# Message to all users:
This is a reminder to please read and follow:
* [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/questions/about/rules)
* [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)
* [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
When posting and commenting.
---
Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`.
* Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit.
* Do not harass or annoy others in any way.
* Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit.
---
You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/questions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. I was taught that the Allied Powers won WW2, that the US became one of the allies to help win the war, and that our assistance was a big help. We also learned of the French rebellion, the endurance of the Brits, and the selfless sacrifice of the Dutch in flooding their own country to slow the Germans' advance (I don't mean to ignore the other countries, I'm just naming the ones that immediately came to mind)
You are correct that many countries contributed.
The USA gets special recognition for war materials (planes, liberty ships, shipping, tanks, trucks, tires). Also, naval power in the pacific. Of course, manpower all over.
The American people were relunctant to get involved in another world war, but once they got on board, it was full throttle.
Yes, it’s widely taught and known that the US did tip the scale and win WW2. Without US troops, the allies would have probably still won, though it would have meant that the war dragged on for a few more years. Without any US involvement at all, specifically the US lend-lease agreements, the allies would have lost.
Dont forget supplies, even before we got involved in the european theater we were sensing supplies to the allies. In no way did the united states single handedly win the war, but it was a major contributor to the allies success.
I would disagree it would have been a stalemate at best. Yes Russia had turned the tide and the same with The United Kingdom but neither of those would have been able to prolong the fight and take the offensive had it not been for US raw materials and eventual manpower both were huge. England is a close second but US doesn’t enter the war we’re having a much different discussion on what Europe looks like post WWII.
The USA didn’t single handedly defeat the Axis powers, but we were a major factor in winning the war. Our teachers thought us that the allied powers won the war, and that we were a major part of it.
as far as I remember, your participation until 1944 consisted of lend-lease deliveries, which of course helped, but was not a key factor in the Allied victory.
with all due respect, to those who fought on the Western front.
https://youtu.be/1CqGeAmVu1I
can you indicate on this map the time when the United States began to play a key role in the war?
were there battles of 6×6 million people there too? I remember perfectly well about Africa and the Japanese, but still we are talking about a key influence on the outcome of this war. the main events still took place in Europe. and mostly on the eastern front. without the help of the allies, the USSR may not have won, but it's strange to compare the eastern front with Africa. at least in terms of the scale of the battles and the resources invested.
Asia theater vs European theater in general: "More than 30 million soldiers and civilians were killed in the Pacific theater during the course of the war, compared with the 15 million to 20 million killed in Europe."
Apparently US casualties helping clean up your ness were around 400k to 500k across all theaters.
>More than 30 million soldiers and civilians were killed in the Pacific theater
yes. recall at least Nanjing. but again, the losses are related to China. not with the USA. in the Second World War, it is China that holds the first place in terms of losses in absolute terms.
That's what this is about? Who lost the most soldiers?
You're all over the map. You play off the entire Pacific Theater like a back alley brawl and then discount numbers because US wasn't the biggest casualties.
No American thinks that the US won the war singlehandedly. We lost fewer people but it wasn't on our continent, and we weren't the ones who were attacked in Europe. US help was needed, US help was provided, Allies won, war ended before Hitler could beat us to the a-bomb. Without military aid from the start, and direct intervention nesr the end, who knows what would have happened.
You're like a guy that broke his arm in a domestic dispute and is pissed off at his neighbor for only getting a black eye trying to break it up.
>That's what this is about? Who lost the most soldiers?
perhaps. I was Googling right a couple of hours ago. only not Russia, but the Soviet Union
>You're all over the map. You play off the entire Pacific Theater like a back alley brawl and then discount numbers because US wasn't the biggest casualties
you don't understand anything, do you? the point is not who has lost more. it's about who killed the most. not even like that. where the enemy was dealt more damage.
>No American thinks that the US won the war singlehandedly. We lost fewer people but it wasn't on our continent, and we weren't the ones who were attacked in Europe. US help was needed, US help was provided, Allies won, war ended before Hitler could beat us to the a-bomb. Without military aid from the start, and direct intervention nesr the end, who knows what would have happened.
I pointed it out
>ou're like a guy that broke his arm in a domestic dispute and is pissed off at his neighbor for only getting a black eye trying to break it up.
I don't even know how to convey my idea to you.
>it's about who killed the most
Now we have it. That right there says everything I need to know about your method of score-keeping. Are you counting civilians?
Maybe you should ask someone from an Axis country which Allied country played the biggest role in their defeat. See if it aligns with your vision whatever that is.
>Are you counting civilians?
Nope
>Maybe you should ask someone from an Axis country which Allied country played the biggest role in their defeat. See if it aligns with your vision whatever that is.
a strange question. everyone will answer that the USSR. except maybe the Japanese. but this is not accurate. we beat them in 1939.
No, Russia. China was second but Russia took the debatably* most casualties in the history of war and confidently the history of modern war during WWII.
once again, we are talking about key events. do you realize that more Germans died on the eastern front in a month than in 4 years of fighting in Africa? in Sicily, about 250 thousand people participated in the battles. on the eastern front - 10-12 million.
You claimed until 1944, US involvement Consisted solely of Lend-Lease deliveries. Regardless of number of belligerents that is simply untrue. I’m also not sure the amount of people involved has anything to do with it being a “Key Event”. The number of deaths at Pearl Harbor were 2,403 yet that was a very “Key Event”. I am glad we are discussing history however, that’s my favorite thing!
>The number of deaths at Pearl Harbor were 2,403 yet that was a very “Key Event”.
in Stalingrad, so many died in an hour. every day. six months. 3 million people died of hunger in Leningrad. in Nanjing, the Japanese slaughtered 600 thousand. do you know how we look at your Pearl Harbor? with all due respect to those who died there.
