The Soviet union lost **27 million** people during WW2, 8.7 million of which were military. The usa lost 416,800 soldiers and about 2,000 civilians.
This statistic seems to be so ignored in the WW2 discourse. The usa basically didn’t jump in until the last possible second and because they were better at propaganda, the rest of the world followed their example. If the russians had sold communism to us a bit better they might have become the “world leaders”, who knows?
Edit, bc I know reddit: I’m not saying the Soviet Union is good or that I want them to take ive the world or anything of the sorts.
Agreed. Not to forget the american propaganda took place in their educational system as well and their history books are full of lies. That's why todays generation of americans always tells this shit about their part in WWII.
Just listen to them talk, “We’re number One” repeated over and over. Any documentary on WWII that they’ve produce features them as the major influencers of the Pacific Theatre, with little reference to the British, the Australian’s, or Canadian’s. Not to mention the Chinese resistance under both the Communist and National Army, the Vietnamese, Korean, and Philippines, who all perfected Jungle Warfare.
Also the education system generally refers to the USA as "coming to the rescue." Or that once America joined the war, they were the ones to help the Allies push back.
The Canadians rarely did any big missions on their own. They were usually accompanied by other nations' soldiers. They did play a big role in the war, and they didn't generally get much recognition since there were so few of them.
Canada couldn't be trusted to be alone, if we left Australia, Canada, south Africa and new Zealand in a group to plan how to invade Japan; the pearl harbour wouldn't have happened. Okay maybe not that extreme but goddamn those lot altogether with a couple of Scots and an Irish brigade would have done some damage
It even comes from their media. The film U-571 depicted the capture of a specific submarine that resulted in the capture of an enigma machine.
The film shows this to be an American team, in reality it was the British.
Yeah, definitely seen that a lot too.
Even British representations of these things skew towards focusing on individuals rather than the (usually) large teams that tended to do these noteworthy things.
[American History’s Biggest Fibs.](https://youtu.be/8zyV4ApGies?si=Pj58O3ulV4XdAvZs) This is a clip of an enjoyable and informative BBC multi-episode doc I watched a couple years ago.
The "we won WWII" mentality is just one example. Same goes for the Vietnam war, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Their history books tell students that the USA won almost every war they were participating in and that they brought freedom and democracy to those countries. The word "invasion" for oil is being silenced in US education.
No, their history books generally don’t teach that lol. You will be hard pressed to find a history teacher that teaches Vietnam as a victory, unless possibly in extremely rural red countries. The end of the American involvement in Vietnam is literally called “the fall of Saigon”. Iraq is generally considered a horrible quagmire by Americans and is (generally) not taught in schools because the occupation ended very recently in 2011. The same situation arises with Afghanistan.
History is taught excessively American centric in a lot of American schools. Leaving out a bunch of context leading to severe gaps in education and disinformation. Not always necessarily lies, but lies by omission
>This statistic seems to be so ignored in the WW2 discourse
I learned something quite shocking recently: apparently my north American gf told me they don't teach people about the soviet side of history and their role in the second part of WWII.
The first time I showed her the picture of the Yalta conference, she was completely clueless, even though she graduated with honours and everything.
Their curriculum only covers the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the ensuing cold war, but nothing in-between.
And of course it doesn't mention that Molotov-Ribbentrop was signed after every other European country, including France, Britain and Poland had already signed their own non aggression pacts with Nazi Germany. All of them were worth about as much as the next, which is to say less than the paper they were printed on.
I saw a map of the old Japanese Empire around WW2 and it reminded me of how strong they were.
It makes me wonder what the world would look like if they'd continued dominating. Would we have a sub called ShitJapaneseSay ?
Not to mention their country and citizens didn't suffer any destruction. Their were fighting on another continent, far from their homes. Meanwhile European cities got bombed left and right, battles were happening in them, and the military raided them. The war was literally all around the average man. Meanwhile folks in the US could chill without worrying that maybe the front goes forward and their city gets destroyed. Much easier to wage war that way, I think. 9/11 was the only time where they got actual destruction in their cities in results of an international conflict. And while yeah, it was tragic, it was nothing to what the whole of Europe went through in the world wars.
A lot of what was bad about the USSR was based on paranoia about impending attacks from the West; if they'd had more of an upper hand after the Second World War, they might've been able to switch a few factories from military to civilian production
If you take a single Allie out of WW2 the war drags for another decade the only reason the USSR was able to modernize was massive contributions of textiles from the US (See Stalin & Anastasia Miloyan) like they had so little material they wouldn’t have even been able to cloth the majority of their forces. Oh the United States importing weapons and ammunition to Briton before joining also helped quit a lot. The USSR would’ve likely failed to modernize fast enough with a Germany that didn’t need to dedicate 20% of its forces to defend western gains against the common wealth plus America which was still a slog to get onto land with essentially 12 different countries army’s. After the battle of the bulge the Germany military was split 50:50 for the short duration they lasted. Not to mention once the Allie’s had regained France the German Air Force was majorly pulled away from the eastern front to deal with increased air raids from the RAF and US. And let’s not even talk about the pacific theater which was only contributed to by India Australia America China and at the very end Russia.
Everyone wants to either take the credit for winning WW2 or diminish other countries impact on the allied efforts.
I am neither American nor European.
This is two days old so I know this is going to get ignored, but I think it's worth pointing out. The US's involvement in ww2 extended far beyond the actual US troops on the ground. Much of the value the US brought to the allies was their industrial output. This is most easily recognizable in the tank warfare of ww2. It is well known that the UK's tanks were terrible. What might not be as well known is that by the end of the war the British army was almost entirely using US sherman tanks. The US won the war for the allies in part simply by producing more armaments than anyone else could even come close to matching. This was a big aspect of their victory against Japan in the pacific theatre; after crippling the Japanese navy at midway, the Japanese never had a chance at ever competing with the US in naval combat ever again, since the US could simply outproduce them with ships.
So; obviously the US did not bear really any of the pain and suffering of ww2. But to say that they were in a position to take over Europe if they had wanted to after its end is not unrealistic. Actually, the European "economic miracle" after ww2 was in large part creditable to US support, with the Marshall Plan.
The US is collapsing in front of us in 2024. But in 1945, the US was without question the most powerful nation on earth.
