Are Americans really taught that they saved Europe in WWII?

Question: Are Americans really taught that they saved Europe in WWII!?

Are they actually taught the truth about the war, such as the British and Australian involvement in Asia!? It seems to me that American believe that Britain would be under German control if it wasn't for them, but what about the concept that they'd be under Japanese control if it wasn't for us!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

It would be interesting to know how much our transatlantic cousins know about a main player in the big mistake of 1939-1945, and one no-one has mentioned her so far!. Can you guess what it is yet!?!?!?
Yes the USSR!.
Now we can make out an argument that saving Europe was not just saving Europe from Herr Hitler and his friends, since Uncle Joe was as much a nasty piece of work as the Austrian Housepainter but what most people mean by "Saving Europe" is the defeat of Nazi Germany!.
Without the U!.S then the USSR would still have crushed Nazi Germany!. Whether the Red Army would have stopped once they got to the western border of Germany in this alternative history is perhaps a moot point!.

Would Hitler have defeated Britain without the U!.S!. - Well, we brits exchanged a whole lot of foreign reserves and oversea bases for a bunch of clapped out destroyers in 1940, the U!.S!. only started to supply us with lend-lease when they were sure Britain was pretty much bankrupt and we had to agree to the U!.S!. being the world power once everything was over!. Having said that, while Hitler could not have defeated Britain militarily even without U!.S!. support the Nazis could probably have forced a bankrupt Britain struggling under a U-boat blockade to pretty humiliating terms without U!.S!.support and certainly the throwing out of Germany (and Italy) from north africa, and the eventual defeat of the Axis in the west would not have been possible without the U!.S!. as an ally!.

For those who have shouted "The Bomb" - please remember that while it would not have been possible without the industrial resources of the U!.S!. it did rather depend on non-U!.S!. science - Leo Tzillard for one was Hungarian

Just to finish- Are the Brits really taught what went on in WWII!? Hmm, Dunkirk a great victory!?!?!?!? How many Brits know about the stand off between the French navy and the R!.N!.!? How many Brits know that many of Churchills most famous broadcasts were in fact made by an actor (who played "Larry the Lamb")!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

What we learn from History, is that we learn nothing from history

Toodle PipWww@QuestionHome@Com

Here's what I've heard about those sort of remarks!. Americans visiting Europe after the war were often treated with what they considered to be disrespect by Europeans, especially in DeGaulle's France, so they reponded to what they considered to be snobbery with "If it wasn't for us you'd be goose stepping down the Champs!." and other such comments!. In reality, Americans have a bad habit of expecting everything to be just like home, so I think it was probably a case of culture clash!. But from what I've heard, that basically is where all those kind of comments come from!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Janie, the answer is that Americans are taught History, not to mention everything else, with a patch over one eye!. What is convenient to learn is taught and what is not is often simply ignored!. This ranges from History to world affairs!. Ideology is a cover for self-interests, the former the blanket to protect the latter!. Double standards and hypocrisy are the American way and have always been so!.

Immigrants who want to be free from tyranny only to enslave others!. American History is based on due on to others what you would not have done to yourself!. Think about it!.!.!. a German POW had more rights than a colored US soldier!.

On the other side of things though, the British have an overwhelming tendency to re-write History all together!. Beginning with WW1, the Brits, continue to this day to have this notion that they won that war!. A country whose army was relatively static in Belgium with no serious offensive capabilities past late 1917 did not defeat Germany!. If Americans can claim any real claim to helping France and Britain it is in that war much more than in the second!. It was Americans on the Marne that stopped Germany from taking Paris in 1918, not the British!.

As far as your comment on WW2, it is relatively clear that once again without American loans and war materials, Britain would have been starved out within a few years!. The British lost nearly all ground in Asia to the Japanese!. It was only retaken because Japanese forces were forced to counter American air and naval forces!. In Europe, Germany made more mistakes to lose the war than the Allies ever made achievement to win it!. If anyone could beat the Germans it was the Soviets, and they had nearly been knocked if not for Germany's tactical errors from Aug to Oct of 41!.

