I used to teach a composition class centered around immigration, and one of the facts that always surprised my students (and never fails to infuriate me) is that indigenous people in the US weren’t granted citizenship until 1924. And that even after the 1965 Voting Rights Act, many of them are still being denied the right to vote because they live on tribal land. It’s disgusting.
It's facts like those that illustrate how American is not a democracy. At the absolute most generous interpretation, democracy has been present since 1965. And still, it's an extremely undemocratic form.
Another concept most (if not all) of my non-Black students had never pondered: slaves and American Descendants of Slaves are the only population of people who never had the choice of whether or not to become inhabitants or citizens of this country – yet they were still denied that right and / or suffrage for all but a tiny sliver of its history… but the vast majority of the US population believes they deserve no recompense for the injustice they have endured.
That chart about French beliefs regarding WWII is so depressing. I expect my fellow Americans to be unaware of the massively unequal casualties each nation was burdened with, but I assumed Europe had a better memory. The figures are stark. I imagine the USSR essentially stopping the Nazis with a mountain of the corpses of their fellows. And it's not far from the truth. That's not to say that our service members didn't fight admirably, it's just to say not enough credit is given.
Well put. The statistic that comes to my mind is that 70% of German troops were stationed on the Eastern Front, a clear sign of where most of the fighting occurred.
I think what that figure really represents is that the fighting on the western front was largely aerial or naval; the Allies did not return to the continent until 1944. But that doesn't mean that there wasn't war being waged in other, more industrial means than infantry soldiers. You say 70% of German troops were deployed to the eastern front; I say how many of the other 30% were pilots, ground crews, seamen, and naval officers?
"You say 70% of German troops were deployed to the eastern front; I say how many of the other 30% were pilots, ground crews, seamen, and naval officers?"
If you have a claim to the contrary, you should be the one providing the data. Additionally, the Germans were heavily deployed in the occupied western nations and Africa, so it's not like there wasn't ground presence there.
It's a busy workday, and I'm not picking on your data, per se; I'm simply stating that "fighting" and "deploying" are not the same. Japan had 80% of its WWII troops deployed in China, and the Chinese fought for longer than did the U.S. and had millions more fatalities, but it was not to the Chinese whom Japan ultimately surrendered; it was to MacArthur, on the U.S.S. Missouri, who accepted on behalf of the Allies (incl China). Why? Because it only took the 11-man crews of the Enola Gay and Bockscar to end the war.
No one is arguing that. But it's a mistake to say that "most of the fighting" occurred on the Eastern Front simply because that's where the most lives were lost, or because that's where the majority of German forces were deployed.
It's just a mistake to say that fatalities or deployment level are an effective measure of "fighting". China had perhaps 10x the military fatalities of the U.K. Does that mean that the Chinese military did "more" fighting in WWII than the U.K.? Of course not. Wars are fought in different ways, and won in different ways. The U.K. had half as many military deaths in WWII as they did in WWII; what happened, did they not fight as hard? Of course not. It was a different war, fought in a different way.
"A quantitive result of American propaganda: Following WWII, most French people rightfully attributed the defeat of Nazism to the Soviets. Over the course of a century, propaganda changed their minds."
Ah, yes, the famously propaganda-free times of Vichy France...
Do you believe that the French were suddenly unaffected by propaganda? Seems rather unlikely. But regardless, my point was that propaganda is not a new, nor uniquely American, tool. It’s more likely that in the subsequent decades, as the Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe, the findings of the Nuremburg trials unfolded, and the USSR became an antagonist of the West, French attitudes naturally shifted toward their truer ally. It also cannot be discounted that French nationals in 1945 may have blamed the U.S. for not “getting involved sooner” to stop Nazism from rolling across their country, and that those attitudes are reflected in the polling data.
Your argument seems to lie on an unproven claim the Nazi-aligned Vichy regime was propagandizing the French people to LIKE the communists. That is nonsensical.