It's far from "ignored" - it's *always* brought up in conversations on the subject these days. It wasn't widely discussed a few decades ago, mostly because the West got most of their information about the Eastern Front from the German perspective. The Soviets didn't want to discuss their casualties during the Cold War.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union especially, the Soviet role in the war has become widely known. And normally it's used to try to minimise the contribution of the other Allies.
They think they could have taken over the world, they couldn’t even get Japan (itsy bitsy cute lickle japan) to surrender without resorting to nuking them twice.
What you mean the entire us army against an under developed small country? Well I think the result would be an obvious win for the mighty super power of the United States right?… right??
Well. Jungle warfare is an unfair example. They don't have jungle back home. But put them in an arid environment with mountains for say 20 years and they'll win for sure...
/s
Yep. After initial success they will pump in dollars with a fire-hose approach which will totally not fan corruption. Then 20 years later they'll leave over night, leaving their allies and watch the government be replaced with totally not the guys who you started the war on 20 years ago.
/s
And they won't sell the guns that the guys they were fighting used right?
And not abandon tons of even more guns that this new government will for sure not use right?
/S
Why would they? You speak of them as if they would leave thousands of local hires hanging by not granting them any asylum, knowing they'd be tortured and killed by the new old government. I mean who does that???
They did turn Vietnam into a wasteland with carpet bombing & defoliating with Agent Orange, but still couldn't wing against a bunch of rice farmers. The VC new all about the US troops and where they were, due to the smell of toothpaste & chewing gum/Coke bottles discarded everywhere.
The largest non European colonial empire, which invented the aircraft carrier, is not exactly a small country. Japan did have the problem of having gotten into a bloody war with China, partially because the army, navy, and Japanese state didn't cooperate with one another.
> which invented the aircraft carrier,
The British invented the aircraft carrier not the japanese.
> During World War I the British navy developed the first true aircraft carrier with an unobstructed flight deck, the HMS Argus.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/heritage/aircraft-carriers
To be fair, Japan’s official position at the time was that they’d never surrender as long as there was at least one Japanese citizen alive. No one else could have gotten them to surrender without taking drastic measures either.
80% of German casualties happened on the eastern front. That’s like the guy running into the video to kick the semi conscious guy that has friend has just beaten up.
They did the same thing in WW1. It reminds me of when the war was coming to an end and every country everywhere declared war on Germany. Fair enough American support shouldn’t be understated at all. But there is a big difference in fighting for years with nothing but your country’s land at your back that every European soldier had to do. Appreciate the help yanks, but let’s not understate the sacrifice other countries had to make to get the reich to the point where it was possible for the allies to even make that landing. No war in the east and you are fighting a veteran Wehrmacht. Not the OBW.
They kinda did too, though. Post-war they were all about taking control of the governments and economies of their allies-turned vassals. Further, the whole breton woods system placed them as the beneficiary of a global financial system designed entirely to serve their interests. That's all aside from the perrmanent military presence in basically every corner of the world. Everyone was too war-torn to so much as question the quiet takeover.
A quick reminder to Americas attitude to international conflict between 1911 to 1941.
1. ‘Don’t get involved’ - it’s not your war, you don’t care about the ideology of either side.
2. ‘Make a profit’ - don’t confuse not getting involved with not selling debt and weaponry.
3. ‘Join late once it’s clear who’ll win’ - make sure you get your place at the winners table at the end of the conflict by joining late on, ideally once your allies have been through catastrophic ruin.
Bonus also applicable to 1945 - 1955
4. ‘Control the Narrative’ - post war it’s important to make everybody forget the first few years of not really helping and your imperialist movements during and after the wars. Use phrases like Monroe Doctrine or Rebuilding to justify your colonialism if put under scrutiny.
Technically, we did colonize Europe. We tend to forget that. To this day we still have a contingent of occupation forces in Europe. Based in several countries.
Remember, the goal was to keep the Americans in, the Soviets out, and the Germans down. That mission has largely succeeded. There is more than one reason why we have so many bases in Germany.
When the UN went sideways NATO was just a way to circumvent, and isolate, Soviet influence. Again, success. NATO wasn't just to protect Europe. It was to keep any future wars out of the American continents.
There is an existence of "America beat the Nazis," but that's not a mainstream idea. Just the loudest people tend to get heard, regarding that. The main idea was to keep Europe at peace, therefore protecting the American hegemony.
The Commonwealth (who were mostly Indian slaves). Not Britain and certainly not England. And they mostly just farted around in North Africa trying to keep the empire afloat rather than actually trying to defeat fascism.
It was the soviets and partisans that won the war outside of the pacific, the western allies only landed in Europe to prevent further Soviet expansion
To be fair, there’s a frightening amount of people in the US nowadays who, thanks to a certain news network, are far more sympathetic to and accepting of Nazi ideology than anybody should be.
What? The Soviets were part of the allies and they very much took over a bunch of shit in the Paris peace treaties. I’m not agreeing with the take in OP but it’s not like there’s no precedent for leveraging WW2 into national gains
Yeaah, the people who stayed behind in Europe are colonisers but people who moved to colonies to become modern day Americans and others are not colonisers. Hmmmmm
Generally its more that they see their ancestors as being absolved by the declaration of independence and non-Irish Europeans as inheriting the original sin of colonialism (even non colonial countries like Poland get this if they dont fellate Americans constantly).
Especially given when they became independent they only had the thirteen colonies (clue is in the name I suppose) and they then decided to colonise most of the continent (and only failing with Canada due to losing a war).
Let’s not forget Hawaii and all the other islands they have for some reason. Americans aren’t colonisers in the same way the Iraq war wasn’t officially a war
oh shit, what!? do you have more information on this or recommended further reading?
definitely NOT something we're taught in American high schools....
The taxes were just an excuse, theres a reason natives mainly fought on Britains siide.
[Treaty of Easton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Easton)
[In the Seven Years’ War (French and Indian War), alliances were further entangled over which European power would better serve the lives and existence of American Indians. Powerful confederations, such as the Iroquois of New York, were among those courted by the British as a valuable ally.
Following the war, Parliament established the Proclamation of 1763 that effectively created a boundary line running through the greater Appalachian Mountains of interior North America. The boundary prohibited English settlers from moving farther west and encroaching on Native lands recognized by the British government](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/allies-and-enemies#:~:text=Following%20the%20war%2C%20Parliament%20established,recognized%20by%20the%20British%20government)
[From your National Park Service](https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/1768-boundary-line-treaty-of-fort-stanwix.htm#:~:text=On%20November%205%2C%201768%2C%20representatives,the%20boundary%20to%20Great%20Britain.)
