Germans there before America came along into that fight. Not saying America didn't help it was a HUGE help, made a big difference in the continuation of the fighting everywhere, but can we please have some kudos for when we took on Germany one on one and succeeded?

Yes - you did good. I never said the British didn't. Rommel however was not stupid and in war, one days successes could turn into ones defeat tomorrow. The idea that you could have defeated Rommel back to Germany is pure conjecture.

What about the Battle of Britain, was that just "some success" too SUBMAN? Or did we or did we not defeat, single handed, the German Luftwaffe and throw a wrench into Hitler's plan to conquer us? We may have been lucky, and, resorted to treachery to get it done (bombing German cities) but this is my key argument, I want to see the British forces get the credit for the efforts we made against one hell of an evil Gentleman with a funny facial hair arrangement.

You did not defeat the Luftwaffe. You only stopped them here - and it was a commendable job. It also set them back force wise. Don't think they wouldn't have been back if things started to work out better on the Eastern Front.

No, I am not kidding. What is also well known, is that the American Government was the one who wanted to come into the war, most of the American population was not interested in joining the fight. As was posted here previously by waste Gate. It took Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour, and a declaration of war from Japan's ally Germany before America said "ok, lets get it on".

Last time I checked, the American people had little say on whether or not troops were deployed at any one time. So I don't buy that.

I am serious. I wouldn't mention it in a serious discussion if I was not serious. Yes it was a terrible film and not good enough to use as toilet paper. But the fact remains its just one recent example in a long line of hollywood extravagance where America once again covers herself in glory and singlehandedly thrashed the Germans. What bothered me at the time, how many people will watch that and think that it was America that got the enigma machine?

The people that would believe this are the very same people that would rather watch something else at any given theatre instead. So don't think this was any sort of factor. This movie would have flopped out of the box office if the UK didn't manke a big stink about it in every news media. No one liked it!

One more thing - Hollywood has little clue on the values of the American people. They get even more clueless as time goes on. Do not think any movie they make will reflect the views of our nation. Quite the contrary.

Right on up till the invasion (1944 onward), fact remains, Germany's chief opponents were us, and the Russians, not the US.

Ah hello? Anyone home? That is pure garbage! I won't even bother to moment on it.

I think you'd have had to resort to Atomic bombs to beat the Germans if you tried to fight them alone.

Only as the result of a waning public desire to support the war. Politicians vote to send the troops in, however sooner or later over the course of many years, politicians can be voted out of office. This is where the Ameican people can strike back at decisions they do not like.

On the fight - not only could the US field more troops, it could outproduce Germany and this is truely the one factor that defeated them - the US could ourproduce the neccesary hardware - and this hardware we also gave to the British - even before we entered into this war prior to 1941. Quite simply put - the UK would have been over-run on every field had the US not supplied the neccesary hardware to fight back. This is why subs were deverted to stop it.

Well to my mind Iraq should not have been invaded at all. But that is another can of worms entirely. Besides, now is the time to pull out, Saddam is dead, and a new government set up so therefore time they stood on their own two feet.

That is your opinion. He was not invaded persey. We had a duty to defeat him. If we had not, this is how you would win a war against the US - your start the war, complete your objectives, surrender to the US, and then kick their inspectors out and forget about any ceasefire agreements that were put in place after the fact. Easy. Simple. Sounds strangely similar to what Hitler pulled.

Why do people keep insisting this was an invasion? The war from 1991 was not over! I guess it sounds better for the opposition.

Yes, it was a team effort in bringing down the Reich. But, all three had their own stand alone accomplishments and if there are books which say well done Britain for your successes, or books that say well done mother russia for your accomplishments, then that is not overlooking America as seems to be suggested here in this thread, because god knows America in various media forms has certainly patted herself on the back for her, credit where it is due, considerable efforts in WW2.

Pluses and minuses in that quote. I've said my peace about it above though so I won't even bother.

-S

Originally Posted by Skybird

But without wanting to downplay American losses (ranking amongst the lowest of all major nations) - the real heavy deathtolls were payed by other countries, bot Allies and Axis.

For one reason only:
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
George S. Patton

We were there to win!!