Why do Americans Obsess over World War II in Europe?

[liberalpragmatist]

If you're looking for discussion of contemporary politics, this isn't your thread.

Instead, I want to ask a historical question. And although the term "obsess" is a little strong -- I don't know of too many people who walk around "obsessing" about the Second World War -- the basic question posed in my subject line doesn't really change.

Essentially, what I am asking is this: popular American history focuses immensely on American (and British) involvement in the European theater of World War II. Popular culture (movies, books, TV shows, humor) focus on it.

By contrast, the war in the Pacific is somewhat underemphasized. Yes, there is a place for the Pacific War in the American memory, but aside from Pearl Harbor and the dropping of the A-bombs (plus maybe the flag-raising Iwo Jima photograph), that phase of the Second World War remains outside the American imagination.

Objectively-speaking, the focus ought to be the other way around. Although U.S. and allied troops fought heroically in Western Europe, most historians would point out that the ones who won the European war were actually the Russians. They were the ones who sacrificed 30 million lives, destroyed Hitler's army, and marched into Berlin. Without American and British involvement, the Soviets would probably have conquered ALL of Europe. The main effect of US troops ended up largely being to keep half of Europe from falling to the Soviets.

And while U.S. involvement in Europe could ultimately be characterized as "assisting" a Soviet-lead war, it was really the war in the Pacific that was clearly America's victory. Commonwealth troops played an important role, but Americans were the ones who won the war against the Japanese (and that was a much nearer-run thing than the battle against Nazi Germany).

So why the obsession with the Nazis and the European theater? Why do history students in high school spend days (or hours) learning about why Nazi Germany emerged and learning that WW2 "began" with Hitler's invasion of Poland while passing over Japanese expansionism throughout the 1930s and learning that the World War began in 1936?

Is it just because we share an ethnic/national heritage with Europe?

[porphyrian]

1. It's the History Channel's fault. - n/t

[Hardrada]

5. All Hitler All the Time!

It's the neat uniforms.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Well, it's the last war they were successful in.

Without resorting to nukes.

Of the European theater, Americans seem particularly, oddly obsessed with the landing at Normandy. Maybe because of the nature of the battle made it cinematic.

[SanCristobal]

41. I think there are 48,846,823 South Koreans who disagree with your "last successful war" comment.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. The last Justifiable war ,with the a goal, besides Profitability.

[4nic8em]

4. I would

think that it's time for the republic party to start becoming obsessed with events that have been happening in this century.

[Bobbieo]

8. For many years I have stated if it had not been for the Russians

in WW2, we would be speaking German, right now! I was not very poplar with some folks during the Cold War era, though.

I think the most fascinating aspect of the Pacific Theatre was the role of the Navajo Code Talkers. The Navajo role was kept so hush hush that most people forgot about it. I tried to find out more about them from a Marine vet friend but he had no idea of what I was talking aobut as he had been stationed in the Aleutian Islands.

[orpupilofnature57]

46. Kept Europe out of our Civil war too.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm

[monmouth]

9. Another thought on this. I was a year and a half old when Pearl

Harbor was bombed. My uncle was single and signed up the next day to join the Army. My dad was responsible for my mother, me and grandmother, plus had had TB while in law school so was exempt. It became the fabric of American life. I didn't fully realize the impact of the war until around '44, '45. People rushed home from work and kids were home, not just for dinner, but to listen to the news from Edward R. It was during this period the country was made aware of the holacust (sp?). It was never discussed while I was around, it was such a horrible and and unfathomable event to a mainly rural, innocent people. Word from my uncle would spread throughout the family that he was well or missing (about a week before he could re-join his group after the Battle of the Bulge. The movies, music, all entertainment was geared towards support of the troops (talk about PR!!). I remember rations like it was yesterday. Meatless Wednesdays, victory gardens, etc. When you saw the boy coming down the street on his bike from the telegraph company, everyone blessed themselves and stood in their window to see which house was receiving the dreaded news. This is why people of my and my parents generation (I'm 66, same age as Speaker Pelosi)hate war so much. I remember our project in kindergarten was to get a shoe box every two weeks and try to load it with toothpaste, razors, gum, any little thing that might please a soldier or sailor. War??? Who needs it....