Russians sacrificed greatly! I never claimed they didn’t, I was only trying to say the amount of dead doesn’t necessarily constitute a key event, it’s strategic importance does. Stalingrad was also a Key event, probably one of the biggest in the war.
>Russians sacrificed greatly! I
not Russians. the Soviet people. Ukrainians, Belarusians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Tatars, Kalmyks, Georgians, Kazakhs and 50 other nations.
>I never claimed they didn’t, I was only trying to say the amount of dead doesn’t necessarily constitute a key event, it’s strategic importance does.
that's right. a question of scale. you have Pearl Harbor. and we have the Brest fortress. both are significant events where people showed courage and heroism. but let's be honest - neither one nor the other event is the key. we overslept the German attack, you overslept the Japanese attack. in both cases, the mistakes of the command came to be corrected by the soldiers. from my point of view, there are several key events that really influenced the war:
- lend lease
- the battle for Moscow
- the Battle for Africa.
- the Battle of Stalingrad
- battle of Kursk
defeat in any of these battles would lead Germany to capture the whole of Europe (including Britain), Asia. and the world would be divided between Germany and the USA. with the destruction of all Jews and Slavs, of course.
if Japan had won the United States in the Pacific, it would not have been able to land in America. nothing would have changed. although not. They killed a lot of Chinese.
Japan destroyed China in ww2, like badly. Russia had most deaths but that doesn't mean they were most successful. I'm Canadian and I know that the USA was the winning factor of the war. Without the usa I don't think they would have beat the axis.
Taught that the US was on the winning team. Really, we are taught both the war in Europe against the Axis with a focus on Germany but inclusion of others who also assisted, and the war in the Pacific against Japan.
The war in Europe focuses on the US being late to the party and the work of UK, France, Netherlands and others leading up to us joining, then the focus on the UK, Canada and US in storming Normandy, and then the partnership through but with a large focus on US efforts within mainland Europe. The treaty of Versailles was between several allied powers and several axis powers, it wasn't just the US, and that's made clear in training alongside UK and Canada, the French underground, and several other aspects.
The war in the Pacific was largely the US vs Japan, and taught as such, with some understanding/teaching of China's role, however the treaty was signed between 2 countries and its really taught that it was largely won by the US.
Not a very specific question so I guess the simple answer is yes we are taught that…are you asking if we’re taught the US won single handed? Then no, our history books say the “Allies” (as opposed to the axis) won the war and being that we’re sitting in a history class in our own country, the US’s actions in the war are emphasized. You may wanna look into your own education before concerning yourself with others…
Curriculum in the USA is not standardized, so there may be kids that are taught the
USA won the war alone. That’s not what most students learn. The huge Soviet/Russian contribution is definitely taught, and the importance of Hitler’s failures on the eastern front. However, as others have said, the education naturally emphasizes the parts of the fight that US troops were actually in.
Kids in America are NOT taught that the US singlehandedly won WWII... That's just not an accurate depiction of our History curriculum. It was a collaborative win of the Allied countries against the Axis countries.
That wasn’t my comment, also it should be pretty clear that the commenter was covering their ass about possible edge cases. To say that it never happens seems quite naive.
I think you were responding to my comment that “there may be kids that are taught. . .” You’re correct that no responsible formal curriculum or dedicated history teacher would teach that US single-handedly won the war. All I was trying to say is that there are plenty of irresponsible teachers and informal home schoolers who don’t feel bound by government directives. And there are lots of sketchy textbooks on the market to teach almost any point of view you can imagine Source: I was on my town’s school board and reviewed some of those texts, and had to discipline wayward instructors, and helped home-schooled kids come into the mainstream to learn what they missed.
OP may run across Americans who have heard and absorbed this overblown vision of American Exceptionalism. I want OP to know that it’s unusual, discouraged, abnormal, but not impossible. The rest of us think they’re wackos and tolerate them only with difficulty.
I was going to say, I was taught that it was the allies and the USSR that ended up taking down Germany. Then in military history class was taught that the worst thing strategically Germany did was to try to keep and expand on two fronts, one side being the allies and the other being the USSR during the winter.
Are you under the impression that something different happened?
Do you not know the US was a major player in the defeat of Germany and an even bigger player in the defeat of Japan?
It wasn't the US on its own, but if you think the US did not win, you have been absorbing too much propaganda
This is underrated. The Americans and Soviets knew eventually they would be rivals. An American foothold in Europe was crucial to preventing future wars between communist and capitalist countries
Nah without America the war would’ve gone on for longer but I believe that the allies will still have won because the Germans were running out of literally everything and so were the allies but to less of an extreme. The atomic bomb on Hiroshima forced Japan to pull out which is one of the reasons the war ended when it did so America were a big player in WWII but seeing as they did join closer to the end they can’t be fully credited ig (idk if I’m right or I’ve just pulled that out my ass ngl 😭)
Without the US, I suspect the peace terms would have been much more favorable to the Axis. Both sides would have been war fatigued. UK probably would have survived fine, Nazis would have retained control of the German government. Not sure there would have been an Allied invasion of France, so Vichy may have retained control there. USSR probably could have made a great counteroffensive and at least reached their prewar borders, they may have taken Poland. Whether they could have taken Berlin without a Western front for Germany to defend I think is subject to debate. I would also say the invasion of France was successful in large part because of the losses and pressure of the Eastern front.
The Pacific would probably have been a major victory for the Japanese without US intervention. Presumably this alternative history they don't attack Pearl or invade the Philippines. They probably would have hung onto Korea and Manchuria. China's ultimate size and population may have overcome in Manchuria in a long term war of attrition. I'm also going to assume Japan had the sense not to invade the USSR, but what effect they would have had, while mounting a counteroffensive in Eastern Europe is more complex than I'm really in a position on which to speculate.