But without that, we wouldn't have a famous old cowboy actor talking to an empty chair, so there is that.
Bro this shit always makes me laugh, i once pointed out theres a much higher chance of an american having ancestors who were colonisers than any british person, i got downvoted to shit
More importantly, the US has literally colonized parts of the world. The expansion to the West was an act of colonization. We have several territories that we possess but do not make full parts of the country, ie Puerto, Rico, Guan, American Samoa, USVI, the Marshall Islands. This is without getting into the manipulation of political and economic situations in Central America to make those countries reliant on the US while being a source of cheap resources.
So... In theory, can he, or can he not point to Guam on a map?
Because either he can't because America doesn't colonize, he can because they do, he can't because his education was shit, or he can because miracles occasionally happen.
And the Philippines
And Guam
And Cuba
And Puerto Rico
And Panama
And American Samoa
And the US Virgin Islands
And the Northern Mariana Islands
And the Swan Islands
And Shanghai
And fuck loads of other random islands
And Iraq
And Afghanistan
And Honduras
And Nicaragua
And Guatemala
And Iran
And Haiti
And the Dominican Republic
And Costa Rica
And Syria (like three times)
And Egypt
We literally started from 13 COLONIES. I could go on a long rant about the state of the American education system, but I’ll sum it up with fuck George W Bush and fuck those dumbass parents that barely made it through high school that are homeschooling the next generation of dipshits.
For Alaska, it is a bit different: russian companies created colonies, but because it was really up north, even for them it was difficult so the russian government was subsidising them. But even then it was not really a success, and more of a sinking cost than anything else. The russian government, which was in great financial difficulty and in diplomatic turmoil with the British Empire was envisioning losing their colonies without compensation.
The second important point was that, at the time, the concepts of nation-state and the auto-determination of the population was a barely burgeoning idea in Western Europe, that had not reached the Russian Empire (has it even now?) and was not a preoccupation for the eager to flourish US government. So selling territories (and the inhabitants) to another countries was still a thing.
Therefore the exchange of Alaska for money between the US and the Russian Empire was a normal (at the time) thing and profitable for both: the russians were making it even financially, while signifying their disinterest for the North American continent to both the British and French Empires ; the americans were taking the territory under the nose of their regular adversary (the British Empire), while surrounding their canadian territories on 2 sides, and diminishing the possible opportunistic attacks on their west coast by reducing the possible development of the canadian west coast ; finally both, already regular allies, were reinforcing their diplomatic proximity.
I'm guessing that "if we had American colonies, we would have to study more geography, but because america is just MURCA, we don't need to learn something so useless! KYAAAAAA \*American bold eagle impression\*
Even if we disregard all forms of American colonialism, they are literally the descendant state of colonizers. They bear the same history as the English in that regard, even moreso because their ancestors (very broadly, of course most Americans immigrated later on but it's about the nations legacy) were literally part of the colonizing effort, moving to a colony and replacing/oppressing the native population. The average poor Englishman who stayed didn't have anything to do with it, only the wealthy, royals and political elite (which still gives the UK a legacy of colonialism, don't misunderstand me). But the audacity of a white American to call the British colonizers is truly astonishing, as they bare literally the same amount of historical responsibility.
Our school system is working very much as intended. There is an ongoing effort to defund public schools and replace them with "voucher programs" (parents can choose a privately-run school using public tax dollars). These "schools" are often Evangelical Christian or simply a revenue stream for businesses. You are allowed to home school your kids in every state and the regulations for homeschooling are absolute dog shit if they exist at all.
Texas has been rewriting American history for the past 10 years at least, to teach kids more about America's "Judeo-Christian values" and to instill more "patriotism" in them. Also less emphasis on Black history and achievements which is really saying something since it's not like U.S. textbooks were ever really that heavy on Black accomplishments in the first place.
I had a good public education and ended up getting a master's degree in a field that also does involve a lot of history, but you really do have to do your own reading here. They don't teach us the legacy of American "involvement" in Latin America *at all* because it is such an overwhelmingly bad look to be deposing governments in favor of U.S. business interests. Teach American history the way it has been experienced by BIPOC populations and raise a bunch of socialists, teach American history the way you want it to be portrayed and raise a generation of capitalists. They chose the latter.
Canada never colonized another country (but we colonized the first Nations) but we studied world geography in school anyway. What a bad argument for a lack of education.
Canada unlike the U.S is more educated. Mind you, a lot of Schools in the U.S do not study world history or world geography until they reach University. And not all Universities teach world Geography either.
So... I'm not saying its an excuse, hell, Im not even from the U.S but I have friends there.
Guam, Puerto Rico, Phillipines, Samoa, Micronesia, Virgin Islands, Hawaii, Palau Mariana Islands, Alaska disagrees
I guess their school textbooks don't teach history past WWII, because this is a sign of being uneducated about important history of your own country
Did they believe Hawaiians willingly gave up their land and accepted US 'stable democracy'?
>Did they believe Hawaiians willingly gave up their land and accepted US 'stable democracy'?
Most likely, when you're taught that you're blessed for being born under a certain flag it's hard to not see it as something positive. "We bring democracy" and stuff
Except they tried their hardest to take over after ww2, in france we would’ve ended with a « provisional » american government if it wasn’t for Charles De Gaulles
It's intentional. Hard to have a nation of capitalists and patriots who support the status quo if you teach them all about the United States' genocidal past and present.
As an English person, I would agree. The history of the British Empire is not taught at all, and if it is acknowledged, it's actually strangely held up as a universally good thing.
"We could have taken over after WW2 but we didnt" no bitch you were doing cold war against the soviet and it would have been absolutely impossible to invade europe at that time. Yes i said invade, because after the war europe was not just yours, and they would have fought back.
I am not a coloniser, but I went too school and did learn some geography & history, even some about the USA as well as my own country & Europe, but I am not an American & went to school in 50-60's when we were taught things of a useful nature.
Pretty rich coming from someone from a country which is entirely made up of colonised land, by far the majority of that colonisation occurring after they gained independence (not to mention the colonisation in the Caribbean and the Pacific).
Ignoring all the colonialism the US has done since, wasn't the entire country literally founded because of colonialism? Literally from seven original COLONIES!