[treestar]

43. See I would think someone your age who remembers that would think

that the concept that "we are at war" now is laughable.

None of us do things like you describe.

[orpupilofnature57]

47. This war didn't start like that one ,with justification ,Hence no Rosie the Riveter

Halliburton has replaced her at a 500% profit.

[fishnfla]

6. I think it was an ugly fucking mess

thats why

[illinoisprogressive]

7. It began with Browka's book about 10 years ago

and it was for that generation and not to forget them. The baby boomers stole it because of guilt with vietnam. Then came shrub's folly and they tried to capitolize on the fad and link Iraq with WWII.
It was not a romantic war. My mother was a girl in france when the Nazi's came and it was not fun when they along with tons of people took to the roads going to the south of france. There were planes that flew by shooting at them. Other stories as well, but, it was not a good war. And not everyone was a hero.

[Capn Amerika]

36. Brokaw is a CFR shill.

That is the problem, we have bubble headed bleach blonds sitting in on policy sessions.

[Cleita]

10. I guess you had to be there.

I really don't understand why the Japanese attacked us. History really doesn't make it clear. At that time we really weren't interested in either continent or wars until it became clear that the Japanese were cruising our coasts and if Europe was taken over by the Nazis, they too could cruise our coasts. The British were screaming for us to help as well.

[Capn Amerika]

39. The U.S. was poised to take over Eastern Asia.

With it's bases in the Philipines. That is why Japan attacked. That is when the politics of imperialism required actual real estate. The new politics of imperialism is opaque with a three fold mission. Infiltration, obfuscation and finally elimination. It is how capitalist deal with their competition. We no longer have to have our flag planted firmly in real estate to control a nation's wealth. We do it by controlling key nodes, namely communications and transportation. The new imperialism operates in stealth mode, but if a country does something we don't like we can always park a carrier off their coast within 24 hours.

[toddaa]

11. Germans had snappier uniforms than the Japanese

When I was a kid, one of the first things I learned how to draw as Tiger Tank. The war in Europe featured all sorts of sexy mechanical contraptions like the Tiger Tanks. It also featured the SS and those uber sexy black uniforms with a red and white trim. Talk about a fashion statement. Thirty years later, you had industrial outfits like Throbbing Gristle and Laibach ripping off those snappy duds. Compared to that, the coolest thing about the Japanese, at least from a marketing standpoint, was the Zero.

While I'm probably being too flippant, I don't think you can discount fascist chic in comparing the two theaters. As die hard wargamer, though, nothing beats a good old fashioned East Front slug fest.

[Bobbieo]

16. Like Al Quaida, the Japanese were going to take over the world.

They did a pretty darn good job of it during the war in the Far East. The Shinto religion adhered to the premise that if you died in the service of the emperor you were guaranteed a place in heaven - thus the formation of the Kamakazi pilots.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. No, the Japanese war aims weren't to take over the world...

From 'Japan's Decision For War', there's a thing called the Draft Proposal for Hastening the End of the War Against the United States, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Chiang, which was approved at the 69th Liaison Conference in November 1941.

Their interest was in Asia and that area that they saw as their sphere of influence was what they wanted to take over. They weren't interested in invading the US, India, or Australia, but in cutting the connection between India and Australia with Britain (at that time much of the raw resources needed for the war was coming from these countries), and destoying the will of the US to fight. They wanted Germany and Italy to invade Britain, and they wanted to arrange peace between Germany and the USSR...

[WinkyDink]

12. Your answer is in your final question: Yes. Our heritage is from the European Enlightenment.

We study Western Civ.
We learn European languages in school.
But I don't think movies have ignored the Pacific Theater: Guadalcanal; Iwo Jima; PT-109; Back to Bataan; etc.

[rug]

13. Land war is sexier than sea war.

[LostInAnomie]

14. The European theater is interesting to me because...

... it was a clash of three world views (Capitalist, Communist, and Fascist) that depending on which world view came out on top could have determined the direction of the globe for he next century or beyond.

A lot of people like it because it was essentially a well defined war. They essentially know when it started. They essentially know who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. They essentially know when it ended. Our wars since the aren't so clearly defined.