"A sizable portion of the left wing political scene of Paris, seemingly incompatible with Nazi doctrine, was in fact co-opted by the Germans. Trade unionists, socialists, and other leftist elements bought into various fictions of European unification, German anti-capitalism and anti-clericalism, and Hitler’s socialism.[7] Abetz moved to mobilize the influence of these elements by opening pro-German leftist papers, much to the consternation of Propaganda-Abteilung and others who believed such publications strayed too far from Nazi ideological orthodoxy.[8] Abetz successfully cozened many prominent leftist figures into his scheme. For example, the socialist politician Charles Spinasse took over the daily L’Effort in 1940. Spinasse used the paper as a forum to exhort the benefits of peaceful collaboration, and he drew contributions from over twenty prominent Third Republic socialist representatives.[9] Another of Spinasse’s papers, the weekly Le Rouge et le Bleu, also favored collaboration as a route to European unification and economic and intellectual prosperity.[10] With help from Abetz and the German embassy, many left-wing collaborationist publications proved to be quite successful; for example, the daily La France socialiste reached an average circulation of over 110,000.[11]"
And also:
"By the end of 1945 the joy of victory had long since faded.
Instead there was mounting hostility between proud, poor, resentful "Froggies" and swaggering, dollar-happy "Yanks".
Brawls were increasingly common, and concern about a complete breakdown in relations had gone up to government-level.
The handbook for GIs was devised in order to defuse the tension."
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. No one was defending the Nazis or the Vichy French. Were you under the impression we were? Otherwise this comment doesn't make sense, but perhaps I'm missing something.
I didn't mean to imply that you were (defending Nazis or Vichy France). What I'm saying is that a.) more death does not equal more, or more effective, fighting and b.) that the respondents to that poll were likely driven by factors (propaganda, reaction to American G.I.s in France, aggrievement with the U.S. government's slow reaction in 1939 and 1940) that extend beyond a deep and contextually informed understanding of warfare dynamics along the western vs eastern fronts in the European Theatre.
Polled Americans gave George W. Bush a 90% approval rating the week after 9/11, and a 34% approval rating when he left office. Which is more accurate as to the true nature of the Presidency, and which was driven by an emotional response at the time?
B.) If you're making that claim, the onus is on you to provide data to the contrary. "They likely were mad at the Americans" is not evidence, it's a thought.
It's also a historical fact, as I said elsewhere, that more Chinese military forces died fighting Imperial Japan in WWII than did Allied forces, and against 80% of the deployed Japanese military. Did that make their efforts more effective? Were they more to credit for Japanese surrender and Allied victory? Of course not, and no one has ever claimed as such, because it's simply not how we measure effective military outcomes.
I hadn't really considered your argument before and I think it's a very interesting thing to think about if you're trying to learn more about successful military actions etc. I really can't decide if in this case it's what I meant. I don't think that the Soviet troops were better soldiers, just that many more of them were lost. If in the losing of them they hadn't taken many German troops with them I suppose you'd be correct. That's the kind of thing that makes war so offensive to me. I have very conflicted feeling on imagining the winners of all modern conflicts winning from the technological and training point of view but suffering very few losses or even being in the proximity of fighting themselves. It feels obscene. Not that people tearing each other apart with their bare hands is to be admired. But it is more fair.
When I taught American History to Middle School children it was truly hard for many of them to wrap their minds around the way natives were treated. Their misconceptions were horrendous as well (they're all rich because the have casinos).
Oh wow. That is depressing to hear. I'm sure it's not conducive to childhood development to detail the gory nature of imperialism in kindergarten, but I'm sure we can do better than our present.
An excellent article. As a fellow Yankee I grew up with the same propaganda. I'm many years older than you but your words brought back memories... & we made those hats too. America has been slinging KoolAid to children for decades. My Mom believed all the Captain America stuff ad nauseum. She called me a Commie for reading socialist newspapers (Bernie Sanders type stuff & social justice issues) We've got a lot of hard work ahead trying to unwind the ingrained messaging. Anyway, I wish you and yours a wonderful holiday...
It is humorous how slight deviation from the "acceptable" reading is considered heresy against the American state. Bernie Sanders is in the Senate, and still, you'll be chastised for even considering his point of view. Anyways, enjoy your holiday as well!
Thank you for bringing this up, Joe. I did a paper on the Dakota 38 and the hanging that took place in Mankato, Minnesota for a college US History course. The class and the professor were unaware of this history until the day I did my presentation on this subject. Among those 38 "warriors" were young boys and elderly men. I will never forget when I first heard this story from Dakota people on the Prairie Island reservation in Minnesota. I encourage people to visit with as many Indigenous tribal nations as you can in this country and listen to their stories and experiences. Don't just read books by non-native people. There, that's my Ted Talk.
