Why is US education so poor on WW2 in Asia/the Pacific?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
US education is a joke, OP.

That's why we need (educated) immigrants.

My immigrant father earned a PhD in history. On my first day of school every year, he would have a look at my history books and point out endless lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:World history here also doesn't teach about the violence that the Koreans inflicted on to Vietnamese women during the Vietnam war.

https://laidaihanjustice.org/who-are-the-lai-dai-han/

Point being, there is not enough time to teach all the details of everything that went on, whether you deem some more worthy of notice or not.
Given the founding of this country, obviously the US is going to focus more on its own country's history and US/European history compared to things that have happened elsewhere in the world.

There the point. US role in Asia was massive and more important to defeating the Japanese than the importance of the US in defeating the Nazis. And the Japanese were just as bad, if not worse than the Nazis in many ways. War in Asia is fundamental to US history and we had a very committed people like General Chennault who dedicated his life and forces to protecting China.

The major difference is that we didn't put Hirohito on trial and almost immediately called the Japanese an ally. Germany was divided and given governments that did everything possible to distance themselves from the Nazis. Japanese atrocities were down played and Nazi atrocities were highlighted

The US didn't execute Hirohito as they did other members of the Japanese government because they deemed him the most useful for carrying out fundamental governmental change after occupation. Also they almost immediately needed Japan as an ally bc of the cold war that broke out soon after WWII. They didn't just let Japan off the hook for some mystical benevolent reason.

[Anonymous]

This thread is ridiculous. How does any person expect to cover every detail of history when teaching an intro-level survey class to high school students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It drives me bonkers when you ask the simple question of "When did WW2 start?" and you get the typical answer of 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland. That's completely wrong, because the Japanese attacked China even 2 years before that in 1937 and committed many atrocities even long before Hitler even touched Poland. In fact, you could even argue they WW2 started even earlier in 1931 when the Japanese invaded Manchuria, or as far back as even 1910 when they invaded Korea and were trying to wipe out their entire culture.

The US entered WW2 in Europe late, and played second fiddle to the Russians at defeating Germany. All you're ever taught is how important DDay was, yet in the grand scheme of the war, the Battle of Stalingrad was much more important for breaking Germany's back. Meanwhile in Asia, the US was arguably at war with Japan long before we were at war with Germany (arguably even before Pearl Harbor) and the US played a much, much more significant role in defeating the other major Axis power which were the Japanese compared to r role we played in defeating the Nazis.

We are all taught about the SS, 3rd Reich, Hitler's Arayan race views and all of the deaths due to the Holocaust, but the Japanese had the same exact things with the Kempei Tai, the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere, their beliefs that they were the superior race, and the Asian holocaust where the Japanese were murdering millions of civilians all across Asia and literally used to terms like exterminate wrt things like the entire Korean race and culture.

I mean our schools probably teach some of the major battles like Midway and Pearl Harbor, discuss dropping of the nukes, and the Rape of Nanking/Korean comfort women, but they only begins to scratch the surface of WW2 in Asia and all of the horrific crimes committed by Japan. A single event like flooding of the Yellow River killed 500k-1M Chinese, yet all you ever learn are Russia scortched Earth policies. Everyone learns about Josef Mengele and Nazi human testing, yet the Japanese did the same and worse with Unit 731 and were even dropping biological weapons on China like 'maggot bombs' designed to spread cholera they killed 200k in Yunnan.

It just boggles the mind how poor US education is wrt WW2 and why US education always focuses on Europe when jit as many, if not, more people died in Asia depending on what time frames you look at, the Japanese were just as bad, if not worse than the Nazis, and the US had a far more fundamental role in defeating the Japanese compared to the role the US played in defeating the Germans. US schools should be spending 60-75% of time about WW2 on what happened in Asia and the rest on Europe given how much more the US was important in Asia compared to Europe. The foundations of education on WW2 were probably driven by so much ethnocentrism even though the Marine Corps and Army were allobe the place in The Pacific, China, India, Burma, Dutch East Indies, etc.

Americans and History....