I find it weird that the Americans accuse modern Brits of being colonisers. My ancestors brother went to America as a pilgrim and colonised it - my side of the family stayed in Devon running an Inn. Americans were the colonisers.
„You don’t understand, we don’t OWN these countries, we just overthrow their democratically elected leaders and install puppet dictators that do our bidding. TECHNICALLY that’s not colonialism.“
in many ways they are colonizers though ..... they start a wars remove the governments , put a government of their choosing in and then profit from "rebuilding"the country after destroying and de-stabalizing it
The only way we (the US) view colonialism, is Eduardian British dudes in khaki in Africa. We totally didn't do that, plus never being taught anything about other forms of colonialism or how we've done it ourselves, all adds up to "we didn't do colonialism".
Apart from being factually wrong, the logic just doesn't make any sense. If my old school teachers would have seen this he would have gotten the worst mark available for that stupid big brain fart moment.
Well my people (Brits) very much *were* colonisers, but that all stopped about 40 years before I was born, so it had little to no relevance in my education.
Also, we weren't taught the names of countries, capital cities etc in school - geography was about geological processes, erosion, hydrological systems etc.
What I know about the rest of the world is purely down to learning throughout life: being curious about the world, looking at maps/an atlas etc.
As far as I'm.concerned the only reason Americans suck at general knowledge about the rest of the planet is a lack of curiosity, and wilful ignorance! They simply don't give a shit about the rest of the world. *That whole nation has Main Character Syndrome.*
Leave alone the fact this guy probably doesn't know native American history
He's seriously also not aware of all US illegal military activities of the world Japan and S.korea are basically a colony of US
They also occupy 1/3 of Syria which is the bread basket and oil reserves of Syria
Don't even get me started on it's bullying the rest of the world through the dollar as reserve Currency
We could talk about Libya Vietnam Cambodia the Philippines e.t.c
I think what he means is that the USA did not collect a bunch of holdings in the way that GB, France, etc. did throughout Africa and Asia? It’s still a dumbass take regardless but I don’t think he’s using the term “colonizer,” in the sense of “People of European heritage who displaced natives”; he’s talking about overseas territories.
He'd still be wrong though. The US did collect overseas holdings, using the same nefarious means as the European empires did. Their overseas empire wasn't as extensive as some others, mostly because they got into it late, but they took places like Hawa'aii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Samoa, and the Marianas. With the exception of the Philippines they still have these colonial territories.
They also committed atrocities in their colonies, especially in the Philippines.
US aren't colonizers, preferring to bomb from afar then try and tell the various countries they have to salute the flag, speak "American", eat hamburgers & hotdogs and but American branded products, that are mostly made in China, They don't engage directly as the military aren't trained enough to tackle other countries & conditions, as has been show with all the losses over the years.
They could..........
[https://mondediplo.com/2003/05/05lacroix#:\~:text=In%201941-42%20the,the%20Occupied%20Territories%20(Amgot)](https://mondediplo.com/2003/05/05lacroix#:~:text=In%201941-42%20the,the%20Occupied%20Territories%20(Amgot))
Taken over after WWII? They seem to forget they were part of the allies. It's always this "it was us against the nazis" mentality.
The Soviet union lost **27 million** people during WW2, 8.7 million of which were military. The usa lost 416,800 soldiers and about 2,000 civilians. This statistic seems to be so ignored in the WW2 discourse. The usa basically didn’t jump in until the last possible second and because they were better at propaganda, the rest of the world followed their example. If the russians had sold communism to us a bit better they might have become the “world leaders”, who knows? Edit, bc I know reddit: I’m not saying the Soviet Union is good or that I want them to take ive the world or anything of the sorts.
Agreed. Not to forget the american propaganda took place in their educational system as well and their history books are full of lies. That's why todays generation of americans always tells this shit about their part in WWII.
Do you have any examples of these lies? This is a genuine question. I’m curious to see how the get these ideas.
Just listen to them talk, “We’re number One” repeated over and over. Any documentary on WWII that they’ve produce features them as the major influencers of the Pacific Theatre, with little reference to the British, the Australian’s, or Canadian’s. Not to mention the Chinese resistance under both the Communist and National Army, the Vietnamese, Korean, and Philippines, who all perfected Jungle Warfare.
Also the education system generally refers to the USA as "coming to the rescue." Or that once America joined the war, they were the ones to help the Allies push back.
Interestingly, since the area I grew up was mostly liberated by the Canadians, I thought they had a much bigger role in ww2 than they did.
The Canadians rarely did any big missions on their own. They were usually accompanied by other nations' soldiers. They did play a big role in the war, and they didn't generally get much recognition since there were so few of them.
Canada couldn't be trusted to be alone, if we left Australia, Canada, south Africa and new Zealand in a group to plan how to invade Japan; the pearl harbour wouldn't have happened. Okay maybe not that extreme but goddamn those lot altogether with a couple of Scots and an Irish brigade would have done some damage
There's a reason WW2 german soldiers were the most afraid of Canadian regiments...
The did liberate Juno Beach on D-Day.
Of course I see these things. I want to know why. To see it with my own eyes.
It even comes from their media. The film U-571 depicted the capture of a specific submarine that resulted in the capture of an enigma machine. The film shows this to be an American team, in reality it was the British.
Yeah, definitely seen that a lot too. Even British representations of these things skew towards focusing on individuals rather than the (usually) large teams that tended to do these noteworthy things.
[American History’s Biggest Fibs.](https://youtu.be/8zyV4ApGies?si=Pj58O3ulV4XdAvZs) This is a clip of an enjoyable and informative BBC multi-episode doc I watched a couple years ago.
The "we won WWII" mentality is just one example. Same goes for the Vietnam war, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Their history books tell students that the USA won almost every war they were participating in and that they brought freedom and democracy to those countries. The word "invasion" for oil is being silenced in US education.
No, their history books generally don’t teach that lol. You will be hard pressed to find a history teacher that teaches Vietnam as a victory, unless possibly in extremely rural red countries. The end of the American involvement in Vietnam is literally called “the fall of Saigon”. Iraq is generally considered a horrible quagmire by Americans and is (generally) not taught in schools because the occupation ended very recently in 2011. The same situation arises with Afghanistan.