[Cleita]

18. Probably because we had no business in those subsequent war.

Just saying.

[LostInAnomie]

19. Word!

eom

[Solon]

49. Just a nitpick but seriously...

But shouldn't your list of the 3 world views be Democratic, Communist, and Fascist, cause, as far as I know, the Fascists WERE capitalists.

[patrice]

15. Why do so many from that time demand that the Young, those of

the Future, proove to them, i.e. to the Great Generation, that their, i.e. the GG's, sacrifices weren't a mistake, proven by making the same choices and copying the behavior and attitudes of the GG. Many from the GG don't seem able to let their decisions and actions stand for themselves. They assume that to do so brings the value of what they did into question, when, in fact, it clarifies it.

They told us to stand up and live by your individual conscience and then they require that others be and act like me/mine/us, and to do otherwise destroys the value of the things that the GG did.

All Future generations, in all times, belong uniquely to themselves, not to their parents or others.

[lithiumbomb]

17. i think our society simply has a better link with europe

We travel there, we work there, our relatives live there, some lived through WWII there. Now many of my younger friends have traveled to Asia for work or pleasure. But the older generation - Europe. Personally, my father is English and was born at the start of WWII in London and stayed in the city throughout. His mother was Belgian, and her family lived in the Netherlands during the war. I think it's simply that our society is deeply linked with Europe. As our population changes over the next century, that link might become less important.

Hopefuly historians and people in the future will take a greater interest in the Pacific theater. Honestly, I didn't get much education in school about it that I retained, and it doesn't hold much interest to me now. It probably should of course, but the emotional link isn't there.

[rockymountaindem]

20. Your last line captures a big part of it, IMHO

I think the European theatre of the war is more relevant to most Americans, and therefore they have the most interest in it. In a country which in which most inhabitants are of European origin (even more so during the war itself), people will be more interested in hearing about Nazi Germany's war on their British, French, Norwegian, Russian, Polish etc. ancestors than on Japan's war against China. It's mostly about people paying attention to themselves.

Other reasons spring to my mind too, though. For one, during the vast majority of our resources were sent to the European theatre (under the "defeat Hitler first" policy established at the Newfoundland conference). So, even during the war the government and the population saw Europe as the big show. Secondly, the European theatre provides a very clear-cut dichotomy today. The Nazis (and their political, racial and sociological ideologies) have rightly become a byword for the most depraved kind of evil. When reflecting on the war, even today, it is easy to see the Nazis as the most dispicable scum who we had every right to wipe off the face of the earth. With Japan, this is a different story. The politics and ideology of the WWII Japanese government have not been detached from the notion of modern Japan the way that Nazism has been seperated in our minds from modern Germany. So, in the movies and documentaries and games of today, it's easy to see our ancestors killing "Nazis" and not "Germans". But when we turn our cameras and guns on the Japanese, it is not common to draw a distinction between the Japan of today and the Japan of 1942. Thus, I feel, a lot of people feel that it is somehow wrong to root for "the good guys" to blow up a bunch of people we see as our modern-day Japanese friends and allies. With the Nazis, it's a lot easier for us to all say "Kill the Nazi!" than it is to say "Kill the German!". With Japan, one cannot say "Kill the Ketsumeidan partisan!", we can only see the people in the movies and games as "Japanese". It is not common to associate the Japanese of yester-year with an ideology as it is with the Germans of the '30s and '40s.

[Mendocino]

21. My father was a Naval Officer

in the Pacific during the war. He has also raised the question about the popular emphasis on the European Theater. His take was that the Pacific war was more a conflict between the opposing forces, where as the war in Europe encompassed more politics, more civilians, many governments. This made for a more varied history, which in turn, a more interesting study.