I detest nearly all American holidays, they are fake, insulting to intelligence, all about being on the bandwagon. "Everyone" celebrates Thanksgiving apparently except my non-American husband and me. If asked why they celebrate it, they can't say. But most people are so disgustingly nostalgic about holidays they not only go through the motions, they get drunk with stupid, meaningless joy over the details of each manufactured holiday. The colors, the clothes, the songs, the consumerism... I really can't stand it. Add to the mix that my family forgets I exist every Thanksgiving, due to their awkward white guilt/unacknowledged Islamophobia/my scary vegetarianism, yeah, I hate this holiday and Christmas and all the rest of them too. And I'm usually the only person in the room who feels this way.
Happy Thanksgiving Joe. It is and has always been up to the people to hold their government accountable. It's exhausting work but it's our job as citizens. All these accepted premises like "For your health and Safety," "In the Interest of National Security," "Too Big to Fail" need to be examined. I'm sure your audience can come up with a bunch of others...
Aww, Professor Zinn is so proud of you. Even though all of that is true, so many Americans have no ancestral connection to those settlers, so it becomes a story about how we all have struggled to find ourselves in this place. But every society has myths and stories about the conquest of their lands. Had the Nazis won, we'd still be in the first century of a 1000-year Reich, and the story of Native Americans would be lost to history.
I used to teach a composition class centered around immigration, and one of the facts that always surprised my students (and never fails to infuriate me) is that indigenous people in the US weren’t granted citizenship until 1924. And that even after the 1965 Voting Rights Act, many of them are still being denied the right to vote because they live on tribal land. It’s disgusting.
It's facts like those that illustrate how American is not a democracy. At the absolute most generous interpretation, democracy has been present since 1965. And still, it's an extremely undemocratic form.
Another concept most (if not all) of my non-Black students had never pondered: slaves and American Descendants of Slaves are the only population of people who never had the choice of whether or not to become inhabitants or citizens of this country – yet they were still denied that right and / or suffrage for all but a tiny sliver of its history… but the vast majority of the US population believes they deserve no recompense for the injustice they have endured.
That chart about French beliefs regarding WWII is so depressing. I expect my fellow Americans to be unaware of the massively unequal casualties each nation was burdened with, but I assumed Europe had a better memory. The figures are stark. I imagine the USSR essentially stopping the Nazis with a mountain of the corpses of their fellows. And it's not far from the truth. That's not to say that our service members didn't fight admirably, it's just to say not enough credit is given.
Well put. The statistic that comes to my mind is that 70% of German troops were stationed on the Eastern Front, a clear sign of where most of the fighting occurred.
I think what that figure really represents is that the fighting on the western front was largely aerial or naval; the Allies did not return to the continent until 1944. But that doesn't mean that there wasn't war being waged in other, more industrial means than infantry soldiers. You say 70% of German troops were deployed to the eastern front; I say how many of the other 30% were pilots, ground crews, seamen, and naval officers?
"You say 70% of German troops were deployed to the eastern front; I say how many of the other 30% were pilots, ground crews, seamen, and naval officers?"
If you have a claim to the contrary, you should be the one providing the data. Additionally, the Germans were heavily deployed in the occupied western nations and Africa, so it's not like there wasn't ground presence there.
It's a busy workday, and I'm not picking on your data, per se; I'm simply stating that "fighting" and "deploying" are not the same. Japan had 80% of its WWII troops deployed in China, and the Chinese fought for longer than did the U.S. and had millions more fatalities, but it was not to the Chinese whom Japan ultimately surrendered; it was to MacArthur, on the U.S.S. Missouri, who accepted on behalf of the Allies (incl China). Why? Because it only took the 11-man crews of the Enola Gay and Bockscar to end the war.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/surrender-of-japan
There's also this:
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/lend-lease-eastern-front
The lowest figure for military-only deaths for the USSR is 8,668,400.
407,300 is the lowest accepted total for both fronts (Pacific and Europe) for USe military deaths.
