what do the german and japanese history books say about america

Originally posted by wotdidnttheysayI (in Australia) was told that the Japanese had surrendered and were signing the papers when they dropped the bomb and that is why old diggers call Americans (mostly their government) 'bloady war mongers',they say there was no need to kill a city full of innocent woman and children cos the war was already over. I heard this said many times from old diggers themselves,(now deceased,I might add)

That sounds about as true as You Aussies would have defeated The Japanese Empire had they invaded you without having to deal with us Americans? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dream on brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Now deceased" eh? Well how convenient there for you yuh bottomfeeding liar! You outback piece of ungrateful, criminal trash. What a load of complete bullcrap spoken from a nobody with no proof whatsoever to back up such disgusting accusations I might add. Very few Americans were happy about our Military dropping Nukes on Japan, but it is what it is. I for one never liked it, but I was not in a position to make such a decision.

And another thing, You don't speak for all Aussies. You're just a liar and a propagandist coward who hides behind slander instead of backing any of your puke material up with facts or proof. Most people are laughing at you, including your own. ~SheopleNation

Originally posted by Levelsquare
reply to post by ninjas4321

 

don't take this the wrong way kid , but you need to spend more time in english and spelling classes than worrying about what other countries think about us.

That's uncalled for. His spelling was perfect though his post was weak on capitialization and punctuation. The topic is excellent.

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by ninjas4321

 

and whether they think america was wrong for dropping the atomic bomb

I don't know about you but I don't need to read a history book to know dropping an atomic bomb on people is wrong.
Japanese people think it was wrong also, if one was dropped on America wouldn't we think it was wrong?

edit on 11-3-2012 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)

So instead we should have invaded Japan and fought a long, drawn out ground campain against a people who were willing to die before surrender, Please dont forget that Japan had suicide bomers long before they became fashionable in the middle east. If in conflict I am faced with the choice of my people or theirs it will always be a easy answer.

Originally posted by Azadok

Originally posted by faint1993
I've read that Japan teaches their students a different history than what is truth. You can read about it HERE.

Of course, very few of us know what ACTUALLY happened, so we don't know if the Japanese textbooks or the American textbooks are more accurate.

So are you saying that American history is a lie ? Because it sure seems that way . There is plenty of eye witness testimony about the war both on a personal level and overall war picture . My dad fought on both ww ll and Korea as did most of my friends fathers. I believe that what is portrayed in the books is accurate . Try watching the history channel you might learn something .

Its funny how many elderly veterans shake their heads at what we are currently doing. Even they realize they were setup to fight the puppett masters wars. They realize after all these years. Ive talked to many of them about it, maybe try asking your fathers friends how they feel about it and the current state of affairs. I love the history channel its one of my favorites, but it doesnt mean that its not biased progamming.

Originally posted by David134
So instead we should have invaded Japan and fought a long, drawn out ground campain against a people who were willing to die before surrender, Please dont forget that Japan had suicide bomers long before they became fashionable in the middle east. If in conflict I am faced with the choice of my people or theirs it will always be a easy answer.

I think by the time of the bombings, Japan was already down for the count, they lost most if not all of their Navy, had nearly no airplanes left and after hundreds of american attacks, bombing the city, there wasn't much left.
I once read an article about it, some american general blamed the russians for the bomb as they made quick advances and wanted a war against japan. He said, without the russians, the war would've been over 2 weeks after the date of the atomic bombings without using them.

Personally i think the americans wanted to use the atomic bombs, necessary or not, they are like kids with a new toy, they want to try it out as fast as possible and also show the world (and especially the russians) who's boss. Because even if there was the need to wipe out an entire city, poison a big piece land with russians so that the people suffer for decades, one should've been enough. There was no need to wipe out two cities.

I visited Hiroshima a few years ago. I stood in awe in front of the atomic bomb dome and visiting the nuclear museum they have there, showing pictures from back then, it filled me with sadness and anger at the same time.

reply to post by ShadowAngel85


Different prospective. I need to research that a little. Thank you for making my mind move even if my mouth beat me to it.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
reply to post by ninjas4321

 

Every history book tells a flawed story. Why? Because history is written by the winners.

Case in point: the Civil War. Most people believe the war was fought over slavery. In fact, while slavery was a part of the fight, the South really viewed the war as one about states' rights. If the South had won, would you be reading about the inhumane conditions of slavery? Would the history books mention Harriet Tubman?

History will always be biased, no matter who writes the books. Don't accept what you read at face value. Instead, look for yourself. Find primary source documents or, if possible, talk to the people who were there. Form your own ideas and opinions. Ask questions and seek answers!

By the way, let me commend you for this thread. You asked a very intelligent question, a question many young folks would never even consider. Keep this up and you'll go far....

Great post but poor example, sorry. Slavery was abolished in the UK before the US civil war had even started - so over here we already knew slavery was bad!

