BF2S Forums History written by the victors.

Well in Holland we learn pretty much about WWII and the Cold War.

Horseman 77 wrote:

pfcilng wrote:

As I sit here studying for my Military History final, which is in a few hours, I begun to think about something.

What are history books likes around the world?  In particular, history that involves the U.S in some way.
I went to grade school in Ecuador, but the level of history I got to there did not involve anything after the 1800's.

How do history books in Europe cover WWI, WWII and all subsequent wars??


I know in the southern states, the Civil War is covered as the War of Northern Aggression

Interested in hearing from others point of view.

I know in the southern states, the Civil War is covered as the War of Northern Aggression

1st I heard of this, is this real? what do they teach the black kids in southern schools then?

When I was at a leadership camp, I got to meet cadets from around the country.  We had a group of them from a military college in Georgia, where during the Civil war portion, it was called the War of Northern Agression.  And it wasnt just that one military college, got some collaboration from other kids from southern states.  That is all I know of it.

I dont know much about the American Civil War but i do know much about WW2(didnt learn much about it in school), but there isnt much taught about the American Civil War apart frm mybe some of the history channels. but thats about it

EA and dice should make a game sort like bf2 only its like the civil war or the war of indipendence, i've seen and mod for a game bfore like that and it looked quite kl.

A.Drew(G.Drew wrote:

I dont know much about the American Civil War but i do know much about WW2(didnt learn much about it in school), but there isnt much taught about the American Civil War apart frm mybe some of the history channels. but thats about it

EA and dice should make a game sort like bf2 only its like the civil war or the war of indipendence, i've seen and mod for a game bfore like that and it looked quite kl.

The problem I see with having a Civil War or Independence Game is that you would have to stay in formation, and fire the volleys on command.  Wont be much maneuvering or taking cover, well, there would be some in the Civil War one, but definately not the Revolution.  The Knife would become the best weapon, fire a shot , then lunge with a bayonet or knife

pfcilng wrote:

Can anyone from Germany share how history books cover WWII?

"Ve did zome veddy bad tings for a while. Zen came ze 50s...."


Y'know how some countries can look at their current situation and say "wow, it's never been this bad before..."? Yeah, Germany can't do that. :p

pfcilng wrote:

Just repeating what the guys from Georgia told me, they went to a small Junior military college out in the boonies somewhere.

To those who still fly the confederate flag, face it, you lost.

That's a military college, not a public school.

Do you understand what the war was about?

"face it, you lost" I don't know whether to roll my eyes or feel sorry for ya.

ArMaG3dD0n wrote:

pfcilng wrote:

Can anyone from Germany share how history books cover WWII?

Half of the pages in my history book i got in school is about nacism, 2.WK and its aftermath. We re taught very detailed what happened and why it happened. It is always stressed that Germany due to its past has a big responsibility to not let something like that happen again anywhere in the world but also that Germans today shouldn t be blamed for anything because they weren t born by then.  Another interesting fact is that it s still not easy to talk about war crimes that may have been commited by other countries too (bombardment of civilians, women being raped by soldiers etc.) because ppl are kind of afraid of getting accused for being nationalistic.

if that s what u wanted to know.....

I'd always wondered that myself, good to know.

ArMaG3dD0n wrote:

pfcilng wrote:

Can anyone from Germany share how history books cover WWII?

Half of the pages in my history book i got in school is about nacism, 2.WK and its aftermath. We re taught very detailed what happened and why it happened. It is always stressed that Germany due to its past has a big responsibility to not let something like that happen again anywhere in the world but also that Germans today shouldn t be blamed for anything because they weren t born by then.  Another interesting fact is that it s still not easy to talk about war crimes that may have been commited by other countries too (bombardment of civilians, women being raped by soldiers etc.) because ppl are kind of afraid of getting accused for being nationalistic.

if that s what u wanted to know.....

Exactly what  I wanted to know.

When it comes to war crimes, I dont know many cases where the winners have had people arrested for war crimes.  It is not like the winners did not commit a single war crime during the conflict.


Anyone from Russia, what is Russia's point of view of the Cold War?

Last edited by pfcilng (2005-12-06 15:34:48)

pfcilng wrote:

I should of been upfront about the military college portion from the beggining of the post.

Yes, I understnad what it was about, goes beyong the slavery part you mentioned above, states rigths, powers of  federal government, keeping union together, expansion of slavery to new states.  I have studied the civil war from a military point of view, not social, so that is the extent of what I have covered.

I cant find sources that say Lincoln owned slaves, I know family members of his did, but he didnt.  Where are your sources on that one?  Ill ask around tonight at the history department and see if they have anything.

Go ahead and feel sorry for me,

His family owned them, he bought and sold them many times before he rose to prominence. His family still owned them until the laws told them otherwise. I'll do my best to find a few different sources for ya. But yeah, the point is that the war wasn't about slavery as so many believe.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

pfcilng wrote:

I should of been upfront about the military college portion from the beggining of the post.

Yes, I understnad what it was about, goes beyong the slavery part you mentioned above, states rigths, powers of  federal government, keeping union together, expansion of slavery to new states.  I have studied the civil war from a military point of view, not social, so that is the extent of what I have covered.

I cant find sources that say Lincoln owned slaves, I know family members of his did, but he didnt.  Where are your sources on that one?  Ill ask around tonight at the history department and see if they have anything.

Go ahead and feel sorry for me,

His family owned them, he bought and sold them many times before he rose to prominence. His family still owned them until the laws told them otherwise. I'll do my best to find a few different sources for ya. But yeah, the point is that the war wasn't about slavery as so many believe.

Yeah I cant find anything so far, couldnt get ahold of anybody at the history department.
Atleast we agree on the causes of the war.  Ever heard of or read, "Lies my teacher told me".
Pretty good book about whitwashing of history.

ill put in my two cents....

Im from Texas, born and raised.  Every time we covered American hostory, the civil war was describe and taught as simply the civil war, no teacher ever went about picking sides.  in my own personal opinion, there are a lot of aspects to why it happened and who is to blame for what.  I believe that most people do not ackowledge or realize that the war had very little to do with slavery until after the fact (I base that on the fact that the war started 2 years before the release of the Emancipation Proclamtion).  I believe that the political change it brought about was both good and bad, slavery was ended so that's pretty much the tops, but (ever noticed that the phrase, "The United States is at war in Iraq" is grammatically wrong? before the civil war everyone said, "The United States are at war with...") since then there is no such thing as These United States, its just The United States and the rise of federal government far beyond what our founding fathers ever wanted.  I could go on but won't, im sure i've said enough to pull a few responses.

As for the topic overall, yes te victor always has history written in their favor, notice how most AMerican history books cover how the English hired heshins (sp?) during the Revolutionary War and how they raped and murdered and butchered, of course, we did the same thing but you dont hear much about it.  War is war, and in the midst of it terrible things are done, but whoever wins doesn't have to talk about them.

dshak wrote:

I actually encountered a high school level history book from japan, with literally two decades simply MISSING, as if they never happened. want to guess which two those were?

Horesman, are you serious man? I mean are you being serious our sarcastic... because that "thats why they started the NRA comment," wow, side stiches on that one. I know from our previous debates that you think that the right to have weapons is what keeps the US from becoming Nazi germany (not the literally hundreds of checks and balances that exist in our governmental structure) but come on man...

In my comparative politics class the professor mentioned that about the Japanese culture, and the missing decades.  I might make it my lifetime goal of collecting history books from around the world to just get a taste of the bigger picture.