And the civilian deaths are not even comparable.
No one is arguing that. But it's a mistake to say that "most of the fighting" occurred on the Eastern Front simply because that's where the most lives were lost, or because that's where the majority of German forces were deployed.
It's just a mistake to say that fatalities or deployment level are an effective measure of "fighting". China had perhaps 10x the military fatalities of the U.K. Does that mean that the Chinese military did "more" fighting in WWII than the U.K.? Of course not. Wars are fought in different ways, and won in different ways. The U.K. had half as many military deaths in WWII as they did in WWII; what happened, did they not fight as hard? Of course not. It was a different war, fought in a different way.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/olympic-britain/crime-and-defence/the-fallen/
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war
"A quantitive result of American propaganda: Following WWII, most French people rightfully attributed the defeat of Nazism to the Soviets. Over the course of a century, propaganda changed their minds."
Ah, yes, the famously propaganda-free times of Vichy France...
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/026569148301300403
https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn513586
https://www.google.com/search?q=propaganda+in+vichy+france
The Vichy regime fell in 1944. The poll is from 1945.
Do you believe that the French were suddenly unaffected by propaganda? Seems rather unlikely. But regardless, my point was that propaganda is not a new, nor uniquely American, tool. It’s more likely that in the subsequent decades, as the Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe, the findings of the Nuremburg trials unfolded, and the USSR became an antagonist of the West, French attitudes naturally shifted toward their truer ally. It also cannot be discounted that French nationals in 1945 may have blamed the U.S. for not “getting involved sooner” to stop Nazism from rolling across their country, and that those attitudes are reflected in the polling data.
Your argument seems to lie on an unproven claim the Nazi-aligned Vichy regime was propagandizing the French people to LIKE the communists. That is nonsensical.
Oh gee will you look at that:
https://aleph.humanities.ucla.edu/2015/07/26/collaboration-resistance-and-state-sanctioned-journalism-in-vichy-france/
"A sizable portion of the left wing political scene of Paris, seemingly incompatible with Nazi doctrine, was in fact co-opted by the Germans. Trade unionists, socialists, and other leftist elements bought into various fictions of European unification, German anti-capitalism and anti-clericalism, and Hitler’s socialism.[7] Abetz moved to mobilize the influence of these elements by opening pro-German leftist papers, much to the consternation of Propaganda-Abteilung and others who believed such publications strayed too far from Nazi ideological orthodoxy.[8] Abetz successfully cozened many prominent leftist figures into his scheme. For example, the socialist politician Charles Spinasse took over the daily L’Effort in 1940. Spinasse used the paper as a forum to exhort the benefits of peaceful collaboration, and he drew contributions from over twenty prominent Third Republic socialist representatives.[9] Another of Spinasse’s papers, the weekly Le Rouge et le Bleu, also favored collaboration as a route to European unification and economic and intellectual prosperity.[10] With help from Abetz and the German embassy, many left-wing collaborationist publications proved to be quite successful; for example, the daily La France socialiste reached an average circulation of over 110,000.[11]"
And also:
"By the end of 1945 the joy of victory had long since faded.
Instead there was mounting hostility between proud, poor, resentful "Froggies" and swaggering, dollar-happy "Yanks".
Brawls were increasingly common, and concern about a complete breakdown in relations had gone up to government-level.
The handbook for GIs was devised in order to defuse the tension."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3087785.stm
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. No one was defending the Nazis or the Vichy French. Were you under the impression we were? Otherwise this comment doesn't make sense, but perhaps I'm missing something.
I didn't mean to imply that you were (defending Nazis or Vichy France). What I'm saying is that a.) more death does not equal more, or more effective, fighting and b.) that the respondents to that poll were likely driven by factors (propaganda, reaction to American G.I.s in France, aggrievement with the U.S. government's slow reaction in 1939 and 1940) that extend beyond a deep and contextually informed understanding of warfare dynamics along the western vs eastern fronts in the European Theatre.
Polled Americans gave George W. Bush a 90% approval rating the week after 9/11, and a 34% approval rating when he left office. Which is more accurate as to the true nature of the Presidency, and which was driven by an emotional response at the time?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx
A.) It's a historical fact the most battle deaths were in the Eastern Front of the European theatre and sustained by the Soviets.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war
B.) If you're making that claim, the onus is on you to provide data to the contrary. "They likely were mad at the Americans" is not evidence, it's a thought.
