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.

Anonymous wrote:Accurate history teaching has mostly gone out the window, OP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Washingtonian here. I wondered if this might be the case.

As a Californian who grew up in California, I have found this thread fascinating. I definitely learned about the Pacific theater in WW2. I learned about the internment camps growing up for sure. I don’t remember not knowing about them. But it’s not ancient history here. I had a friend in my class whose grandfather was in one and her parents brought in some heirlooms for a show & tell (and that was not unusual, lots of people went to school with the descendants of the interned). I had another friend whose great-great-grandmother was impacted by the Chinese Exclusion Act.

I am not saying it was some sort of idealized melting pot harmony (ask what we were taught about “the missions” as kids), just saying we definitely learned a good amount about Asian American history and the Pacific theater.

I suspect I learned a lot less about the Civil and Revolutionary Wars than kids might on the east coast. But probably more about the Mexican American war.

Given how Ulisses Grant led the invading army I guess people are calling to get rid of any statue/ street in his name? And perhaps we should return a few states to Mexico?

Anonymous wrote:I think you could probably just leave off the second half of your topic question.

And the answer is that there are kids graduating from high school in this country who are functionally illiterate and can’t count change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I remember my AP US History class ran out of time when we got to WWII, so I had to wing anything past 1939 on the exam. I still got a 5, so it was all good.

+1!! I'm pretty good re: the Civil War and Reconstruction, but barely know anything past WWII, except for those years I lived through myself.

There are good arguments that recent history belongs in a current events class not in a history class. Until archives have been opened and there is distance from an event, it's hard to treat something as history. It wasn't until the 2000s that we learned that the attack on the Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin was completely made up as a pretext for war- that should change how we view the conflict and it would definitely render any previous textbook talking about the start of the war obsolete.

Anonymous wrote:My personal annoyance is that it is All Holocaust All The Time. Other historical genocides are either briefly mentioned or not at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I remember my AP US History class ran out of time when we got to WWII, so I had to wing anything past 1939 on the exam. I still got a 5, so it was all good.

+1!! I'm pretty good re: the Civil War and Reconstruction, but barely know anything past WWII, except for those years I lived through myself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I remember my AP US History class ran out of time when we got to WWII, so I had to wing anything past 1939 on the exam. I still got a 5, so it was all good.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Washingtonian here. I wondered if this might be the case.

As a Californian who grew up in California, I have found this thread fascinating. I definitely learned about the Pacific theater in WW2. I learned about the internment camps growing up for sure. I don’t remember not knowing about them. But it’s not ancient history here. I had a friend in my class whose grandfather was in one and her parents brought in some heirlooms for a show & tell (and that was not unusual, lots of people went to school with the descendants of the interned). I had another friend whose great-great-grandmother was impacted by the Chinese Exclusion Act.

I am not saying it was some sort of idealized melting pot harmony (ask what we were taught about “the missions” as kids), just saying we definitely learned a good amount about Asian American history and the Pacific theater.

I suspect I learned a lot less about the Civil and Revolutionary Wars than kids might on the east coast. But probably more about the Mexican American war.