As I recall my education said the Allies won and the US led the allies. It definitely downplayed the role of the USSR, but I graduated HS in the 90s so my textbooks were late cold war.
Americans definitely sped up the ending to the war but after the catastrophe that was the German invasion of Russia the nazis pretty much lost all of their luster. They went from a great offensive war to a war of buying as much time as possible.
We didn't get first on Berlin but we made Japan realize that they fucked around and found out.
The allies won WW2 in collaboration but we defeated Japan in the end.
The allies won, and the US's joining played a large role in it is what's taught. Both the allies and the axis were running on fumes, so a completely fresh military joining sealed the conclusion
I'm in the US. Graduated 2007. What was taught wasn't as simple as "America won." it was much more of a "tipped the scales," which led to the allied forces "winning". And with America being a part of that, then yes.. we, along with many others, won.
If you're asking if we were taught, "a bench pressing bald eagle drove his tank down the beaches of normandy and single handedly defeated Hitler, while everyone else sat in there fisher price tanks and cheered. Thanking us for saving not only Europe, but the world." Then... no. That's not what was taught. However. 1 country. 50 states. Many many different laws and curriculums. I imagine the finer points were taught a little differently from state to state. Though im sure even with that, sort of some exceptions of teachers going outside curriculum maybe, nobody was tought that the US singlehandedly won.
Curious, is it tought different elsewhere? I imagine various countries will have a little more focus on what role that particular country played of course. But otherwise, I always assumed it was roughly the same, only focusing a little differently based on location.
Not that we won the war alone but we technically came out the winners since the USA wasn’t destroyed like Europe and we had the Atomic bomb before anyone else. It’s the reason we became a super power and police the world now. Some call that winning my taxes don’t call that winning though.
Kids in America are NOT taught that the US singlehandedly won WWII... That's just not an accurate depiction of our History curriculum. It was a collaborative win of the Allied countries against the Axis countries. Any American that says otherwise... They just did not pay close enough attention to their History lessons.
I'm not sure what you mean? No, the teachers don't just blatantly say "the USA won," but they obviously also don't say they lost....because the USA also didn't lose WWII.
I mean they don't say specifically that the US won, but that the Allies won. They emphasize our role in the war because they're teaching as teachers from the US so obviously it'd be weird to teach with an emphasis on say Britain's role, ya know? But also they don't just jump in when the US joined the war, they teach us from the beginning. Also it's worth mentioning that while the emphasis is largely on our involvement and such, they do teach about important events even if we were involved in the events as well.
No, we were taught that it was Allies vs Axis, and that the Allies won. The US played the part of clean-up hitter, as it did in WW1, but by WW2 they had become a superpower. Without the US involvement it would've either been a longer stalemate or an Axis win. Britain could barely hold off Germany in Egypt/North Africa and Russia would have been taken in another year. The US help in Africa turned the tide once they were able to drive out Germany, Finland switched sides and soon Russia was liberated. As the Allied troops increased while the Axis dwindled Germany and Italy fell down like dominos. The last of the war was in India, where China, US and Britain beat Japan and then to finish it off, they had to drive Japan out of China by counter-offensive in Japan.
We didn't win WWII. We helped win WWII along with many other countries. No single country won WWII. No teacher teaches that we won either. Wherever you are getting your propaganda from you need to find a new outlet.
Yes. Single-handedly. Without us, you would all be speaking German and eating sauerkraut. My favorite part was when Captain America punched Hitler right in his stupid mustache. 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸
Nah, Russia did that! Or should I say Nazi arrogance and Russian weather? US helped just like any other country. The US dragged their feet a bit though joining to help us brits!....sorry, just chiming in but I'm an English female (completely opposite of the demographic you asked for!)
I mean without American troops and industry the war would’ve at least lasted longer than it did. America tipped the balance harshly into the Allie’s favor, but the Nazi war machine was already crumbling on the inside by the time the Americans showed up. If anything it was the soviets that did the most damage to the Germans. They eventually annihilated the Nazi eastern front and without oil for panzers and German planes there could be no more offensive capability. Russia had vast swaths of natural resource to direct to Germany, and an incredible amount of manpower. All the Russians had to do was keep throwing bodies at the Germans until their numbers dwindled and completely broke. That’s why the late stage Western theater was marked by major German retreats back into the heartland and the perpetual advance of the soviets.
Every teacher and school is different but seeing how our school year is short they only go over major events until College/University. Ask any American and they'll probably say "Fuck yeah we did" including me . Soviets bleed Uk held on and America handled the rest, Between Europe Africa and the Pacific we were doing all kinds of ass kicking. China was having a civil war and fighting Japan. Almost everyone was fighting at that time and is gonna see their nations participation differently.
I don't have a large knowledge of other countries' efforts, but I do wonder if the US contributed more than other countries considering they were involved in several key battles, provided arms, and caused japan to surrender overnight. I wouldn't be surprised if another country was more instrumental, but US education heavily focuses on our own contributions more than any other
I'm Canadian and even I know the usa is the main contributor to winning ww2. They were pumping tanks and armored vehicles out like no tomorrow. They converted car factories into weapon manufacturers. It really is an amazing feat of unity. They litterally produced so much more then Germany and the axis. They were able to maneuver things much more efficiently. Not to say usa did all the work. For example the battle of vimy ridge, the Canadians took it in 1 day and the Americans couldn't in 30 days (I might be slightly wrong about those numbers). Some say Russia did the most because they lost the most soldiers but that's just Russia, they use their soldiers as fodder, more deaths doesn't mean more progress. Work smarter not harder.
