Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: Absolutely!
Even the recording of the facts can be biased, and this version can prevail for many years. I agree with your assessment, I remember a American history class that the teacher told us that General Lee was a hero and that General Grant, Sherman and the like were the bad guys. Both of my sons, after being educated up north said American history was taught totally opposite of what they were taught in there Texas high school classes.
When I talk about Texas history with my hispanic friends at work who were educated in Mexico, they have a totally different view about the Alamo. I guess history has many sides depending where you live and what sources you use. It takes many sources, time and research to get an accurate view of the pasted.
RE: Absolutely!
However, a fair interpretation of the contribution of the British Empire from 1939 to 1945 might conclude that those countries did more to secure the final victory than the United States.
I would like to hear more about this particular contention, given that my mother actually lived through WWII in Dersingham, Norfolkshire, England - and to hear her tell it, the Allies wouldn't have stood a chance without the USA
Whatever may be written, or later interpreted, there's not much that can top a first-hand account of history. How can we be sure this interpretation isn't some sort of revisionist history to downplay the contribution of the US?
I'm not even arguing the point - I just want to see something to back the contention.
RSS
Absolutely!
The usual reaction to this is that there are the facts and there are the interpretations of the facts.
Even the recording of the facts can be biased, and this version can prevail for many years. For example there is a one sided witness account of the Roman conquest of Gaul because the Celts were not into writing their history. We have a very detailed account from Julius Caesar who was not only a great general but also one of the most literate people of his era. His facts are indisputable and this was classical history until recently. Given time, and modern academic technique, Historians have built on this and other sparse sources to flesh it all out and develop a realistic history of this period that is unflattering to the great man, and certainly not Roman propaganda.
Our accounts of World War II from war reporters, propaganda, the media, Hollywood, and even from veterans certainly give the impression that America won it, and the other participants on the Allied side were peripheral. However, a fair interpretation of the contribution of the British Empire from 1939 to 1945 might conclude that those countries did more to secure the final victory than the United States.
Regardless of that, most now agree that the war was actually decided on the Russian front where the majority of the fighting took place. The American contribution was probably most unambiguous in the Pacific, but even there the threat of Russian forces moving in was a major factor in the collapse of Japan - possibly even more so than the atomic bombs.
However, it is the American War of Independence that is most interesting in this respect. We tend to have a very distorted view of what it was about and why it panned out the way it did. But it was our war, and the rest of the world seems to be happy for us to bathe in our delusions.
View Full Discussion