OP, if you are brave, ask your friends' kids this simple question: What year was Jesus born?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It drives me bonkers when you ask the simple question of "When did WW2 start?" and you get the typical answer of 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland. That's completely wrong, because the Japanese attacked China even 2 years before that in 1937 and committed many atrocities even long before Hitler even touched Poland. In fact, you could even argue they WW2 started even earlier in 1931 when the Japanese invaded Manchuria, or as far back as even 1910 when they invaded Korea and were trying to wipe out their entire culture.

The US entered WW2 in Europe late, and played second fiddle to the Russians at defeating Germany. All you're ever taught is how important DDay was, yet in the grand scheme of the war, the Battle of Stalingrad was much more important for breaking Germany's back. Meanwhile in Asia, the US was arguably at war with Japan long before we were at war with Germany (arguably even before Pearl Harbor) and the US played a much, much more significant role in defeating the other major Axis power which were the Japanese compared to r role we played in defeating the Nazis.

We are all taught about the SS, 3rd Reich, Hitler's Arayan race views and all of the deaths due to the Holocaust, but the Japanese had the same exact things with the Kempei Tai, the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere, their beliefs that they were the superior race, and the Asian holocaust where the Japanese were murdering millions of civilians all across Asia and literally used to terms like exterminate wrt things like the entire Korean race and culture.

I mean our schools probably teach some of the major battles like Midway and Pearl Harbor, discuss dropping of the nukes, and the Rape of Nanking/Korean comfort women, but they only begins to scratch the surface of WW2 in Asia and all of the horrific crimes committed by Japan. A single event like flooding of the Yellow River killed 500k-1M Chinese, yet all you ever learn are Russia scortched Earth policies. Everyone learns about Josef Mengele and Nazi human testing, yet the Japanese did the same and worse with Unit 731 and were even dropping biological weapons on China like 'maggot bombs' designed to spread cholera they killed 200k in Yunnan.

It just boggles the mind how poor US education is wrt WW2 and why US education always focuses on Europe when jit as many, if not, more people died in Asia depending on what time frames you look at, the Japanese were just as bad, if not worse than the Nazis, and the US had a far more fundamental role in defeating the Japanese compared to the role the US played in defeating the Germans. US schools should be spending 60-75% of time about WW2 on what happened in Asia and the rest on Europe given how much more the US was important in Asia compared to Europe. The foundations of education on WW2 were probably driven by so much ethnocentrism even though the Marine Corps and Army were allobe the place in The Pacific, China, India, Burma, Dutch East Indies, etc.

In general, the European perspective is taught more because the US was settled by Europeans and so has had as a European focus to its history.

The nature of teaching social studies/history in K to 12 varies by state. Examples I have heard of from friends and relatives is that there’s more about the Pacific theater taught in California, more about the Alamo taught in Texas, more about the Kansas Missouri compromise taught in Kansas, more about the French and Indian War taught in upstate New York and more about the early settlements taught in Massachusetts and Virginia.

There just isn't enough time to cover all of history in these year long classes. US is still Euro-centric so it makes sense we focus on Germany when covering WWII.

What do European schools teach regarding WWII? Do they go into these details regarding Japan? What about the Japanese schools? How much time do they spend teaching about the atrocities they performed? Do they cover Germany in depth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:World history here also doesn't teach about the violence that the Koreans inflicted on to Vietnamese women during the Vietnam war.

https://laidaihanjustice.org/who-are-the-lai-dai-han/

Point being, there is not enough time to teach all the details of everything that went on, whether you deem some more worthy of notice or not.
Given the founding of this country, obviously the US is going to focus more on its own country's history and US/European history compared to things that have happened elsewhere in the world.

There the point. US role in Asia was massive and more important to defeating the Japanese than the importance of the US in defeating the Nazis. And the Japanese were just as bad, if not worse than the Nazis in many ways. War in Asia is fundamental to US history and we had a very committed people like General Chennault who dedicated his life and forces to protecting China.