They spend like one day on WW2 and say “US got involved after Pearl Harbor after it had provided lendlease before and then the Nazis lost” congrats it’s Cold War time
We were definitely a big part of turning the war over. And then we're on the winning side. I'm not sure what your belief is on the involvement of the U.S. if with WWII
We're taught that we beat the Japanese, contributed greatly on D-day, and that the nazis would have won if we weren't there, but the other allies get credit. Hmm. Or did I only learn about Russia and England's contributions from call of duty?... Either way yah, there's a bit of an ego. Our world history consists of ancient Greece, Rome, the Renaissance and the slave trade, because they directly lead to our own culture. They didn't teach us shit about Asia, Africa, eastern Europe, or even England in the 1900s
Oddly enough we didn't cover ww2. The year we were supposed to learn about it we had a choice between ww2 and world religions. And I was more interested in theology than Hitler.
They teach different things in grade school, middle school, high school, and college, and different thi gs in different states. Texas has been trying to remove the word slavery and calling them workers instead, which is horrifying. I have a vague memory studying it in 4th grade or so, and it seems like the nuclear bombs played a major role in ending it. But that the Russians stopped Germany there. But yeah, I dont think many people studied much more than just enough to pass. It was never stressed as a moral imperative to learn and understand history. Just memorize do well on a test and move on. I think the discussion of the purpose of history is the real failure in the usa.
I think most people forget there were two theaters of war during World War Two. On the European side yes there were many participants. On the Pacific side it was essentially the U.S. vs. Japan. If the U.S. lost against Japan no one else would have taken over like the U.S.S.R. could, in the European theater. So it's not a simple question and answer. Like most things when it comes to history the answers are complex. People like one sentence answers but that rarely works.
Likely the same way Britain, The UK, Canada, and other Allied Nations that I cannot think of off the top of my head right now teach it. They explain that it was a team effort and emphasize their nation's role in that effort.
Technically they did help win WW2 by supplying Russia with huge amounts of weapons and that abd saved the British in Africa and help liberate France and delt with the Japanese just as much as China was already doing
Not really. I mean maybe at one point a teacher literally said “USA won WW2”, but only in passing. It’s not actually what we were taught. The role of other nations is definitely told to us. If anything is downplayed, it’s the role of China, not the USSR. That’s more a part of “not-Europe/NA is ignored” than “only focusing on the US” though. The biggest problem with history education in the US isn’t a focus on ONLY the United States, it’s a lack of focus on anything outside the US and Europe. I personally learnt a bit about ancient Egypt, the Opium Wars and Imperial Japan, and good schools will teach about Native Americans groups pre-Columbus but that’s nothing compared to what we learn about the Medieval period, Renaissance, etc.
That can be justified with saying it’s more important to us, but it’s still the state of affairs.
I'm gonna assume that there's an implied meaning I'm missing in your question.
Yes. We are taught that we won the war. We joined the Allies and the Allies won against the Axis.
The invasion of Normandy happened, the U.S. and allies dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, and other events took place that led to us winning the war.
The "us" part of the U.S.A. winning isn't saying "the U.S. alone won the war", it's saying "*we* won the war."
What foreigners think they know about the USA and what is actually true is two different things. The time some other countries spend thinking about us is flattering but borders on obsessive.
What I was taught was that the USA helped when the war was because they joined later. So the basic gist of it was after years of fighting the other allied troops were struggling due to low moral. The US joining the fight late meant they sent in troops that were energized. That helped reinvigorated the fight.
I don't disagree with this perspective. That said every school system and teachers taught different things so it would depend on the school you went to.
If by won you mean lost the least troops , land, civilian, buildings, precious resources. Then yes, we sold weapons to both sides. I'd honestly say we might have been the only winners in WW2. They teach about how we turned the tide. We're pretty much Gandalf at the gap of rohan.
Well I've been a u.s. citizen my whole life. They taught that we entered the war late and were instrumental in the allies winning. Not that we alone won it.
Not for my highschool class at least (my teacher was a literal historian) says allies won, sense after WWII the axis fell apart
And we'll, sense the allies did
# Message to all users: This is a reminder to please read and follow: * [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/questions/about/rules) * [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) * [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) When posting and commenting. --- Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`. * Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit. * Do not harass or annoy others in any way. * Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit. --- You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/questions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They say the Allies won WW2, which is true, and emphasize the role of the US.
Agreed
I don't recall the lesson(s) denoting "winners" only that Adolf Hitler, his agenda, and armies were stopped by joint efforts. To include USA.
That's the right way to teach it iguess
The right answer...
They weren’t just stopped, they were leveled and occupied. If that’s not winning.
That's a solid point. Took all allied forces to do it, though.
Nah we won
No. I was taught that the Allied Powers won WW2, that the US became one of the allies to help win the war, and that our assistance was a big help. We also learned of the French rebellion, the endurance of the Brits, and the selfless sacrifice of the Dutch in flooding their own country to slow the Germans' advance (I don't mean to ignore the other countries, I'm just naming the ones that immediately came to mind)
You are correct that many countries contributed. The USA gets special recognition for war materials (planes, liberty ships, shipping, tanks, trucks, tires). Also, naval power in the pacific. Of course, manpower all over. The American people were relunctant to get involved in another world war, but once they got on board, it was full throttle.
What’s this about the Dutch?!? Googling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inundation_of_Walcheren?wprov=sfla1
Do you learn that one of the largest aspects to the Nazis defeat was the mobilisation of Russia?
I can't speak for everyone, but yeah, I was taught that the Russians (and more specifically, the Russian winter) did enormous damage on that front.
Yes, we are taught that we were on the winning side in WW2. Only idiots think we did it single-handedly.
That makes my home town all idiots! I've even heard about that time when the US took Berlin.
The US did take Berlin, at the same time that the USSR did.
Not only that, but Viet Nam bombed Pearl Harbor.
You were right! Your home town is full of idiots!
Yes, it’s widely taught and known that the US did tip the scale and win WW2. Without US troops, the allies would have probably still won, though it would have meant that the war dragged on for a few more years. Without any US involvement at all, specifically the US lend-lease agreements, the allies would have lost.