I'm going to digress a bit. A story he tells has always intrigued me. When plans were being made for the possible invasion of Japan, he and the other officers were advised that they would deviate from standard procedure in their operation of their ship, a Landing Ship Tank (LST). Normally during a landing, some distance from the shore, the anchor would be dropped while letting out chain. This would allow the ship to pull itself off the beach after the landing was made. It also prevented the ship from getting as far up on the beach as possible. Without the anchor, the ship in all likelihood could not leave (tides and beach topography also being a factor.) Thus the ship was a sitting target, making the vessel and crew expendable, as with all the other LST's. This was the urgency of a Japanese Invasion. The bomb rendered it moot. But the use of atomic weapons to end the war, and the moral implications of it, is too big of a subject to attempt to explain here.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

22. We don't hear much about the African campaign either

I think the defeat of the German and Italian forces in North Africa in World War II was a significant event and one of the great turning points, maybe not as costly to the Axis as Stalingrad, but they still lost over a quarter-million soldiers as POWs alone in the North African campaign, not counting the dead and wounded.

And in that North African campaign, although British and American forces were prominent, a lot of the burden was carried by military from other nations that we often don't heart about, including Indian troops (what is now India and Pakistan), South Africans, New Zealanders, Australians, Canadians, and the French Foreign Legion among other free French forces. Even Arabic-speaking "Goums" from Morocco participated in driving out Rommel from North Africa. Here's a photo of a Moroccan soldier from that campaign.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. There were more American combat deaths in Europe

Europe-Atlantic 182,070
Asia-Pacific 106,207

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

When the 'world war' began can be disputed. Japan's invasion of China didn't draw in other countries, and so was seen as a regional war (and China was a failed state at the time, so it wasn't even two recognisable states fighting each other). Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia isn't normally counted as beginning the war either. But when the invasion of Poland meant you had 3 major powers at war with each other, and the Soviet Union taking the Baltic States and bits of Poland too, it was suddenly a major part of the world's military at war.

The ethnic ties with Europe probably do contribute to it - and I doubt many movies and war reports made it to the USA from China before Pearl Harbour, while they would have from Britain. And many of the places invaded by Japan were European colonies, so it may not have seemed so 'wrong' as independent countries like France, Netherlands etc. being invaded by Germany.

[Hekate]

24. Several reasons: We really were the good guys; we won; closer ethnic ties....

I never thought of it this way before, but more Americans actually still had some relatives in Europe in that generation. Historically we also felt a great kinship due to the effect The Enlightenment had on the formation of the US as a nation. The war in the Pacific was spread out over an incalculable number of islands, while the European theater covered a lot of countries that were all on one continent.

But most of all, this was a war that was against a clearly definable enemy (the actual Axis), and we were on the winning side. By no means did the US win all by itself, but we definitely won that war and it was the right thing to do. Then the peace was handled competently and humanely.

You can't say the same thing about Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. :-(

Hekate

[Ravenseye]

26. It makes better television

...and movies.

War movies against Japan tended to be strange, particularly if they were remotely accurate. Slow naval battles. Island hopping without real 'fronts'. Dense foliage. Asian actors screaming in strange langauges and acting insane.

War movies against Germany were 'romantic' black and white, good versus evil affairs. Everyone was white, so getting actors was easier. No jungle warfare. Snappier uniforms, higher technology, easier to film. Spies, desparate escapes from POW camps, massive land invasions and paratroop invasions in relatively open scenic and familiar locations.

Plus we fought Germany previously, so it was a sequel. Familiar. Japan was a new thing. Strange. Foreign. Distant.

As far as focusing on our side, it's only natural. The Russian filmmakers don't make films about Normandy or the Western Front. There are plenty of films about the Russian WW2 experience, they're just not in English. Generally.

[benEzra]

27. In Europe, American soldiers were walking/fighting their way

across the countryside. Learning the names of the towns, meeting (and sometimes falling in love with) the locals, and often fighting the Germans face to face. I once ate with a veteran of the Normandy invasion and the subsequent fight across Europe, and he had some stories to tell. The European theatre also touches on the Holocaust, fighting evil in its barest form (Nazi SS make perfect theatrical bad guys), and liberation of the oppressed, making it fertile ground for Hollywood storytelling.

In the Pacific theatre, there was less tie to the local geography (one island after another), no Holocaust (local atrocities, yes; theatre-wide mass murder of civilians, no); and more tie to the ship you were on than the islands you liberated, I suspect. And naval battles (often fought over the horizon), high-altitude bombing, etc. perhaps don't translate as easily to film drama as the European street fighting did.