Aside from history being written by the winners, there is also the need for the victors to demonise the losers as much as possible and this has been true throughout history. For example, Caesar embelleshing his tales of conquest for the people back at home allowed further powers to be gleaned, more taxes to be raised, more troops to be levied, etc. This has been the case with numerous other conflicts and situations.

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by faint1993
I've read that Japan teaches their students a different history than what is truth. You can read about it HERE.

Of course, very few of us know what ACTUALLY happened, so we don't know if the Japanese textbooks or the American textbooks are more accurate.

The "truth" is always written by the winners. Everything else is destroyed and watered down so I am always going to go with the losers to tell the real story from the ground.

Peace

Again, like taking the truth from the winners, this would only give a distorted view. As others have said, the truth is usually in the middle ground. The losers have various reasons to distort the truth of the situation.

Originally posted by Bullhorn
Since my school experience in Germany is still relatively fresh I'm going to chime in. As some have already said here, the main focus was to teach us to be ashamed of our past and feel guilty. The Americans were obviously the good guys who liberated us (just for the record, I'm very pro-American, even though I disagree with a lot of the current foreign policy).

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for honoring the past and making sure we don't repeat it, but it's the guilt part that always troubled me. Maybe it's an egotistical approach, but I always figured 'Why should I feel guilty for something that happened 40+ years before I was even born?'
To this day, occasionally I still have to deal with resentment merely due to the fact that I'm German, especially in neighboring countries like the Netherlands. It's not as bad as it used to be, but whenever you encounter that, it still sucks.

edit on 11-3-2012 by Bullhorn because: (no reason given)

I agree with this view and i am British!

I went to a very good school so in that i was lucky. We did history in chronological order so after the Great War, we did the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles before doing the Weimar Republic. As it turned out, this was pretty damn important as this was where the seeds for the Second World War were sown. This followed onto hyper inflation, rise of the Nazi's (and Communists in Germany) and then onto World War Two. We had a trip to Germany as part of this studying and this included a visit to the arenas at Nuremburg. When we got there we were drilled by the local guides that it was a prison type offence to be caught doing the "heil Hitler" salute - as kids this obviously led to many cases of us trying to get the teachers to point to things in the sky! I remember being shocked though by the reaction mention of the war got from German people - they looked (invariably) very uncomfortable with the subject. Why should people today feel guilt for something that happened 70 years before hand?

I am a German Canadian with deep German roots. In Canada, we are taught to read our history books with an open mind, because we know that the history which we learn from our history books is not true. I have read letters and memoirs of my forefathers and I can say that they felt the exact same thing the Americans/French/Japanese/Russian/British/Etc. soldiers felt walking into death. In my opinion, and without great detail, Germany had something the rest of the world wanted, and so a bloody disgusting race to their knowledge was set and so an agreement between Russia and USA/Britain was to split this knowledge between the new super powers. Although Russia agreed to help the Allies, it was only to gain the upper hand in the bigger picture which is ,or at least was at the time, world domination. Most of this is self-evident. We are all now well aware of the great SS Nazi, Werner von Braun.

reply to post by Flavian


Just out of interest, what is the British curriculum like in regards to the British Empire? And regarding Ireland?

I don't think the textbooks LIE so much as they just leave a LOT of truths & real reasons out. Like that Columbus saw a ufo, and stopping at a spot in america cuz they ran outta beer, etc, o heck this is neverending.

reply to post by MortlitantiFMMJ


Ha, in all honesty back when i was at school this was one area that we were let down with. By that i mean it wasn't massively touched on - it wasn't ignored but there was no real focus. It was basically covered in the Victorian topics, not in much detail. In fairness though, our history of this time was focusing on the Entente Cordiale and the rise of Prussia / Germany with the Kaiser and the lead up to the Great War. Same for the Crimea, not really covered apart from a bit on Florence Nightingale and the Charge Of the Light Brigade at Sevastopol.

Ireland is a different case though. Nothing is taught of early Irish history or the influence of the Norse and Swedish (later) or the subsequently triumphant Irish kings. Our history of Ireland really started with Cromwell, onto William of Orange and then nothing until the Potato Famine. In fairness though, our history books always showed this was caused by greedy land owners and that the English (and Scottish - sorry, it is true) were massively at fault for the suffering.

After the Potato Famine it was onto the Easter Uprising and a little bit on Michael Collins.

I will say that the history books i grew up with never shirked responsibility - that is something i have always liked about Britain. If we f***** up in history, we generally acknowledge it and do not try to hide from it (as Japanese history books appear to do). We may also list mitigating factors but we are ultimately taught from an early age to accept responsibility.

I have to say though this was changing a bit when i was teaching - history books were becoming more "shiny shiny" rather than having any substance to them.

Originally posted by faint1993
Whoa whoa whoa, relax. I'm not suggesting that American history is a lie. All I'm saying is that it is ignorant to accuse another nation of lying in their textbooks without looking at our own, considering none of us were there. I'm sure it's all very accurate, but there's still a chance that it's not. I'm an open-minded person and I will probably never accept that something is 100% true unless I've seen it myself. As far as I'm concerned, American History is probably 95% true.