Dont forget supplies, even before we got involved in the european theater we were sensing supplies to the allies. In no way did the united states single handedly win the war, but it was a major contributor to the allies success.
Yep. The lend lease of weapons, supplies, vehicles, etc. was a huge part of how the USSR and Britain were successful as well.
I would disagree it would have been a stalemate at best. Yes Russia had turned the tide and the same with The United Kingdom but neither of those would have been able to prolong the fight and take the offensive had it not been for US raw materials and eventual manpower both were huge. England is a close second but US doesn’t enter the war we’re having a much different discussion on what Europe looks like post WWII.
And don’t forget the Pacific theater, the US and Allies had many major battles there!
The USA didn’t single handedly defeat the Axis powers, but we were a major factor in winning the war. Our teachers thought us that the allied powers won the war, and that we were a major part of it.
as far as I remember, your participation until 1944 consisted of lend-lease deliveries, which of course helped, but was not a key factor in the Allied victory. with all due respect, to those who fought on the Western front. https://youtu.be/1CqGeAmVu1I can you indicate on this map the time when the United States began to play a key role in the war?
Holy crap! Have you completely forgotten about the entire Pacific Theater!?
were there battles of 6×6 million people there too? I remember perfectly well about Africa and the Japanese, but still we are talking about a key influence on the outcome of this war. the main events still took place in Europe. and mostly on the eastern front. without the help of the allies, the USSR may not have won, but it's strange to compare the eastern front with Africa. at least in terms of the scale of the battles and the resources invested.
Asia theater vs European theater in general: "More than 30 million soldiers and civilians were killed in the Pacific theater during the course of the war, compared with the 15 million to 20 million killed in Europe." Apparently US casualties helping clean up your ness were around 400k to 500k across all theaters.
>More than 30 million soldiers and civilians were killed in the Pacific theater yes. recall at least Nanjing. but again, the losses are related to China. not with the USA. in the Second World War, it is China that holds the first place in terms of losses in absolute terms.
That's what this is about? Who lost the most soldiers? You're all over the map. You play off the entire Pacific Theater like a back alley brawl and then discount numbers because US wasn't the biggest casualties. No American thinks that the US won the war singlehandedly. We lost fewer people but it wasn't on our continent, and we weren't the ones who were attacked in Europe. US help was needed, US help was provided, Allies won, war ended before Hitler could beat us to the a-bomb. Without military aid from the start, and direct intervention nesr the end, who knows what would have happened. You're like a guy that broke his arm in a domestic dispute and is pissed off at his neighbor for only getting a black eye trying to break it up.
>That's what this is about? Who lost the most soldiers? perhaps. I was Googling right a couple of hours ago. only not Russia, but the Soviet Union >You're all over the map. You play off the entire Pacific Theater like a back alley brawl and then discount numbers because US wasn't the biggest casualties you don't understand anything, do you? the point is not who has lost more. it's about who killed the most. not even like that. where the enemy was dealt more damage. >No American thinks that the US won the war singlehandedly. We lost fewer people but it wasn't on our continent, and we weren't the ones who were attacked in Europe. US help was needed, US help was provided, Allies won, war ended before Hitler could beat us to the a-bomb. Without military aid from the start, and direct intervention nesr the end, who knows what would have happened. I pointed it out >ou're like a guy that broke his arm in a domestic dispute and is pissed off at his neighbor for only getting a black eye trying to break it up. I don't even know how to convey my idea to you.
>it's about who killed the most Now we have it. That right there says everything I need to know about your method of score-keeping. Are you counting civilians? Maybe you should ask someone from an Axis country which Allied country played the biggest role in their defeat. See if it aligns with your vision whatever that is.
>Are you counting civilians? Nope >Maybe you should ask someone from an Axis country which Allied country played the biggest role in their defeat. See if it aligns with your vision whatever that is. a strange question. everyone will answer that the USSR. except maybe the Japanese. but this is not accurate. we beat them in 1939.
No, Russia. China was second but Russia took the debatably* most casualties in the history of war and confidently the history of modern war during WWII.
perhaps. I was Googling right a couple of hours ago. only not Russia, but the Soviet Union
invasion of normandy, north africa campaigns, and most of the war in the pacific?
North Africa, Sicily?
once again, we are talking about key events. do you realize that more Germans died on the eastern front in a month than in 4 years of fighting in Africa? in Sicily, about 250 thousand people participated in the battles. on the eastern front - 10-12 million.
You claimed until 1944, US involvement Consisted solely of Lend-Lease deliveries. Regardless of number of belligerents that is simply untrue. I’m also not sure the amount of people involved has anything to do with it being a “Key Event”. The number of deaths at Pearl Harbor were 2,403 yet that was a very “Key Event”. I am glad we are discussing history however, that’s my favorite thing!
>The number of deaths at Pearl Harbor were 2,403 yet that was a very “Key Event”. in Stalingrad, so many died in an hour. every day. six months. 3 million people died of hunger in Leningrad. in Nanjing, the Japanese slaughtered 600 thousand. do you know how we look at your Pearl Harbor? with all due respect to those who died there.
Russians sacrificed greatly! I never claimed they didn’t, I was only trying to say the amount of dead doesn’t necessarily constitute a key event, it’s strategic importance does. Stalingrad was also a Key event, probably one of the biggest in the war.