Even with American aid, a focus by the Luftwaffe on British airfields instead of a switch to terror bombing, would have neutralized British bombing abilities on the continent!. The British were already entirely dependent on American aid, without it, it was impossible for them to do anyhing offensive of any kind!.

The USA did not save the world in WW2!. It did provide the overwhelming funding and material support that is Allies needed to remain somewhat relevant!. It then further pushed the Reich into a land based two front war with the successful Normandy landings!. As for stopping the Soviets from getting to Paris themselves, western Europe can ironically thank the Germans themselves for that!.

It was the Germans and Soviets upon which the fate of Europe lied!. Everything else was of secondary nature!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

We might not have been completely responsible for defeating the Nazis and the Japanese, but we did quite a lot of the work!. The simple truth is that Britain would likely have been conquered if not for US war relief early in the war, and later actual military assistance!. In the Pacific, the US Navy and Marines did much more of the heavy fighting than Australia, and Britain's role was negligible!. Obviously it was all a joint effort and without any one partner it's likely that the Allies would have failed!. Perhaps Russia deserved the most credit for stopping the Nazis, but I don't see you rushing to their defense!. Not many Americans would go so far as to say we outright saved you, but we certainly don't deserve the snooty attitude we get from most European nations, especially the French!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Roosevelt loaned the British funds to fight (against popular opinion), we ended the war in Japan, but we are not taught that we did it alone!. We did, whether the British would like to admit it or not, save them--but they weren't helpless!. I look at it more like the French saved the Colonists in the American Revolution (they didn't do most of the fighting, and the Colonists had to provide some victories as proof it was a viable cause, but) without the aid of the French, we would still be English!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Without the assistance of allies many wars may have turned out differently!. Speculating what might have happened is just guessing!. Some other ally might have stepped up, never underestimate determination, and new weapons, surprise attack, and intelligence, which may have changed an outcome under different circumstances!. Hitler was a formidable enemy, he was planning on ruling the world!. Americans might be speaking German now if we didn't beat Hitler, together!. Neither Britain nor the US could have beat him alone!. What ended the Japanese war was the bomb, US history justifies using the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the fact that that war would have lasted many many years, without it!. Since then everybody uses the threat of having "the bomb" to avoid war!. God help us all if anyone makes good on that threat!. There are rules in war, inhuman fighting methods are forbidden!. Nerve agents, chemical weapons, torture of prisoners, murder and rape of women and children and others are considered war crimes!. In my opinion the bomb is an evil use of power just as evil as any on the list of war rules!. But like they say, all is fair in love and war!.
Who saved who in what war is a useless childish argument!. (My daddy is bigger than yours)Grow up! War is ugly, I would be much more proud to be able to say we avoided a war, not with guns and bombs but negotiations and agreements, but those thing, though they do happen, don't make it into anyones history books!.
Don't be so arrogant when you accuse others of arrogance!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

If America were to follow the Europeans and maintain only shriveled attenuated residual military capacity, the world would very quickly be nastier and bloodier, and far more unstable!. It's not just Americans and Iraqis and Afghans who owe a debt of thanks to the U!.S!. soldier but all the Europeans grown plump and prosperous in a globalized economy guaranteed by the most benign hegemon in history!.

We know Eastern Europe was a totalitarian prison until the Nineties, but we forget that Mediterranean Europe (Greece, Spain, Portugal) has democratic roots going all the way back until, oh, the mid-Seventies; France and Germany's constitutions date back barely half a century, Italy's only to the 1940s, and Belgium's goes back about 20 minutes, and currently it's not clear whether even that latest rewrite remains operative!. The U!.S!. Constitution is not only older than France's, Germany's, Italy's or Spain's constitution, it's older than all of them put together!.

Www@QuestionHome@Com

I begs the question about where any of the Allied nations would be now were it not for the decyphering work undertaken at Bletchley Park!. However, it was the US brute force that made the D-Day offensive possible - and without it we'd have succumbed to Hitler's military might!.

Are young Americans taught that they're the sole saviours of the world!? It wouldn't surprise me if they were!. After all, John Wayne single-handedly eradicated the native tribespeople of north America and then went on to win the war of the pacific during WW2, did he not!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

Sadly yes, but that isn't an exception!. The way americans are taught history is that we are always right, always justified, all of our bad deeds as a nation are swept under the rug or not even mentioned, we are taught to believe that we are smarter, cleaner, more successful, and down right better than the rest of the world!.