The major difference is that we didn't put Hirohito on trial and almost immediately called the Japanese an ally. Germany was divided and given governments that did everything possible to distance themselves from the Nazis. Japanese atrocities were down played and Nazi atrocities were highlighted

The US didn't execute Hirohito as they did other members of the Japanese government because they deemed him the most useful for carrying out fundamental governmental change after occupation. Also they almost immediately needed Japan as an ally bc of the cold war that broke out soon after WWII. They didn't just let Japan off the hook for some mystical benevolent reason.

Of course not. But you can't keep the figure head while at the same time teaching American children about how evil their regime was

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is ridiculous. How does any person expect to cover every detail of history when teaching an intro-level survey class to high school students?

You are acting like the war in the Pacific and Asia is some kind of granular event. Good Lord, it was half the entire war in which nearly as many people died compared to Europe, if not more. It is fundamental to US history since the US played much more of a role in defeating the Axis power in the East.

Compare how much time is spent on learning about WW2 in Europe and Nazis vs Imperial Japan, their atrocities, and US battles in China, Burma, and all throughout Asia. Be honest, how many Japanese death camps can you name vs Nazi concentration camps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is ridiculous. How does any person expect to cover every detail of history when teaching an intro-level survey class to high school students?

You are acting like the war in the Pacific and Asia is some kind of granular event. Good Lord, it was half the entire war in which nearly as many people died compared to Europe, if not more. It is fundamental to US history since the US played much more of a role in defeating the Axis power in the East.

Compare how much time is spent on learning about WW2 in Europe and Nazis vs Imperial Japan, their atrocities, and US battles in China, Burma, and all throughout Asia. Be honest, how many Japanese death camps can you name vs Nazi concentration camps.

It was one war among many that the US fought in and history curriculums in general have been de-emphasizing wars in favor of political and civil changes. There are about 25 weeks in a school year, how much time in general should be devoted to WWII?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It drives me bonkers when you ask the simple question of "When did WW2 start?" and you get the typical answer of 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland. That's completely wrong, because the Japanese attacked China even 2 years before that in 1937 and committed many atrocities even long before Hitler even touched Poland. In fact, you could even argue they WW2 started even earlier in 1931 when the Japanese invaded Manchuria, or as far back as even 1910 when they invaded Korea and were trying to wipe out their entire culture.

The US entered WW2 in Europe late, and played second fiddle to the Russians at defeating Germany. All you're ever taught is how important DDay was, yet in the grand scheme of the war, the Battle of Stalingrad was much more important for breaking Germany's back. Meanwhile in Asia, the US was arguably at war with Japan long before we were at war with Germany (arguably even before Pearl Harbor) and the US played a much, much more significant role in defeating the other major Axis power which were the Japanese compared to r role we played in defeating the Nazis.

We are all taught about the SS, 3rd Reich, Hitler's Arayan race views and all of the deaths due to the Holocaust, but the Japanese had the same exact things with the Kempei Tai, the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere, their beliefs that they were the superior race, and the Asian holocaust where the Japanese were murdering millions of civilians all across Asia and literally used to terms like exterminate wrt things like the entire Korean race and culture.

I mean our schools probably teach some of the major battles like Midway and Pearl Harbor, discuss dropping of the nukes, and the Rape of Nanking/Korean comfort women, but they only begins to scratch the surface of WW2 in Asia and all of the horrific crimes committed by Japan. A single event like flooding of the Yellow River killed 500k-1M Chinese, yet all you ever learn are Russia scortched Earth policies. Everyone learns about Josef Mengele and Nazi human testing, yet the Japanese did the same and worse with Unit 731 and were even dropping biological weapons on China like 'maggot bombs' designed to spread cholera they killed 200k in Yunnan.

It just boggles the mind how poor US education is wrt WW2 and why US education always focuses on Europe when jit as many, if not, more people died in Asia depending on what time frames you look at, the Japanese were just as bad, if not worse than the Nazis, and the US had a far more fundamental role in defeating the Japanese compared to the role the US played in defeating the Germans. US schools should be spending 60-75% of time about WW2 on what happened in Asia and the rest on Europe given how much more the US was important in Asia compared to Europe. The foundations of education on WW2 were probably driven by so much ethnocentrism even though the Marine Corps and Army were allobe the place in The Pacific, China, India, Burma, Dutch East Indies, etc.