There are actually a number of films about the Pacific theatre, and a lot of cultural memory within the Navy and Marines that persists to this day, but for Hollywood, Europe is more fertile ground.

Objectively-speaking, the focus ought to be the other way around. Although U.S. and allied troops fought heroically in Western Europe, most historians would point out that the ones who won the European war were actually the Russians. They were the ones who sacrificed 30 million lives, destroyed Hitler's army, and marched into Berlin. Without American and British involvement, the Soviets would probably have conquered ALL of Europe. The main effect of US troops ended up largely being to keep half of Europe from falling to the Soviets.

Actually, had the U.S. not gotten involved (and thereby tied down so m any more German troops on the western front), the Russians could have lost the battle on the eastern front before winter--and had that happened, Germany would have likely won, or at least been able to fight much longer. The Russian battle for survival was quite a close-fought thing.

(BTW, Enemy at the Gates is sort of the Saving Private Ryan of the eastern front in U.S. filmography, I think...my wife and I enjoyed that one.)

[Capn Amerika]

35. No holocaust? Wanna try the Rape of Nanking?

300,000 dead. Oh but those weren't white people and they were'nt related to Americans or other Europeans.

[benEzra]

38. Americans also didn't fight their way through China on foot,

hence the lack of representation of that incident in American popular culture.

I agree with you re: Japanese atrocities against the Chinese (and others) in WW2, but I think a lot more American soldiers witnessed the results of the Nazi genocide in the European theatre than witnessed Japanese atrocities in the Pacific theatre.

[Capn Amerika]

40. Yes the ground war was bigger in Europe.

The Pacific war by it's very nature was a naval engagement.

[Orsino]

28. It was a monstrously huge effort...

...that we can claim to have won unambiguously (for a given value of "won"), that blew no holes in our continent. In Europe, a lot of damage is still visible in the very landscape and architecture. It happened so long ago that nostalgia has trumped most of the psychological scars on individuals, and the dead can't say differently.

The war also came with some conveniently twisted villains. It wasn't just a bleak struggle; it was easy to blame somebody.

[Parche]

29. PACIFIC WWII

I am a history buff, and know more about the Pacific side then the European side
although (Band of Brothers) is one of my favorite shows of all time.

Alot of people dont know that the invasion of Okinawa was a bigger then the D-Day invasion.....

We lost 52 subs in the war............(My favorite subject)

Admiral Halsey was my favorite followed by Vice Admiral Mitscher Admiral Spruance

RADM Dick Okane and Eugene Fluckey are on the top of my list


Maybe the reason was Admiral Kings' and General Marshall's 'Europe' first strategy

And not that many either movies or TV series on the Pacific.

[rinsd]

30. I think the Black and White conflict of Europe is more appealing

You had the forces of Democracy vs. the forces of Fascism.

Its the good vs. evil element to classic story telling that does not exist 60+ years removed from for say the Japanese and Americans. While Japan was militaristic/imperialistic and launched a sneak attack their "evilness" seemed more connected to wartime propaganda than the Nazis almost unfathomable brutality.

Also history class in high school goes by WW2 a near warp speed. Most of what I know comes from my own obsession with the time because it may be the most "recorded" time in historyt with endless books covering a myriad of subjects dealing with the war from espionage to tactics to production to technology to politics. Just last week I read a whole novel centered on one double agent's part in a huge deception involving D-day. The amount of information out there is simply staggering fro WW2. Comapre it with any other historical era and you would find yoruself dealing with the entire histories of Greece, Egypt & Rome to match the works produced for what ultimately is one decade.

"Objectively-speaking, the focus ought to be the other way around. Although U.S. and allied troops fought heroically in Western Europe, most historians would point out that the ones who won the European war were actually the Russians."

See I don't see this as anymore objective that saying the Americans and Brits won Europe. Without both fronts, Nazi Germany likely does not lose. Unfortunately because of the Cold War the USSR received little attention or negative attention for their incredibly important role in WW2.

"They were the ones who sacrificed 30 million lives, destroyed Hitler's army, and marched into Berlin."

Very true.