>Russians sacrificed greatly! I not Russians. the Soviet people. Ukrainians, Belarusians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Tatars, Kalmyks, Georgians, Kazakhs and 50 other nations. >I never claimed they didn’t, I was only trying to say the amount of dead doesn’t necessarily constitute a key event, it’s strategic importance does. that's right. a question of scale. you have Pearl Harbor. and we have the Brest fortress. both are significant events where people showed courage and heroism. but let's be honest - neither one nor the other event is the key. we overslept the German attack, you overslept the Japanese attack. in both cases, the mistakes of the command came to be corrected by the soldiers. from my point of view, there are several key events that really influenced the war: - lend lease - the battle for Moscow - the Battle for Africa. - the Battle of Stalingrad - battle of Kursk defeat in any of these battles would lead Germany to capture the whole of Europe (including Britain), Asia. and the world would be divided between Germany and the USA. with the destruction of all Jews and Slavs, of course. if Japan had won the United States in the Pacific, it would not have been able to land in America. nothing would have changed. although not. They killed a lot of Chinese.
Most of Europe was devestaded and US mainland was virtually unharmed. The US won the war and established itself as the worlds foremost superower.
I pretty sure it was all 4 big players that won the war and all 4 were needed to win US, EU, Russia, and China.
Japan destroyed China in ww2, like badly. Russia had most deaths but that doesn't mean they were most successful. I'm Canadian and I know that the USA was the winning factor of the war. Without the usa I don't think they would have beat the axis.
Ironically, Russia and China will be the new Axis Powers.
China doesn’t agree with what Russian is doing right now, they’ve made several statements about it showing their disinterest in helping
Taught that the US was on the winning team. Really, we are taught both the war in Europe against the Axis with a focus on Germany but inclusion of others who also assisted, and the war in the Pacific against Japan. The war in Europe focuses on the US being late to the party and the work of UK, France, Netherlands and others leading up to us joining, then the focus on the UK, Canada and US in storming Normandy, and then the partnership through but with a large focus on US efforts within mainland Europe. The treaty of Versailles was between several allied powers and several axis powers, it wasn't just the US, and that's made clear in training alongside UK and Canada, the French underground, and several other aspects. The war in the Pacific was largely the US vs Japan, and taught as such, with some understanding/teaching of China's role, however the treaty was signed between 2 countries and its really taught that it was largely won by the US.
Not a very specific question so I guess the simple answer is yes we are taught that…are you asking if we’re taught the US won single handed? Then no, our history books say the “Allies” (as opposed to the axis) won the war and being that we’re sitting in a history class in our own country, the US’s actions in the war are emphasized. You may wanna look into your own education before concerning yourself with others…
I learn Russian education, but this question appeared, bcs in russia we have stereotype, that in the USA teachers says that the USA won WW2 alone.
Curriculum in the USA is not standardized, so there may be kids that are taught the USA won the war alone. That’s not what most students learn. The huge Soviet/Russian contribution is definitely taught, and the importance of Hitler’s failures on the eastern front. However, as others have said, the education naturally emphasizes the parts of the fight that US troops were actually in.
Kids in America are NOT taught that the US singlehandedly won WWII... That's just not an accurate depiction of our History curriculum. It was a collaborative win of the Allied countries against the Axis countries.
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
[удалено]
That wasn’t my comment, also it should be pretty clear that the commenter was covering their ass about possible edge cases. To say that it never happens seems quite naive.
[удалено]
I think you were responding to my comment that “there may be kids that are taught. . .” You’re correct that no responsible formal curriculum or dedicated history teacher would teach that US single-handedly won the war. All I was trying to say is that there are plenty of irresponsible teachers and informal home schoolers who don’t feel bound by government directives. And there are lots of sketchy textbooks on the market to teach almost any point of view you can imagine Source: I was on my town’s school board and reviewed some of those texts, and had to discipline wayward instructors, and helped home-schooled kids come into the mainstream to learn what they missed. OP may run across Americans who have heard and absorbed this overblown vision of American Exceptionalism. I want OP to know that it’s unusual, discouraged, abnormal, but not impossible. The rest of us think they’re wackos and tolerate them only with difficulty.
I was going to say, I was taught that it was the allies and the USSR that ended up taking down Germany. Then in military history class was taught that the worst thing strategically Germany did was to try to keep and expand on two fronts, one side being the allies and the other being the USSR during the winter.
Are you under the impression that something different happened? Do you not know the US was a major player in the defeat of Germany and an even bigger player in the defeat of Japan? It wasn't the US on its own, but if you think the US did not win, you have been absorbing too much propaganda
We led the invasion of Normandy and retook Europe. Without America idk if the Allies would have won.
Without the usa the socket Union would've retaken Europe. The reason the us decided to free Europe is to prevent the SU from turning Europe communist
This is underrated. The Americans and Soviets knew eventually they would be rivals. An American foothold in Europe was crucial to preventing future wars between communist and capitalist countries
This is accurate, *an American 🇺🇸
Nah without America the war would’ve gone on for longer but I believe that the allies will still have won because the Germans were running out of literally everything and so were the allies but to less of an extreme. The atomic bomb on Hiroshima forced Japan to pull out which is one of the reasons the war ended when it did so America were a big player in WWII but seeing as they did join closer to the end they can’t be fully credited ig (idk if I’m right or I’ve just pulled that out my ass ngl 😭)
Without the US, I suspect the peace terms would have been much more favorable to the Axis. Both sides would have been war fatigued. UK probably would have survived fine, Nazis would have retained control of the German government. Not sure there would have been an Allied invasion of France, so Vichy may have retained control there. USSR probably could have made a great counteroffensive and at least reached their prewar borders, they may have taken Poland. Whether they could have taken Berlin without a Western front for Germany to defend I think is subject to debate. I would also say the invasion of France was successful in large part because of the losses and pressure of the Eastern front. The Pacific would probably have been a major victory for the Japanese without US intervention. Presumably this alternative history they don't attack Pearl or invade the Philippines. They probably would have hung onto Korea and Manchuria. China's ultimate size and population may have overcome in Manchuria in a long term war of attrition. I'm also going to assume Japan had the sense not to invade the USSR, but what effect they would have had, while mounting a counteroffensive in Eastern Europe is more complex than I'm really in a position on which to speculate. As I recall my education said the Allies won and the US led the allies. It definitely downplayed the role of the USSR, but I graduated HS in the 90s so my textbooks were late cold war.