Not trying to offend anyone in any way.

Then don't back down. Every Thanksgiving our children are taught how the white man and Indians shared a feast. It teaches our kids how wonderful America is and has always been. When's the last time a young American child came home from a history lesson in school and asked, "Dad, why did we kill all the indians?" "Why did we have slaves?" "Why did we treat animals better than black people?"

In our past we were a brutal and ignorant people. We are trying, TRYING, to improve. Point being, if kids are too young to handle the truth, then I'd rather put off American history until they can handle the truth, rather than lie to them.

reply to post by Flavian


Thanks for the info, its probably similar enough to here in Ireland so, where wrongs by both sides are generally shown. I'm surprised there's nothing about Parnell and the Home Rule movement from the late 19th century up to the start of ww1. Ireland was on the verge of civil war right before the start of ww1, which could have conceivably spread to the British mainland as it would have seen the British Army asked to put down the Unionists.

reply to post by MortlitantiFMMJ


Ah, now you have shamed me! We definitely learned about Parnell and Home Rule - something i had forgotten entirely until you mentionned!

I like history books that just show facts rather than covering things up or distorting the truth. That used to be the way but i am not really sure it is these days in schools. The books tend to touch on subjects and then focus on specific areas of them. For example, if discussing the Great War it would be a section on life at home during this period - doesn't really help with the causes and major battles, etc!

Growing up in a rural Alberta catholic school, I have one memory that sticks out most on the topic of history. The overzealous enthusiasm of my teacher telling the story of good and evil, and Anne Frank and blah blah blah patriotic blah blah. Back then I had a strong desire to be in the military. Today, the wordgames no longer dazzle me.

As an American who has lived overseas for a major part of my life, I've come to the conclusion that there are as many sides to any story as there are players. I've seen the same incident reported by news organizations from different countries in very different ways (in Japan where I live I can watch news from US, UK, Russia, China, France, Spain, Germany, Korea, and sometimes other countries), so I'm sure the same applies to history books.
I've had interesting discussions on various aspects of history with both my children (based on what they learned in school) and also with Japanese friends. Virtually all admit the Nanking atrocities and Unit 731, and my wife was actually taught some information about it when she was in school (her teacher was apparently a bit of a maverick, using handouts in addition to the textbooks).
At the same time, I have learned some bits that were left out of what I was taught, such as the colonization of Asia by Western powers, the condescension of Western powers toward Asian countries (which apparently continues in some people, per Bakatono's previous posts), and the blockade of Japan prior to WW2 when Japan attempted to play the colonization game in China.
There is a very vocal minority in Japan that tries to silence any attempts to teach about Nanking and Unit 731, but there are also some groups trying to publicize it more. As for the average Japanese, most know about both incidents, and regret those incidents while at the same time wondering why they should be blamed for something that happened before they were born. (An attitude that could also apply to slavery in the US.) I'd like to see an official apology from the government as the representative of Japan.
I've also talked with a friend of my grandmother's who was a prisoner of war in Japan. He was in the US Navy before he was captured. He said that he had seen atrocities committed in the POW camps, and had also received kindness from some of the guards there. He'd managed somehow to keep a diary on scraps of paper while he was there, and had bound them into a book which if I remember correctly he distributed to some of his fellow survivors. I read a bit of it. Yet he certainly held no animosity toward the Japanese people as a whole, and welcomed my wife into his home. He had also gone back to Japan from time to time in his Navy career.
Regarding Bakatono's comments, I would think that it depends both on where in Japan you were, and your attitude toward the Japanese there. The fact that you chose the ID Bakatono would seem to indicate you were here a while (or at least long enough to see Ken Shimura's comedy skit of the same name). I myself have received mostly kindness and help from the Japanese, but then again I never looked down on them or in fact looked at them as any different from myself. I have almost always been treated in the same way as I treat them; on the rare occasion when they do try to be elitist, a brief burst of mild cursing in Japanese usually sets them right and we end up getting along fine afterwards.
I have also seen firsthand how they pull together and help each other after a disaster, and how the "each other" in such case fully extends to foreigners.

Being German and having had all the benefits and detriments of a higher education, I'd like to tell you what I've been tought about the war:

I remember that there was a hughe part centered around the Weimar Republic and how democracy can easily go down the drain, enableing hardliners with radical ideas to take advantage of the situation.

There was actually very little taught about the military going of WWII. There was Hitler's surprise attack on Poland, the waging war with France, why Russia and the US got involved, but that was pretty much only mentioned as a footnote. The main focus was on the holocaust, the persecution and execution of jewish people, how a society could turn from to evil in such little time and all the cruelty that happend.

German History books contents regarding America:

- Pilgrims Mayflower Story (was really boring for me)

- Native Americans and Columbos (knew it anyway somehow, but it was mentioned a lot of the natives were killed)

- Slavery (only on a sidenote)

- WW II (same story - US came and fought nazi germany (US won) (Thanks)

Ask your grandfather?
One never stopped talking about Hitler... nonsense
One never talked about this time... horror