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

[Anonymous]

It’s unthinkably unrealistic to imagine K-12 education will cram in all the things people pop off about. “Why isn’t a deep and broad history of WW2 taught” goes on the pile with “why isn’t practical personal finance and taxation taught” along with critical thinking/logic, pedagogy, philosophy, health, time management…

Come on people. It’s hard enough to cram the bare minimum in these kids’ heads in the years schools have. Luckily we can all pick up books as adults and use the most important skills we learned in school: learning to learn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. It sounds like those reddit threads are the place for your argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I doubt only 4 days are spent on all of WW2..

[Anonymous]

NP. This is true of the east coast but a lot less true of the west coast.

[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.

Oh come on...

Kids often don't even know anything about the history of their own states or about bordering Mexico and Canada and they are supposed to know this sophisticated stuff in Asia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The point was that the lost you're responding to was in response to another post stating that the reason the US spend so much more time on the European war is because we supposedly spent more effort and resources there. That assertion is absurd, given how many planes, tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, weapons, and military personnel the US directed at Asia. The amount of scientific innovation that was spent on developing weapons went primarily to Asia as well. What are the tops 3 most important innovations/weapons during WW2? Probably the atomic bomb, radar, and the proximity fuze.

The atom bomb was dropped in Asia. Next to the atomic bomb, the proximity fuze was probably the most lethal weapon developed during WW2 (in MD btw!). The reason the US didn't suffer as many casualties in the Pacfic compared to Europe was because we had the proximity fuze in use in Asia and the Pacific. In fact, the weapon was so important and secret that the US Navy initially refused to allow the US military in Europe to use it. The point being that the assertion that the US spent more effort in Europe compared to Asia is absolutely flimsy given now much manpower, materials, and our top scientific inventions were used in the Pacific theater.

[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.

Oh come on...

Kids often don't even know anything about the history of their own states or about bordering Mexico and Canada and they are supposed to know this sophisticated stuff in Asia?

Sophisticated stuff?

This is stating that kids not knowing about Germany, Nazis, the Holocaust and D Day is because it is 'sophisticated' European history. How absurd would that statement be? Yet what in the Pacific and Asia is just as important to US history and as bad, if not worse, atrocities we're committed in Asia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s unthinkably unrealistic to imagine K-12 education will cram in all the things people pop off about. “Why isn’t a deep and broad history of WW2 taught” goes on the pile with “why isn’t practical personal finance and taxation taught” along with critical thinking/logic, pedagogy, philosophy, health, time management…

Come on people. It’s hard enough to cram the bare minimum in these kids’ heads in the years schools have. Luckily we can all pick up books as adults and use the most important skills we learned in school: learning to learn.

If I strutted down the street right now in a Nazi uniform, what kind of reaction would that evoke? Yet what would happen if I strutted down the street in an Kempei Tai Imperial Japanese uniform? Probably nothing, which shows you how horrendous education is yet it is literally the same kind of evil represented.

[Anonymous]

If it did not involve white people, it didn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I doubt only 4 days are spent on all of WW2..

You have around 20 weeks. Block schedule means 50 or so classes, but days off cuts that number. Call it 45 classes. 4 days is a lot of time for a topic, especially since the new deal and depression that proceeded the war and the cold war, economic boom and growth of the suburbs that followed the war are both much more important

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it did not involve white people, it didn't matter.

Exactly.

Although it did because tons of Dutch, British, and Americans were slaughtered or kept in death camps there. But yes, you're right, even though it is a huge part of US history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s unthinkably unrealistic to imagine K-12 education will cram in all the things people pop off about. “Why isn’t a deep and broad history of WW2 taught” goes on the pile with “why isn’t practical personal finance and taxation taught” along with critical thinking/logic, pedagogy, philosophy, health, time management…

Come on people. It’s hard enough to cram the bare minimum in these kids’ heads in the years schools have. Luckily we can all pick up books as adults and use the most important skills we learned in school: learning to learn.

If I strutted down the street right now in a Nazi uniform, what kind of reaction would that evoke? Yet what would happen if I strutted down the street in an Kempei Tai Imperial Japanese uniform? Probably nothing, which shows you how horrendous education is yet it is literally the same kind of evil represented.

So now kids are expected to represent every uniform worn by an army that committed atrocities?

[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.

Your own "history" is questionable, OP.

True, Japan attacked China in 1937, but that had nothing to do with WWII. It was a regional war, like many others before in Asia or Europe or Africa or everywhere.

It'd be like saying that the WWII started in 1936 with the Spanish Civil War, given how Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin got deeply involved and sent troops and materials.

[Anonymous]

Dare I say it might be worth looking at history to understand how the focus of the history curriculum developed. In 1950, Asians Americans accounted for 0.2% of the US population and whites 90%. There was a large surge of migration from Europe in the post-war years. By 1980, Asians had still only reached 1.5%. It is understandable that the Asian experience was not particularly acknowledged or incorporated at those times. Those European bonds have undoubtedly diminished but I imagine it takes quite a while for educational curricula to reflect the change in demographics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When/where did you learn about WWII? I didn't learn (formally) until college when I took a class specifically about WWII.
My history classes in high school and earlier never went beyond reconstruction.

WOW.
And I thought not having the Vietnam War EVER mentioned in my history classes in the 1980s was bad.