Pretty self righteous dont you think!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

I know, they all seem to think this, as well as that Pearl Harbour was the worst thing that happened in the whole war, when actually they caused far more damage to others, and there were far worse things going on!.
I'm not entirely ungrateful to them though, because my great-aunt ran away when my family were being evacuated from their hometown (which is now Polish and not German), and she was taken in by the Americans and met the man who has been her husband for the last 60 years!. They live in Detroit now!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

The Americans DID save Europe in WWII!. Without them, the continent would be under Russian control as far as the Atlantic!. The effect of Russian involvement is what most people miss!. If you'd have preferred it that way, fine!.
I'm not American, by the way!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I can only add to what Barney said with: The first thought Churchill had upon hearing of Pearl Harbor and America's reaction to it was: "We have won the war!"

And, of course, America didn't win the war alone; everyone had a part in it!. That's why we were called Allies!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Can you say " The Bomb"!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

yesWww@QuestionHome@Com

I think you're overplaying things a bit!.

Australia and British involvement in the Pacific really didn't amount to much except for in India and Burma!.

The pivotal battles of the Pacific War were almost purely American affairs, and I challenge you to show different!.

The European theater is a bit different!. Surely, it required the joint efforts of the British, British Commonwealth, American and Free Forces of several nations and, most of all, the Soviet Forces to finally defeat Germany!. However, there's some truth to the idea that American aid was critical to the early survival of Britian and the early victories in North Africa!. After the British forces were driven off the continent at Dunkirk, the British military was in very sad shape, with most of its heavy weapons and equipment being left on the sands of France!. The Lend-Lease program was critical to the rebuilding of the Army, and US support, in the form of aircraft and volunteer pilots, was important to the winning of the Battle of Britain, too!. American Stuart, Grant and Sherman tanks were very important to the British Army in general, and to the eventual success in North Africa (as, of course, were the Torch landings which forced the Germans to fight on two fronts in Africa, as well)!.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that without US support, the war would have been far longer, and a LOT more of Europe might have fallen under Stalin's control by the end!.

Do you really believe that Britain could have carried out a successful amphibeous invasion of France (or anywhere else) without the US forces alongside!?

I teach history, by the way, and have studied it since I was a child!. I don't know of anyone who has any amount of historical knowledge who believes the US won the European War alone, dear!. In truth, the war was won by the Soviets, with a pretty good assist from the joint Anglo-American (and Allied) forces in the West!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

what the hell!? umm you need to check the books again!. I guess you're just jealous that farmers beat your "royal army" and then became the most powerful nation in the world while you sunk pretty low!. Umm!. No I wouldn't say you would be under Nazi control, but you would be pretty screwed!. However, Japan never would have taken us over!. That's just retarded and apparently so are you you british redcoat! USA!! Oh and how did you do in the olympics!? Oh ya that's right, even China beat you!. UK sucks, get over it retard!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

hehehe!. ha!Www@QuestionHome@Com

You're an idiot if you believe the USA's involvement in WWII didn't save Great Britain from German invasion or that had we not been involved Russia some how would have beat back the Nazi invasion into its own boarders!. Or that Russia wouldn't have made all of Germany a satellite nation under it's communist rule!. That had we not dropped the atomic bombs things would have went swimmingly!. Had the US not beat Germany or Russia to the bomb the world would be speaking either German or Russian by this time!. Either way the world would be an oppressed society entirely!. Yeah sure I'll give you the illusion that Australia and G!.B!. had involvement in the Pacific theater, but it's just idiotic to believe the war could have been won collectively by Australia and Great Britain alone!. Had it not been for the Lend Lease program and the generosity of the American people to Great Britain, they would be munching on Kraut and wieners instead of fish and chips!. It was the industrialization of the US with little credit to Great Britain and Australia that brought these maniacal nations to the end of their tyrannical run and reminded Russia at the same time they better not start any sh*t!.

This answer was sugar coated for all the candyass eyes and ears out there!.Www@QuestionHome@Com