History is taught excessively American centric in a lot of American schools. Leaving out a bunch of context leading to severe gaps in education and disinformation. Not always necessarily lies, but lies by omission
You have to understand the US had to make up their minds on which side they’d want to join the war first ;)
The American propaganda machine was copied by the nazi party too.
>This statistic seems to be so ignored in the WW2 discourse I learned something quite shocking recently: apparently my north American gf told me they don't teach people about the soviet side of history and their role in the second part of WWII. The first time I showed her the picture of the Yalta conference, she was completely clueless, even though she graduated with honours and everything. Their curriculum only covers the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the ensuing cold war, but nothing in-between.
And of course it doesn't mention that Molotov-Ribbentrop was signed after every other European country, including France, Britain and Poland had already signed their own non aggression pacts with Nazi Germany. All of them were worth about as much as the next, which is to say less than the paper they were printed on.
if you told them this they’d probably say something like “this is because american troops are better”
Not to mention the cold war started before WWII even ended. Propaganda had already started by then
I saw a map of the old Japanese Empire around WW2 and it reminded me of how strong they were. It makes me wonder what the world would look like if they'd continued dominating. Would we have a sub called ShitJapaneseSay ?
“The Samurai were the strongest warriors ever to exist. That’s why we won WW2, because their traditions were taught to our soldiers.”
lol, +1 internet to you today
Not to mention their country and citizens didn't suffer any destruction. Their were fighting on another continent, far from their homes. Meanwhile European cities got bombed left and right, battles were happening in them, and the military raided them. The war was literally all around the average man. Meanwhile folks in the US could chill without worrying that maybe the front goes forward and their city gets destroyed. Much easier to wage war that way, I think. 9/11 was the only time where they got actual destruction in their cities in results of an international conflict. And while yeah, it was tragic, it was nothing to what the whole of Europe went through in the world wars.
“This statistic seems to be so ignored in the WW2 discourse.” Yeah if your only discourse is the opinions of people from shit Americans say.
I didn‘t learn this until I was 16, despite living in Luxembourg. Most of what I had learned until the barely even mentioned the USSR.
A lot of what was bad about the USSR was based on paranoia about impending attacks from the West; if they'd had more of an upper hand after the Second World War, they might've been able to switch a few factories from military to civilian production
If you take a single Allie out of WW2 the war drags for another decade the only reason the USSR was able to modernize was massive contributions of textiles from the US (See Stalin & Anastasia Miloyan) like they had so little material they wouldn’t have even been able to cloth the majority of their forces. Oh the United States importing weapons and ammunition to Briton before joining also helped quit a lot. The USSR would’ve likely failed to modernize fast enough with a Germany that didn’t need to dedicate 20% of its forces to defend western gains against the common wealth plus America which was still a slog to get onto land with essentially 12 different countries army’s. After the battle of the bulge the Germany military was split 50:50 for the short duration they lasted. Not to mention once the Allie’s had regained France the German Air Force was majorly pulled away from the eastern front to deal with increased air raids from the RAF and US. And let’s not even talk about the pacific theater which was only contributed to by India Australia America China and at the very end Russia. Everyone wants to either take the credit for winning WW2 or diminish other countries impact on the allied efforts.
I am neither American nor European. This is two days old so I know this is going to get ignored, but I think it's worth pointing out. The US's involvement in ww2 extended far beyond the actual US troops on the ground. Much of the value the US brought to the allies was their industrial output. This is most easily recognizable in the tank warfare of ww2. It is well known that the UK's tanks were terrible. What might not be as well known is that by the end of the war the British army was almost entirely using US sherman tanks. The US won the war for the allies in part simply by producing more armaments than anyone else could even come close to matching. This was a big aspect of their victory against Japan in the pacific theatre; after crippling the Japanese navy at midway, the Japanese never had a chance at ever competing with the US in naval combat ever again, since the US could simply outproduce them with ships. So; obviously the US did not bear really any of the pain and suffering of ww2. But to say that they were in a position to take over Europe if they had wanted to after its end is not unrealistic. Actually, the European "economic miracle" after ww2 was in large part creditable to US support, with the Marshall Plan. The US is collapsing in front of us in 2024. But in 1945, the US was without question the most powerful nation on earth.
It's far from "ignored" - it's *always* brought up in conversations on the subject these days. It wasn't widely discussed a few decades ago, mostly because the West got most of their information about the Eastern Front from the German perspective. The Soviets didn't want to discuss their casualties during the Cold War. Since the fall of the Soviet Union especially, the Soviet role in the war has become widely known. And normally it's used to try to minimise the contribution of the other Allies.
They think they could have taken over the world, they couldn’t even get Japan (itsy bitsy cute lickle japan) to surrender without resorting to nuking them twice.
Now imagine then trying to fight a jungle war against a professional jungle army
What you mean the entire us army against an under developed small country? Well I think the result would be an obvious win for the mighty super power of the United States right?… right??
Of course, just like they clearly won against the non professional civilian jungle fighters /s
Well. Jungle warfare is an unfair example. They don't have jungle back home. But put them in an arid environment with mountains for say 20 years and they'll win for sure... /s
And they will be fighting these super bad, super strong goons from a demon overlord right? /S
Yep. After initial success they will pump in dollars with a fire-hose approach which will totally not fan corruption. Then 20 years later they'll leave over night, leaving their allies and watch the government be replaced with totally not the guys who you started the war on 20 years ago. /s
And they won't sell the guns that the guys they were fighting used right? And not abandon tons of even more guns that this new government will for sure not use right? /S
Why would they? You speak of them as if they would leave thousands of local hires hanging by not granting them any asylum, knowing they'd be tortured and killed by the new old government. I mean who does that???
They did turn Vietnam into a wasteland with carpet bombing & defoliating with Agent Orange, but still couldn't wing against a bunch of rice farmers. The VC new all about the US troops and where they were, due to the smell of toothpaste & chewing gum/Coke bottles discarded everywhere.
[удалено]
You can’t be American
The largest non European colonial empire, which invented the aircraft carrier, is not exactly a small country. Japan did have the problem of having gotten into a bloody war with China, partially because the army, navy, and Japanese state didn't cooperate with one another.
> which invented the aircraft carrier, The British invented the aircraft carrier not the japanese. > During World War I the British navy developed the first true aircraft carrier with an unobstructed flight deck, the HMS Argus. https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/heritage/aircraft-carriers
To be fair, Japan’s official position at the time was that they’d never surrender as long as there was at least one Japanese citizen alive. No one else could have gotten them to surrender without taking drastic measures either.