In general, the European perspective is taught more because the US was settled by Europeans and so has had as a European focus to its history.

The nature of teaching social studies/history in K to 12 varies by state. Examples I have heard of from friends and relatives is that there’s more about the Pacific theater taught in California, more about the Alamo taught in Texas, more about the Kansas Missouri compromise taught in Kansas, more about the French and Indian War taught in upstate New York and more about the early settlements taught in Massachusetts and Virginia.

There just isn't enough time to cover all of history in these year long classes. US is still Euro-centric so it makes sense we focus on Germany when covering WWII.

What do European schools teach regarding WWII? Do they go into these details regarding Japan? What about the Japanese schools? How much time do they spend teaching about the atrocities they performed? Do they cover Germany in depth?

Who cares what Euroepans teach? The US spent tremendous amounts of manpower and lives liberating Asia. The US basically destroyed 60-80% of all Japanese forces. You can bet the Dutch teach what Japan was doing, because they slaughtered almost as.many people in the Dutch East Indies as the number of Poles who died because of the Germans. Tons of Dutch were put into death camps and thousands beheaded.

[Anonymous]

I actually went down a rabbit hole online about this issue. Lots of reddit and reddit-type threads on who was worse.

The Nazi's usually win this contest but only because they were so evilly systematic in their killing. It was a well-oiled, well-planned, well-executed machine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is ridiculous. How does any person expect to cover every detail of history when teaching an intro-level survey class to high school students?

You are acting like the war in the Pacific and Asia is some kind of granular event. Good Lord, it was half the entire war in which nearly as many people died compared to Europe, if not more. It is fundamental to US history since the US played much more of a role in defeating the Axis power in the East.

Compare how much time is spent on learning about WW2 in Europe and Nazis vs Imperial Japan, their atrocities, and US battles in China, Burma, and all throughout Asia. Be honest, how many Japanese death camps can you name vs Nazi concentration camps.

It was one war among many that the US fought in and history curriculums in general have been de-emphasizing wars in favor of political and civil changes. There are about 25 weeks in a school year, how much time in general should be devoted to WWII?

Take the time spent on WW2. Immediately split in half and spend it on Asia/The Pacific. Actually 60% should probably be spent on Asia given how much more of a vital role the US was in Asia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is ridiculous. How does any person expect to cover every detail of history when teaching an intro-level survey class to high school students?

You are acting like the war in the Pacific and Asia is some kind of granular event. Good Lord, it was half the entire war in which nearly as many people died compared to Europe, if not more. It is fundamental to US history since the US played much more of a role in defeating the Axis power in the East.

Compare how much time is spent on learning about WW2 in Europe and Nazis vs Imperial Japan, their atrocities, and US battles in China, Burma, and all throughout Asia. Be honest, how many Japanese death camps can you name vs Nazi concentration camps.

It was one war among many that the US fought in and history curriculums in general have been de-emphasizing wars in favor of political and civil changes. There are about 25 weeks in a school year, how much time in general should be devoted to WWII?

Take the time spent on WW2. Immediately split in half and spend it on Asia/The Pacific. Actually 60% should probably be spent on Asia given how much more of a vital role the US was in Asia.

So a day or two, and you expect to pack everything that people have said was left out into two classes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the answer to your question is that the main U.S. effort went to defeating the Germans. In terms of their success and brutality, the world had not seen anything like the German army since Genghis Khan. And Genghis Khan did not have death camps, as far as I know. The Japanese forces were just not a threat (to the U.S.) on the same level as the Germans.

That being said, I do agree that the Japanese have been let off the hook for many of the brutalities they committed during the war. I doubt many Americans know that they enslaved and tortured American POWs and even performed Dr. Mengele-like experiments on them.