It's also a historical fact, as I said elsewhere, that more Chinese military forces died fighting Imperial Japan in WWII than did Allied forces, and against 80% of the deployed Japanese military. Did that make their efforts more effective? Were they more to credit for Japanese surrender and Allied victory? Of course not, and no one has ever claimed as such, because it's simply not how we measure effective military outcomes.
And again, more death ≠ more, or more effective, "fighting."
What exactly is your point? There were more bullets fired at American soldiers than Soviets?
I did provide primary-source evidence, in my other reply, to you.
I hadn't really considered your argument before and I think it's a very interesting thing to think about if you're trying to learn more about successful military actions etc. I really can't decide if in this case it's what I meant. I don't think that the Soviet troops were better soldiers, just that many more of them were lost. If in the losing of them they hadn't taken many German troops with them I suppose you'd be correct. That's the kind of thing that makes war so offensive to me. I have very conflicted feeling on imagining the winners of all modern conflicts winning from the technological and training point of view but suffering very few losses or even being in the proximity of fighting themselves. It feels obscene. Not that people tearing each other apart with their bare hands is to be admired. But it is more fair.
When I taught American History to Middle School children it was truly hard for many of them to wrap their minds around the way natives were treated. Their misconceptions were horrendous as well (they're all rich because the have casinos).
America has a lot of work to do.
Oh wow. That is depressing to hear. I'm sure it's not conducive to childhood development to detail the gory nature of imperialism in kindergarten, but I'm sure we can do better than our present.
An excellent article. As a fellow Yankee I grew up with the same propaganda. I'm many years older than you but your words brought back memories... & we made those hats too. America has been slinging KoolAid to children for decades. My Mom believed all the Captain America stuff ad nauseum. She called me a Commie for reading socialist newspapers (Bernie Sanders type stuff & social justice issues) We've got a lot of hard work ahead trying to unwind the ingrained messaging. Anyway, I wish you and yours a wonderful holiday...
It is humorous how slight deviation from the "acceptable" reading is considered heresy against the American state. Bernie Sanders is in the Senate, and still, you'll be chastised for even considering his point of view. Anyways, enjoy your holiday as well!
"Make America Great Again" is such a stupid slogan. America was never great, and I tend to feel it never will be.
Thank you for bringing this up, Joe. I did a paper on the Dakota 38 and the hanging that took place in Mankato, Minnesota for a college US History course. The class and the professor were unaware of this history until the day I did my presentation on this subject. Among those 38 "warriors" were young boys and elderly men. I will never forget when I first heard this story from Dakota people on the Prairie Island reservation in Minnesota. I encourage people to visit with as many Indigenous tribal nations as you can in this country and listen to their stories and experiences. Don't just read books by non-native people. There, that's my Ted Talk.
I detest nearly all American holidays, they are fake, insulting to intelligence, all about being on the bandwagon. "Everyone" celebrates Thanksgiving apparently except my non-American husband and me. If asked why they celebrate it, they can't say. But most people are so disgustingly nostalgic about holidays they not only go through the motions, they get drunk with stupid, meaningless joy over the details of each manufactured holiday. The colors, the clothes, the songs, the consumerism... I really can't stand it. Add to the mix that my family forgets I exist every Thanksgiving, due to their awkward white guilt/unacknowledged Islamophobia/my scary vegetarianism, yeah, I hate this holiday and Christmas and all the rest of them too. And I'm usually the only person in the room who feels this way.
Happy Thanksgiving Joe. It is and has always been up to the people to hold their government accountable. It's exhausting work but it's our job as citizens. All these accepted premises like "For your health and Safety," "In the Interest of National Security," "Too Big to Fail" need to be examined. I'm sure your audience can come up with a bunch of others...
Aww, Professor Zinn is so proud of you. Even though all of that is true, so many Americans have no ancestral connection to those settlers, so it becomes a story about how we all have struggled to find ourselves in this place. But every society has myths and stories about the conquest of their lands. Had the Nazis won, we'd still be in the first century of a 1000-year Reich, and the story of Native Americans would be lost to history.