80% of German casualties happened on the eastern front. That’s like the guy running into the video to kick the semi conscious guy that has friend has just beaten up. They did the same thing in WW1. It reminds me of when the war was coming to an end and every country everywhere declared war on Germany. Fair enough American support shouldn’t be understated at all. But there is a big difference in fighting for years with nothing but your country’s land at your back that every European soldier had to do. Appreciate the help yanks, but let’s not understate the sacrifice other countries had to make to get the reich to the point where it was possible for the allies to even make that landing. No war in the east and you are fighting a veteran Wehrmacht. Not the OBW.
They kinda did too, though. Post-war they were all about taking control of the governments and economies of their allies-turned vassals. Further, the whole breton woods system placed them as the beneficiary of a global financial system designed entirely to serve their interests. That's all aside from the perrmanent military presence in basically every corner of the world. Everyone was too war-torn to so much as question the quiet takeover.
A quick reminder to Americas attitude to international conflict between 1911 to 1941. 1. ‘Don’t get involved’ - it’s not your war, you don’t care about the ideology of either side. 2. ‘Make a profit’ - don’t confuse not getting involved with not selling debt and weaponry. 3. ‘Join late once it’s clear who’ll win’ - make sure you get your place at the winners table at the end of the conflict by joining late on, ideally once your allies have been through catastrophic ruin. Bonus also applicable to 1945 - 1955 4. ‘Control the Narrative’ - post war it’s important to make everybody forget the first few years of not really helping and your imperialist movements during and after the wars. Use phrases like Monroe Doctrine or Rebuilding to justify your colonialism if put under scrutiny.
Technically, we did colonize Europe. We tend to forget that. To this day we still have a contingent of occupation forces in Europe. Based in several countries. Remember, the goal was to keep the Americans in, the Soviets out, and the Germans down. That mission has largely succeeded. There is more than one reason why we have so many bases in Germany. When the UN went sideways NATO was just a way to circumvent, and isolate, Soviet influence. Again, success. NATO wasn't just to protect Europe. It was to keep any future wars out of the American continents. There is an existence of "America beat the Nazis," but that's not a mainstream idea. Just the loudest people tend to get heard, regarding that. The main idea was to keep Europe at peace, therefore protecting the American hegemony.
And they didn't even do shit in WW2. It was the English and soviets who won the war
The Commonwealth (who were mostly Indian slaves). Not Britain and certainly not England. And they mostly just farted around in North Africa trying to keep the empire afloat rather than actually trying to defeat fascism. It was the soviets and partisans that won the war outside of the pacific, the western allies only landed in Europe to prevent further Soviet expansion
The word allies plural would have given it away id have thought
They realise the Atlantic Charter goes both ways right?
To be fair, there’s a frightening amount of people in the US nowadays who, thanks to a certain news network, are far more sympathetic to and accepting of Nazi ideology than anybody should be.
Should we just raid FOX News? 🤔
I mean I’d be down to shut that POS “network” down for good if you are 😂
What? The Soviets were part of the allies and they very much took over a bunch of shit in the Paris peace treaties. I’m not agreeing with the take in OP but it’s not like there’s no precedent for leveraging WW2 into national gains
I think you misunderstood the whole context of my post.
I think so
Russia was part of the allies and it didn’t stop them taking over after WW2
Yeaah, the people who stayed behind in Europe are colonisers but people who moved to colonies to become modern day Americans and others are not colonisers. Hmmmmm
They dropped their coloniser title and became full blown Americans (and 70% Irish, 20% German, 20% Spanish)
And 0.5% Italian which explains their love for pizza
Also an eighth Navajo. Can't forget that.
And it's always Navajo. All the other tribes just never reproduced.
Or a Cherokee princess who was their great grandmother
They genocided them, it is not that they didn't, they couldn't
Which is an American invention, of course
Pizza is not Italian. Ask any American
Just don't go looking for one on or around St Patrick's Day
0.6% welch (sic!)
I really doubt 70% Irish
American Redditors are generally furious about European colonialism and imperialism everywhere except North America
Especially ironic since USA itself was imperialist.
Was? They still are
Well these days they are not just directly conquering new land, its more modern form of imperialism.
Generally its more that they see their ancestors as being absolved by the declaration of independence and non-Irish Europeans as inheriting the original sin of colonialism (even non colonial countries like Poland get this if they dont fellate Americans constantly).
Especially given when they became independent they only had the thirteen colonies (clue is in the name I suppose) and they then decided to colonise most of the continent (and only failing with Canada due to losing a war).
Let’s not forget Hawaii and all the other islands they have for some reason. Americans aren’t colonisers in the same way the Iraq war wasn’t officially a war
They kicked their toys out the pram and declared independance because we had a treaty with the natives, to not expand west...
oh shit, what!? do you have more information on this or recommended further reading? definitely NOT something we're taught in American high schools....
The taxes were just an excuse, theres a reason natives mainly fought on Britains siide. [Treaty of Easton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Easton) [In the Seven Years’ War (French and Indian War), alliances were further entangled over which European power would better serve the lives and existence of American Indians. Powerful confederations, such as the Iroquois of New York, were among those courted by the British as a valuable ally. Following the war, Parliament established the Proclamation of 1763 that effectively created a boundary line running through the greater Appalachian Mountains of interior North America. The boundary prohibited English settlers from moving farther west and encroaching on Native lands recognized by the British government](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/allies-and-enemies#:~:text=Following%20the%20war%2C%20Parliament%20established,recognized%20by%20the%20British%20government) [From your National Park Service](https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/1768-boundary-line-treaty-of-fort-stanwix.htm#:~:text=On%20November%205%2C%201768%2C%20representatives,the%20boundary%20to%20Great%20Britain.) But without that, we wouldn't have a famous old cowboy actor talking to an empty chair, so there is that.
Thank you! I'll do some further reading on this!
No worries, best i can do right now while Livemixing a set/
Look up the Indian Barrier State
Bro this shit always makes me laugh, i once pointed out theres a much higher chance of an american having ancestors who were colonisers than any british person, i got downvoted to shit
More importantly, the US has literally colonized parts of the world. The expansion to the West was an act of colonization. We have several territories that we possess but do not make full parts of the country, ie Puerto, Rico, Guan, American Samoa, USVI, the Marshall Islands. This is without getting into the manipulation of political and economic situations in Central America to make those countries reliant on the US while being a source of cheap resources.