Not true at all. Japanese barbarism was so bad at areas like Nanking it disgusted even the Nazis. The Japanese used to cut off peoples arms and legs and use live torsos for bayonet practice. They were ungodly barbaric in Singapore, Shanghai, Manila, and especially in the Andamans/Dutch East Indies. The Japanese too had death camps with appalling conditions that were arguably even worse than what the Nazis ran. In fact, more Americans were held in Japanese death camps that the numbers held in Nazi death camps.

How in the world were the Japanese not a threat to the US? They friggin' bombed pearl harbor. They actually hit mainland US with bombs dropped by balloons that even killed a few US citizens. There are historical records of FDR sweating bullets because the US govt anticipated a west coast invsion of the US and the govt believed that the Japanese might not be able to be stopped until they reached Chicago. It's a complete myth the Germans were more barbaric or were more of a threat.

I don't think you actually read what I said. But let me try again:

U.S. Forces killed in Europe–Atlantic Theatre 183,588
U.S. Forces killed in Asia–Pacific Theatre 108,504

So, about 63% of the deaths were in Europe, which speaks to the level of American power directed at each country. And in terms of the Japanese invading, neither Japan nor Germany had the resources to invade the U.S. Invading France across the English Channel was nearly impossible. Anyway who talks about invading the U.S. across the Pacific or Atlantic is not a serious person.

Casualties don't mean squat. We had massive amount of equipment from Aircraft carriers, to planes, to marines all directed at Asia. THE ENTIRE MANHATTAN PROJECT BUILT A BINB DROPPED ON JAPAN. The number of US casualties in the Pacific theater was slightly lower than Europe only because of the US' vast technical superiority over the Japanese. In terms of Iives lost, however, the Pacific theater and Asia was just as bad, if not worse than Europe if you actually count Japan's invasion as Manchuria. Percentage wise, the US destroyed far more of Japanese forces than the German military. WW2 in Europe was primarily won with Russian blood. The US was far more instrumental in liberating the entire other half of the globe.

The Manhattan Project was an answer to Germany's push for a similar weapon and a concern that the Germans would win the race. The US didn't believe that Japan could produce a similar weapon due to a lack of access to key components, like Uranium.

The US didn't use the atomic bomb in the European portion of the war because the fighting there ended without a perceived need to use the bomb. Keep in mind that the US had two functional atomic bombs, it wasn't like there was a large number of weapons to use. And while the weapon had not been used so we didn't know what the outcome would be, everyone involved in the program was aware that it would cause catastrophic damage. The Trinity tests confirming the atomic bomb would work occurred on July 16th 1945.

The US does a poor job of teaching history but I don't know that any class that I took at the high school, undergrad, or graduate level would list the start of WWII based on Japanese aggression. Every class that I have taken discusses the policy of appeasement directed at Germany, and to a lesser degree Japan, as being one of the major causes of WWII. No one wanted another WWI and that impacted policy choices that allowed for unfettered German and Japanese expansion. Most of Europe uses the invasion of Poland as the start date because that is when Europe went to war. I don't think anyone would try and teach that WWII was started because the European powers were concerned much with what Japan was doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually went down a rabbit hole online about this issue. Lots of reddit and reddit-type threads on who was worse.

The Nazi's usually win this contest but only because they were so evilly systematic in their killing. It was a well-oiled, well-planned, well-executed machine.

That's completely wrong though. During the Tokyo Trials, tons and tons of evidence was shown proving beyond a doubt about the orders for systemaric killings of POWs and civilians. The orders came from the top brass. The Japanese entire policy for imposing their racial superiority and leadership was to systemically destroy civilians through indiscriminate bombings and machine gunnings of millions of civilians in order to break their will.. Japanese top brass literally used terms like 'exterminate' to rid the Asian continent of less desirables. Top brass in the Japanese military would give orders to liquidate POWs camps and concentration camps they held coolies in. The Japanese used tons of slave labor. They also tried to complete destory Korea's entire existence by going so far as to murder their princess, ban their language, burn down their ancient temples, and rape scores of their wen in order to get rid of Korean identity.

[Anonymous]

Sorry murder of a Queen of Korea.