"Without American and British involvement, the Soviets would probably have conquered ALL of Europe. The main effect of US troops ended up largely being to keep half of Europe from falling to the Soviets."

But would the Eastern front have been overrun if the Germany did not have to worry about the Brits and Americans off the coast of France and in Italy. Or go back even further to North Africa(even then wars were about oil).

All that said there is a huge wealth of info on the battle for the Pacific. But like much of real history it has not grabbed popular public sentiment beyond some cursory glances.

Europe gets Tom Hanks.

Pacific gets Ben Affleck.

[petronius]

31. I wonder if there is a regional variation in the degree to which Amnericans focus on Europe

I grew up in CA, and for me WWII has always meant the Pacific war. It's not that I'm unaware of the European theater, but whenever the topic of WWII comes up the first things that come to my mind are Pearl Harbor, submarines, A-bombs, Guadalcanal, PT boats, internment camps, etc..

[Selatius]

32. To me, it's simple: Nazi Germany was a greater threat than Imperial Japan

No country in the Axis powers came closer to actually winning over all of Europe than Nazi Germany did. If Britain had fallen, there would be no launch point for the invasion of Europe, so then naturally the only ones who could liberate Europe would be Joseph Stalin's Red Army, and at the end of the day, if it came down to that, nobody in Europe could say they won anything, except replacing one brand of totalitarianism with another brand that claims to be pro-worker.

However, these what-if scenarios often get hairy rather quickly. If Britain had been knocked out of the war, then it is likely the American atom bomb would've been used in Europe first, not Japan. No matter what happened in Europe, the chance is fairly high that Germany would not come out of the war a winner.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Two reasons

1.- The War in Europe became a crusade against an evil that we could foresee and understand in the camps

2.- Even today Japanese culture is extremely alien to americans

Also it is far easier to weave a story line in the European front, the ETO is far easier to grasp for most poeple, started in North Africa and ended in Berlin (not quite but you get the picture)

The PTO is difficult to grasp since it involved so many cultuers and the Japanese were just plain weird, due to the Cuilture of Bushido and the way of War of the Japanese

After all the Jerries did surrender when beaten but the Nips (using the language of the time), didn't... and the fact that they rather blow themselves up than surrender and that they belonged in body and soul to the Emperor was wholy unatural.

So for the historians it was far easier to explain ETO, than the PTO

[Xithras]

34. As others have said, I think it's primarily the TYPE of war.

Aside from a handful of invasions, the war against Japan was primarily fought by air and sea. The African campaign, likewise, was primarily fought by air and tanks. Western cultures, however, have always held a romanticized ideal of the warrior soldier marching off to war, getting dirty in the trenches, suffering through the rigors of combat, and "proving" themselves through the experience. When we think of war, we tend to picture that sort of thing...the soldiers creeping through the trees, fighting in the trenches, and suffering in the mud. While that did happen in the Pacific theatre, it was a bit more sporadic. As an example, the fight for Guadalcanal matched or exceeded the combat conditions found in Europe, but that fight only lasted for about six months. After that, the island was peaceful and there was little non-naval "combat" until the next invasion began months later. It was a sporadic type of fighting consisting of intense fights followed by periods of relative quiet. The African campaign is often overlooked simply because it was so incredibly short for us...the vast majority of the African ground campaign was fought by the British, using American hardware. Our only real ground combat in Africa was Operation Torch in November 1942, and our involvement fell with the collapse of the German Africa Corps a short while later in May of 1943. It was short, mostly mechanized, and we suffered relatively few casualties (less than 1000 Americans total...we have lost three times more soldiers in Iraq than we lost clearing the Nazi's, Vichy, and Italian Fascists from Africa).

Europe, in contrast, IS that classical "war" that we all visualize, and the buildup and execution of that war was a nonstop event which ran from 1941 to 1945. It fits better with the classical perception of war, so it's what we think of when we visualize WW2.