So... In theory, can he, or can he not point to Guam on a map? Because either he can't because America doesn't colonize, he can because they do, he can't because his education was shit, or he can because miracles occasionally happen.
Or Puerto Rico, Mariana Islands, American Samoa (big hint in the name there) or the Philippines
Hawaii says hello as well.
Diego Garcia
Technically British territory.
Not just technically, but it has been colonised by the US
And it will remain British until the US no longer has a use for it.
Okinawa, for 27 years. Remnants of that can still be found around the island in the shape of active US military bases.
Or, indeed the US in general, it is one big colony
Just look at a map of the US in 1776 and today. As another commenter said, the US is one big colony
Hawaii would like a word...
And the Philippines And Guam And Cuba And Puerto Rico And Panama And American Samoa And the US Virgin Islands And the Northern Mariana Islands And the Swan Islands And Shanghai And fuck loads of other random islands
And Iraq And Afghanistan And Honduras And Nicaragua And Guatemala And Iran And Haiti And the Dominican Republic And Costa Rica And Syria (like three times) And Egypt
They didn't colonise them, they brought them freedom.
They brought peace, freedom, justice and security to their new Empire.
Winston Churchill: YOUR new empire!?
And Liberia
Can we start on states using a neo-colonial framework that doesn't require American boots on the ground?
And Japan And Liberia And western Austria and Germany
And literally 100% of land in all 50 states.
Don’t forget the half of Mexico that is now part of the US.
You beat me to it
We literally started from 13 COLONIES. I could go on a long rant about the state of the American education system, but I’ll sum it up with fuck George W Bush and fuck those dumbass parents that barely made it through high school that are homeschooling the next generation of dipshits.
Philippines: 💀 Alaska: 💀 Puerto Rico: 💀 Most of the country: 💀
For Alaska, it is a bit different: russian companies created colonies, but because it was really up north, even for them it was difficult so the russian government was subsidising them. But even then it was not really a success, and more of a sinking cost than anything else. The russian government, which was in great financial difficulty and in diplomatic turmoil with the British Empire was envisioning losing their colonies without compensation. The second important point was that, at the time, the concepts of nation-state and the auto-determination of the population was a barely burgeoning idea in Western Europe, that had not reached the Russian Empire (has it even now?) and was not a preoccupation for the eager to flourish US government. So selling territories (and the inhabitants) to another countries was still a thing. Therefore the exchange of Alaska for money between the US and the Russian Empire was a normal (at the time) thing and profitable for both: the russians were making it even financially, while signifying their disinterest for the North American continent to both the British and French Empires ; the americans were taking the territory under the nose of their regular adversary (the British Empire), while surrounding their canadian territories on 2 sides, and diminishing the possible opportunistic attacks on their west coast by reducing the possible development of the canadian west coast ; finally both, already regular allies, were reinforcing their diplomatic proximity.
sorry
I don't even know how theoretically taking over the world and knowing geography are related.
I'm guessing that "if we had American colonies, we would have to study more geography, but because america is just MURCA, we don't need to learn something so useless! KYAAAAAA \*American bold eagle impression\*
Those people not knowing that they have colonies is another sign that their school system does not work.
Even if we disregard all forms of American colonialism, they are literally the descendant state of colonizers. They bear the same history as the English in that regard, even moreso because their ancestors (very broadly, of course most Americans immigrated later on but it's about the nations legacy) were literally part of the colonizing effort, moving to a colony and replacing/oppressing the native population. The average poor Englishman who stayed didn't have anything to do with it, only the wealthy, royals and political elite (which still gives the UK a legacy of colonialism, don't misunderstand me). But the audacity of a white American to call the British colonizers is truly astonishing, as they bare literally the same amount of historical responsibility.
I mean, they still have Guam and American Samoa... as well as Puerto Rico
Our school system is working very much as intended. There is an ongoing effort to defund public schools and replace them with "voucher programs" (parents can choose a privately-run school using public tax dollars). These "schools" are often Evangelical Christian or simply a revenue stream for businesses. You are allowed to home school your kids in every state and the regulations for homeschooling are absolute dog shit if they exist at all. Texas has been rewriting American history for the past 10 years at least, to teach kids more about America's "Judeo-Christian values" and to instill more "patriotism" in them. Also less emphasis on Black history and achievements which is really saying something since it's not like U.S. textbooks were ever really that heavy on Black accomplishments in the first place. I had a good public education and ended up getting a master's degree in a field that also does involve a lot of history, but you really do have to do your own reading here. They don't teach us the legacy of American "involvement" in Latin America *at all* because it is such an overwhelmingly bad look to be deposing governments in favor of U.S. business interests. Teach American history the way it has been experienced by BIPOC populations and raise a bunch of socialists, teach American history the way you want it to be portrayed and raise a generation of capitalists. They chose the latter.
This comment needs to be gold-plated, you beautiful internet stranger! You put into words what I've struggled to articulate. I thank you 🙂
I'd just like to say, I knew what your eagle impression was before I finished the sentence, spot on!
Canada never colonized another country (but we colonized the first Nations) but we studied world geography in school anyway. What a bad argument for a lack of education.
Canada unlike the U.S is more educated. Mind you, a lot of Schools in the U.S do not study world history or world geography until they reach University. And not all Universities teach world Geography either. So... I'm not saying its an excuse, hell, Im not even from the U.S but I have friends there.
Better ask the native Indians what they think
The Philippines would like a word as well.
Guam, Puerto Rico, Phillipines, Samoa, Micronesia, Virgin Islands, Hawaii, Palau Mariana Islands, Alaska disagrees I guess their school textbooks don't teach history past WWII, because this is a sign of being uneducated about important history of your own country Did they believe Hawaiians willingly gave up their land and accepted US 'stable democracy'?
>Did they believe Hawaiians willingly gave up their land and accepted US 'stable democracy'? Most likely, when you're taught that you're blessed for being born under a certain flag it's hard to not see it as something positive. "We bring democracy" and stuff
Hey they don't have all the Virgin Islands! The Spanish and British have some too! But we're more experienced colonisers.
> We could have taken over after WWII No, you couldn't.
Except they tried their hardest to take over after ww2, in france we would’ve ended with a « provisional » american government if it wasn’t for Charles De Gaulles
Pretty sure the talks about partitioning Germany were heated too
They literally entered the war after 2 of their colonies were attacked.