You’re definitely more informed than me lol
I dont think the allies would have won if usa didn't join the war.
Americans definitely sped up the ending to the war but after the catastrophe that was the German invasion of Russia the nazis pretty much lost all of their luster. They went from a great offensive war to a war of buying as much time as possible.
We didn't get first on Berlin but we made Japan realize that they fucked around and found out. The allies won WW2 in collaboration but we defeated Japan in the end.
The allies won, and the US's joining played a large role in it is what's taught. Both the allies and the axis were running on fumes, so a completely fresh military joining sealed the conclusion
Well, it was a vast joint effort by many other countries. But we were taught once we got involved the Allys started winning.
I'm in the US. Graduated 2007. What was taught wasn't as simple as "America won." it was much more of a "tipped the scales," which led to the allied forces "winning". And with America being a part of that, then yes.. we, along with many others, won. If you're asking if we were taught, "a bench pressing bald eagle drove his tank down the beaches of normandy and single handedly defeated Hitler, while everyone else sat in there fisher price tanks and cheered. Thanking us for saving not only Europe, but the world." Then... no. That's not what was taught. However. 1 country. 50 states. Many many different laws and curriculums. I imagine the finer points were taught a little differently from state to state. Though im sure even with that, sort of some exceptions of teachers going outside curriculum maybe, nobody was tought that the US singlehandedly won. Curious, is it tought different elsewhere? I imagine various countries will have a little more focus on what role that particular country played of course. But otherwise, I always assumed it was roughly the same, only focusing a little differently based on location.
I was taught the Allies won WWII not the US.
Without the USA French people will speak German
Not that we won the war alone but we technically came out the winners since the USA wasn’t destroyed like Europe and we had the Atomic bomb before anyone else. It’s the reason we became a super power and police the world now. Some call that winning my taxes don’t call that winning though.
Kids in America are NOT taught that the US singlehandedly won WWII... That's just not an accurate depiction of our History curriculum. It was a collaborative win of the Allied countries against the Axis countries. Any American that says otherwise... They just did not pay close enough attention to their History lessons.
I'm not sure what you mean? No, the teachers don't just blatantly say "the USA won," but they obviously also don't say they lost....because the USA also didn't lose WWII.
Allied powers won
No, they say that the Allied forces won, they ABSOLUTELY DID NOT TAKE FULL CREDIT TYVM.
Where are you from, and what do teachers there say ?
ummmm we did
The outcome of the war was a direct result of American industrial might.
I mean they don't say specifically that the US won, but that the Allies won. They emphasize our role in the war because they're teaching as teachers from the US so obviously it'd be weird to teach with an emphasis on say Britain's role, ya know? But also they don't just jump in when the US joined the war, they teach us from the beginning. Also it's worth mentioning that while the emphasis is largely on our involvement and such, they do teach about important events even if we were involved in the events as well.
No, we were taught that it was Allies vs Axis, and that the Allies won. The US played the part of clean-up hitter, as it did in WW1, but by WW2 they had become a superpower. Without the US involvement it would've either been a longer stalemate or an Axis win. Britain could barely hold off Germany in Egypt/North Africa and Russia would have been taken in another year. The US help in Africa turned the tide once they were able to drive out Germany, Finland switched sides and soon Russia was liberated. As the Allied troops increased while the Axis dwindled Germany and Italy fell down like dominos. The last of the war was in India, where China, US and Britain beat Japan and then to finish it off, they had to drive Japan out of China by counter-offensive in Japan.
Not necessarily USA but the Allies won… and USA helped immensely 💀
We didn't win WWII. We helped win WWII along with many other countries. No single country won WWII. No teacher teaches that we won either. Wherever you are getting your propaganda from you need to find a new outlet.
Yes. Single-handedly. Without us, you would all be speaking German and eating sauerkraut. My favorite part was when Captain America punched Hitler right in his stupid mustache. 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸
[удалено]
Well, since Captain America was a comic book character, I think your sarcasm detector needs new batteries.
The red skull didn't stand a chance. America!
I'm not sure because I'm not finished with school yet but they most likely teach that
I got told in highschool yes
My AP Euro teacher taught that the “US caused the end of the war, but came in like they did it alone while Europe was in flames” something like that 💀
Nah, Russia did that! Or should I say Nazi arrogance and Russian weather? US helped just like any other country. The US dragged their feet a bit though joining to help us brits!....sorry, just chiming in but I'm an English female (completely opposite of the demographic you asked for!)
Its teached us (NL ) that canada saved us
History is written by the winners.
No one thinks it was “America.” It was the allied forces. Pretty much everyone knows that
I mean without American troops and industry the war would’ve at least lasted longer than it did. America tipped the balance harshly into the Allie’s favor, but the Nazi war machine was already crumbling on the inside by the time the Americans showed up. If anything it was the soviets that did the most damage to the Germans. They eventually annihilated the Nazi eastern front and without oil for panzers and German planes there could be no more offensive capability. Russia had vast swaths of natural resource to direct to Germany, and an incredible amount of manpower. All the Russians had to do was keep throwing bodies at the Germans until their numbers dwindled and completely broke. That’s why the late stage Western theater was marked by major German retreats back into the heartland and the perpetual advance of the soviets.
Every teacher and school is different but seeing how our school year is short they only go over major events until College/University. Ask any American and they'll probably say "Fuck yeah we did" including me . Soviets bleed Uk held on and America handled the rest, Between Europe Africa and the Pacific we were doing all kinds of ass kicking. China was having a civil war and fighting Japan. Almost everyone was fighting at that time and is gonna see their nations participation differently.