[Uncle Joe]

37. I believe you may have answered your own question with this paragraph

"Objectively-speaking, the focus ought to be the other way around. Although U.S. and allied troops fought heroically in Western Europe, most historians would point out that the ones who won the European war were actually the Russians. They were the ones who sacrificed 30 million lives, destroyed Hitler's army, and marched into Berlin. Without American and British involvement, the Soviets would probably have conquered ALL of Europe. The main effect of US troops ended up largely being to keep half of Europe from falling to the Soviets"

Within three years after the end of World War 2, we were in a Cold War with the Soviets. I believe the primary focus on the European theater of war was to keep the American People reminded as to the steep sacrifice already paid for Europe's freedom to facilitate standing up to the Soviet threat. Our focus on Europe also sent a signal to the Soviets that we would not back down in defending Europe.

I also agree with some of the other posters, that shared historical and ethnic commonality had an influence, along with it's more romantic to remember liberating Paris as opposed to Guadalcanal.

[treestar]

42. Probably your last sentence - could easily explain it all

Oriental History seems one step removed for us. In high schools mostly, I would gather that "Ancient History" or "World History" is the farthest you will go beyond "American History." In my high school, I was able to take a class in "English History." Which you can say relates closest to American history, being that of our mother country and some of our traditions can be traced to it. But can anyone say they took or could have taken Asian History in High school? Or did in college? ( I would imagine that in most colleges you could.)

My knowledge of Asian History could be fairly classified as abysmal, and I would be average rather than uneducated.

How the Japanese became an offensive tyranny would be one would think as important as why Germany did - though I guess you could say that the island nature of Japan meant it was less of a threat to its neighbors, at least in those days.

We also have that theme of "how could people as cultured as the Germans end up with Hitler as their leader," and that vein seems absent - we seem to have no trouble imagining Japan becoming as it was. Yet I know so little about Japan that I would guess that it could be just as strong a question for that culture.

[sofa king]

44. It's the Western Way of War

Until the 19th Century, few other cultures were crazy enough to risk highly trained and technologically advanced armed forces against each other in search of a quick and indisputable result. (Many Europeans didn't like the idea, either.)

Other cultures have few compunctions about running away from a fight, and the fights they used to have were less bloody. But they were also rarely very decisive; wars in many non-European cultures had indistinct beginnings and uncertain endings.

But then along came the ancient Greeks, who either loved or hated fighting so much that they condensed a year's worth of warfare down to a single day of ultraviolent combat at push of pike. The losers ran home for the rest of the year; the winners erected a trophy and also went home, both sides dragging their fallen best and brightest home on their shields. Moreover, as the idea evolved the fighting sometimes yielded very conclusive decisions: Alexander the Great took over the entire Persian Empire in just three major battles and a dozen or so sieges.

That tradition found its way into European thought and still exists today, even when the tradition is not suitable for the war at hand. Today our elite armed forces are being incrementally ground down by an enemy who realizes the advantages of not fighting a pitched battle. We're going to lose that war if they stick to their plan.

World War II, on the other hand, represents the apex of European warfare. By then, all of northern Eurasia from Japan to Great Britain had adopted the idea of decision through combat, with varying degrees of success. People from other cultures also participated in that war--the Kachin and the Berbers, for example--but when they did they either took up European weapons and training or augmented European type forces (not without a few interesting twists of their own; the Kachin were notable for their ability to throw a bayoneted rifle). World War II didn't end overnight, but the period from 1939-1945 was a comparatively short war and also by far the most violent and bloody war in history. One of the ways historians make it shorter is by ignoring Japan's invasion of China.

Still another way of making it shorter is by having American historians focus primarily on the three years and nine months the Americans fought in the war, and by ignoring the logical continuations of the war like Mao's takeover of Nationalist China, the Greek Civil War, and the Korean War.

Cheap and ubiquitous automatic weapons and explosives--both inventions perfected by European-influenced cultures specifically for fighting European-style wars--are quickly changing the game in the 21st Century. In fifty years World War II may seem as quaint and pointless as we currently view the sparring going on in the Sudanese Civil War (now in its fifty-second year). But until we get our hubristic asses whipped a few more times, it will still be the "last war" we're always studying to be prepared for the next war.

[Beacho]

45. Because the airplanes were cooler

Spitfires, FW-190s, Mustangs...

That clinches it for me

:sarcasm:

[cyclezealot]

48. Because they do not know their history.

Nor does it matter. Foreign policy is dictated by an emotional need to be number one.