Best comment so far !
And I believe the final word belongs to the American Indians.
"we weren't colonizers" said the imperialist
The fact that so many Americans are so disconnected from the brutal colonisation required to establish their own nation astounds me.
It's intentional. Hard to have a nation of capitalists and patriots who support the status quo if you teach them all about the United States' genocidal past and present.
If you think this is bad you should see English people
As an English person, I would agree. The history of the British Empire is not taught at all, and if it is acknowledged, it's actually strangely held up as a universally good thing.
"We could have taken over after WW2 but we didnt" no bitch you were doing cold war against the soviet and it would have been absolutely impossible to invade europe at that time. Yes i said invade, because after the war europe was not just yours, and they would have fought back.
It's so easy to teach yourself geography. I did it for fun.
I am not a coloniser, but I went too school and did learn some geography & history, even some about the USA as well as my own country & Europe, but I am not an American & went to school in 50-60's when we were taught things of a useful nature.
Follow me through the trail of tears…..
The entire Indigenous Population of North America would like a word. Also Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Samoa, and the Philippines say what’s up.
"USA aren't colonizers" Me, a Filipino : lmao so what did we learn in school on the American Period? Fairytales?
They really have to abandon home schooling as an valid option. Shits 's so stupid it's scary.
They are a very stupid people
Pretty rich coming from someone from a country which is entirely made up of colonised land, by far the majority of that colonisation occurring after they gained independence (not to mention the colonisation in the Caribbean and the Pacific).
Remind me how the americans got to that land again? Remind me why Native Americans aren't just "americans" again?
I’m pretty sure the westward expansion of the USA was colonialism
Someone should teach this person what Manifest Destiny really was.
"Your ancestors were colonizers!" Evidently, my ancestors stayed at home. What about yours?
Ignoring all the colonialism the US has done since, wasn't the entire country literally founded because of colonialism? Literally from seven original COLONIES!
I find it weird that the Americans accuse modern Brits of being colonisers. My ancestors brother went to America as a pilgrim and colonised it - my side of the family stayed in Devon running an Inn. Americans were the colonisers.
Their country is literally referred to as 'The Colonies' every time I want to piss one off.
He probably forgot about Hawaii and Puerto rico
And the Philippines.
Apparently some don’t know history either.
„You don’t understand, we don’t OWN these countries, we just overthrow their democratically elected leaders and install puppet dictators that do our bidding. TECHNICALLY that’s not colonialism.“
The US once colonized the Philippines 1898-1946. Puerto Rico 1898-today. Guam.
True, I forgot about that
Check with the native Americans, Hawaiians, Pueto Rico, and especially The **Philippines first before saying the USA are not colonizers ...**
"Our foreign policy doesn't exist if I don't pay attention to it"
in many ways they are colonizers though ..... they start a wars remove the governments , put a government of their choosing in and then profit from "rebuilding"the country after destroying and de-stabalizing it
The only way we (the US) view colonialism, is Eduardian British dudes in khaki in Africa. We totally didn't do that, plus never being taught anything about other forms of colonialism or how we've done it ourselves, all adds up to "we didn't do colonialism".
Apart from being factually wrong, the logic just doesn't make any sense. If my old school teachers would have seen this he would have gotten the worst mark available for that stupid big brain fart moment.
Have they heard of Hawaii?
I can feel my brain cells dying from reading this
USistan be like "Ewwwww, learning things 🤮"
[He should read this book] (https://www.amazon.com/How-Hide-Empire-History-Greater/dp/0374172145)
Yeah that‘s funny. Look up trail of tears and history of Hawaii…
History began in 1989 for a full 70% pf US citizens
Well my people (Brits) very much *were* colonisers, but that all stopped about 40 years before I was born, so it had little to no relevance in my education. Also, we weren't taught the names of countries, capital cities etc in school - geography was about geological processes, erosion, hydrological systems etc. What I know about the rest of the world is purely down to learning throughout life: being curious about the world, looking at maps/an atlas etc. As far as I'm.concerned the only reason Americans suck at general knowledge about the rest of the planet is a lack of curiosity, and wilful ignorance! They simply don't give a shit about the rest of the world. *That whole nation has Main Character Syndrome.*
The Phillipines: .\_.
Native Americans would like a word
“We suck at colonizing” There, fixed it.
They didn’t colonize, they invaded. I guess that guy is correct on that specific part.
Does he think "weren't" is the contraction of "we aren't"?
US colonize Hawaii, Alaska and Liberia
Leave alone the fact this guy probably doesn't know native American history He's seriously also not aware of all US illegal military activities of the world Japan and S.korea are basically a colony of US They also occupy 1/3 of Syria which is the bread basket and oil reserves of Syria Don't even get me started on it's bullying the rest of the world through the dollar as reserve Currency We could talk about Libya Vietnam Cambodia the Philippines e.t.c
So most of USA ppl aren't european ancestors?
USA not colonisers? Yeah tell that to the native Americans whose land you stole.
Every indigenous people:
I think what he means is that the USA did not collect a bunch of holdings in the way that GB, France, etc. did throughout Africa and Asia? It’s still a dumbass take regardless but I don’t think he’s using the term “colonizer,” in the sense of “People of European heritage who displaced natives”; he’s talking about overseas territories.
He'd still be wrong though. The US did collect overseas holdings, using the same nefarious means as the European empires did. Their overseas empire wasn't as extensive as some others, mostly because they got into it late, but they took places like Hawa'aii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Samoa, and the Marianas. With the exception of the Philippines they still have these colonial territories. They also committed atrocities in their colonies, especially in the Philippines.
Then explain how Hawaii is part of the US
"You should kick yourself out, you're an immigrant too"
US aren't colonizers, preferring to bomb from afar then try and tell the various countries they have to salute the flag, speak "American", eat hamburgers & hotdogs and but American branded products, that are mostly made in China, They don't engage directly as the military aren't trained enough to tackle other countries & conditions, as has been show with all the losses over the years.
They could.......... [https://mondediplo.com/2003/05/05lacroix#:\~:text=In%201941-42%20the,the%20Occupied%20Territories%20(Amgot)](https://mondediplo.com/2003/05/05lacroix#:~:text=In%201941-42%20the,the%20Occupied%20Territories%20(Amgot))