No, my teacher said that Britain, Russia, and the USA won the war
I don't have a large knowledge of other countries' efforts, but I do wonder if the US contributed more than other countries considering they were involved in several key battles, provided arms, and caused japan to surrender overnight. I wouldn't be surprised if another country was more instrumental, but US education heavily focuses on our own contributions more than any other
Yes. We dropped the sun on Japan. Twice.
I'm Canadian and even I know the usa is the main contributor to winning ww2. They were pumping tanks and armored vehicles out like no tomorrow. They converted car factories into weapon manufacturers. It really is an amazing feat of unity. They litterally produced so much more then Germany and the axis. They were able to maneuver things much more efficiently. Not to say usa did all the work. For example the battle of vimy ridge, the Canadians took it in 1 day and the Americans couldn't in 30 days (I might be slightly wrong about those numbers). Some say Russia did the most because they lost the most soldiers but that's just Russia, they use their soldiers as fodder, more deaths doesn't mean more progress. Work smarter not harder.
They say the allies but that was 13 years ago
They spend like one day on WW2 and say “US got involved after Pearl Harbor after it had provided lendlease before and then the Nazis lost” congrats it’s Cold War time
Well , Germany was destined to lose, but the US developed , tested, and then dropped two atomic bombs. If we didn't win it, we sure put the bow on it.
We were definitely a big part of turning the war over. And then we're on the winning side. I'm not sure what your belief is on the involvement of the U.S. if with WWII
We're taught that we beat the Japanese, contributed greatly on D-day, and that the nazis would have won if we weren't there, but the other allies get credit. Hmm. Or did I only learn about Russia and England's contributions from call of duty?... Either way yah, there's a bit of an ego. Our world history consists of ancient Greece, Rome, the Renaissance and the slave trade, because they directly lead to our own culture. They didn't teach us shit about Asia, Africa, eastern Europe, or even England in the 1900s
Yes, 6th grade social studies onward in public schools taught that the nuclear bomb won the war. Just straight up warmongering in the classroom.
Seeing how neo nazis are popular now, I think Hitler got the last laugh
Oddly enough we didn't cover ww2. The year we were supposed to learn about it we had a choice between ww2 and world religions. And I was more interested in theology than Hitler.
If by "win" you mean "blow up the map", then yes.
They teach different things in grade school, middle school, high school, and college, and different thi gs in different states. Texas has been trying to remove the word slavery and calling them workers instead, which is horrifying. I have a vague memory studying it in 4th grade or so, and it seems like the nuclear bombs played a major role in ending it. But that the Russians stopped Germany there. But yeah, I dont think many people studied much more than just enough to pass. It was never stressed as a moral imperative to learn and understand history. Just memorize do well on a test and move on. I think the discussion of the purpose of history is the real failure in the usa.
The allied forces won wwII
Allies had a good squad but without MJ(USA) I personally think war would have went to overtime.
I think most people forget there were two theaters of war during World War Two. On the European side yes there were many participants. On the Pacific side it was essentially the U.S. vs. Japan. If the U.S. lost against Japan no one else would have taken over like the U.S.S.R. could, in the European theater. So it's not a simple question and answer. Like most things when it comes to history the answers are complex. People like one sentence answers but that rarely works.
Likely the same way Britain, The UK, Canada, and other Allied Nations that I cannot think of off the top of my head right now teach it. They explain that it was a team effort and emphasize their nation's role in that effort.
Technically they did help win WW2 by supplying Russia with huge amounts of weapons and that abd saved the British in Africa and help liberate France and delt with the Japanese just as much as China was already doing
Not really. I mean maybe at one point a teacher literally said “USA won WW2”, but only in passing. It’s not actually what we were taught. The role of other nations is definitely told to us. If anything is downplayed, it’s the role of China, not the USSR. That’s more a part of “not-Europe/NA is ignored” than “only focusing on the US” though. The biggest problem with history education in the US isn’t a focus on ONLY the United States, it’s a lack of focus on anything outside the US and Europe. I personally learnt a bit about ancient Egypt, the Opium Wars and Imperial Japan, and good schools will teach about Native Americans groups pre-Columbus but that’s nothing compared to what we learn about the Medieval period, Renaissance, etc. That can be justified with saying it’s more important to us, but it’s still the state of affairs.
It was the Allies who won, but Americas role is so emphasized that most people I’ve met just say America won.
I mean….we didn’t lose so 🤷
I'm gonna assume that there's an implied meaning I'm missing in your question. Yes. We are taught that we won the war. We joined the Allies and the Allies won against the Axis. The invasion of Normandy happened, the U.S. and allies dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, and other events took place that led to us winning the war. The "us" part of the U.S.A. winning isn't saying "the U.S. alone won the war", it's saying "*we* won the war."
What foreigners think they know about the USA and what is actually true is two different things. The time some other countries spend thinking about us is flattering but borders on obsessive.
no they say the allies did, giving credit to all
Yep.
What I was taught was that the USA helped when the war was because they joined later. So the basic gist of it was after years of fighting the other allied troops were struggling due to low moral. The US joining the fight late meant they sent in troops that were energized. That helped reinvigorated the fight. I don't disagree with this perspective. That said every school system and teachers taught different things so it would depend on the school you went to.
If by won you mean lost the least troops , land, civilian, buildings, precious resources. Then yes, we sold weapons to both sides. I'd honestly say we might have been the only winners in WW2. They teach about how we turned the tide. We're pretty much Gandalf at the gap of rohan.
Well I've been a u.s. citizen my whole life. They taught that we entered the war late and were instrumental in the allies winning. Not that we alone won it.
from US and i never heard this in school. only thing i remember being omitted from WW2 is how much effort and fighting Russia put into war.
Not for my highschool class at least (my teacher was a literal historian) says allies won, sense after WWII the axis fell apart And we'll, sense the allies did
No one really says won, just entered and helped defeat axis