>men sent off to war created fatherless children
>government changes education, enforces propaganda through mandated nationalist classes
>warps opinions of young boys to support the war and become Hitler youth
>this is considered terrible
>WWI United States
>men sent off to war to create fatherless children
>Woodrow Wilson enforces mandatory nationalism classes for youth
>History courses changed to portray Britain as always good and Germany as always bad
>fosters an entire generation of nationalists that unreasonably hate Germany and support the wars
>nobody ever talks about this
Not siding with Germany on their ethics, but aren't these practically the same thing? The portrayal of German propaganda in modern media is condemned whilst the same thing is ignored if done is the West?
Germany was killing American civilians, and literally told Mexico if they invade the US, Germany will support them and give them the Southwestern US when they win the war.
>and literally told Mexico if they invade the US, Germany will support them and give them the Southwestern US when they win the war.
Why in the hell would Germany rely on Mexico, a country then devastated by civil war, to halt the US?
Not him, but German strategy in WW1 was drooling-retard tier. Zimmerman didn't even deny it when the shitstorm broke out, despite popular opinion at the time being that it was a British hoax to try to pull the U.S. into the war.
It's never talked about, however. Not once throughout my education have I heard about these "Americanization courses," including an extensive 1882-2005 United States History class that my professor claims is as detailed as a postgrad class on the subject. I just happened to stumble upon the details because I am currently writing a paper on the Sedition Act. It seems to be fairly unknown as far as common knowledge goes.
This is more about reeducation than anything else during the war. While there were different severities, both countries took similar approaches to shaping the opinions of the youth, but Germany seems to get the shaft while the United State's involvement in controlling the youth becomes nearly forgotten. As I've said, Germany instructed to children to turn in their parents should they be enemies of the state, but the United states did everything except this. Impressionable children were exploited to give their earned money to buy war materials for soldiers, and nobody seems to care that the United States exploited child labor laws because they ended up winning the war.
>it was a British hoax to try to pull the U.S. into the war.
That's exactly what it was.
Fighting a war on two fronts was retarded. With that being said, Germany wouldn't expect an almost failed state to be able to take on the US. If they had true ambitions for knocking the possibility of US intervention, they would have turned to Argentina. After all, Argentina had a large German population, was anti-British, and generally anti-Brazilian (Brazil declared war on Central Powers).
>Neutral flag being flown by merchant ships from both sides
>Britain decides to create a blockade around Germany to force inspection on neutral ships
>Germany attempts the same thing with Britain
>Britain gets assmad, acts hypocritical
>threatens Germany with violence for the same exact treatment that they themselves were conducting
>Britain effectively ruined the neutral flag
>Germany understands this, decides to use violence against those who start using cargo ships as civilian transport
I'm not sure that it was as simple as "killing civilians." You forgot to mention that they were on a ship suspected of holding contraband that belong to Germany's aggressor.
>That's exactly what it was.
Zimmerman publicly admitted he sent the telegram. Why would he do that if it was a British hoax?
And as for the reasons, you can't expect Argentina to actually attack the U.S. They had what? 1 aging capital ship? Good luck doing more than being an occasional nuisance. Mexico at least had a land border, there is the ridiculously remote possibility they could strike at something important.
>And as for the reasons, you can't expect Argentina to actually attack the U.S. They had what? 1 aging capital ship? Good luck doing more than being an occasional nuisance. Mexico at least had a land border, there is the ridiculously remote possibility they could strike at something important.
And all this is because the Germans weren't planning on supporting an attack on the US.
The U.S. wasn't supposed to be involved in the war. None of it directly concerned them. There's only one reason why the U.S. would want to join: wealth. The Americans enjoyed the Roaring Twenties, did they not?
As for Zimmerman, saying the letter was fake would make Germany seem North Korea-tier. Even if the letter was real and had true intent, it was only for if the US declared war. And Mexico denied the offer, so nothing would have happened.
The United States government may have exceeded it's usual economic and social powers during both world wars, but comparing it to one of two regimes people refer to as "totalitarian" is absolutely outrageous.
Nazism permeated every single level of society and dogmatism was enforced by terror and paranoia. The state routinely used the most brutal means of repression combined with the cunning of a modern state apparatus to create an atmosphere pretty much unheard of at any time in history before, like, 1935.
Membership in the Hitler Youth was mandatory. The Nazis imposed bizarre curriculum at every level, controlled social relationships and speech pretty much absolutely along with the arts and sciences.
Fostering nationalism happens differently in the context of American liberal democracy than it did in a totalitarian state.
As for your point about history courses, history 101 level education sucks, nothing can be done for it
> Us Vs. Them is unreasonable, yes.
If you're going to boil it down to that then every war or agression is unreasonable. How are we to, today, justified into believing that 9/11 was bad when all opinions is based on an Us vs Them mentality?
>The United States government may have exceeded it's usual economic and social powers during both world wars, but comparing it to one of two regimes people refer to as "totalitarian" is absolutely outrageous.
I don't believe comparisons to be outrageous when talking about specific features that they shared.
>Nazism permeated every single level of society and dogmatism was enforced by terror and paranoia. The state routinely used the most brutal means of repression combined with the cunning of a modern state apparatus to create an atmosphere pretty much unheard of at any time in history before, like, 1935.
Yes, however, the United States was not innocent in this aspect. The Red Scare and the Palmer Raids might not have been as bad, but the atmosphere given was certainly not evident of a democracy.
>Membership in the Hitler Youth was mandatory. The Nazis imposed bizarre curriculum at every level, controlled social relationships and speech pretty much absolutely along with the arts and sciences.
Participation in these classes was mandatory, and used heavy propaganda to influence youth. While it wasn't seriously implemented, the Sedition Act allowed heavy censorship along the same lines.
>Fostering nationalism happens differently in the context of American liberal democracy than it did in a totalitarian state.
The severity differs greatly, but in essence, these two nations did very similar things.
I didn't go into detail. Let me emphasise.
Establishing, "this nation is bad, hate it's people," is absolutely ridiculous. Children can not understand politics, and they are basically told to hate people with certain accents, facial features, skin colors, nationalities, etc. without taking their actions into account. Teaching children to hate communists or socialists is one thing, but insistence that all Japanese are dirty traitors who should be killed is another. You can still create wars without propagating that someone's facial features or flag are indicative of their character.
Because of a couple of things. First, because it was "our side", and people like to view what their group has done as good or at least not as bad. Second, because people often consider the reasons behind the actions as well as their results in order to make judgement as to whether it is a justified action or not. Consider the case of killing someone. If you killed someone because you wanted to kill someone, that would considered unjustified, but if your reason for killing someone was to prevent that person from detonating a nuclear warhead in the middle of London, people would have a harder time saying that the act was wrong or not justified. It is because we think that the US was right in fighting against the Axis that we do not care as much about our own side's actions.
I do t think anyone really condones the preaching of politics towards children. However, it's really a moot point to get angry at that considering it was pretty standard practice worldwide at that point. And what the Axis governments were perpetrating quite openly and with some measure of pride was quite a bit more disgusting than indoctrinating children to love their country.
Also, people need to stop pretending that republican democracy isn't a spectrum. Just because a government enacts one authoritarianesque law does not mean that they're suddenly fascists. I fully support government agencies like the NSA, and also completely support representative democracy with secret ballots and multiple parties. I also support free speech and Internet neutrality.
le "Germany did nothing wrong" meme
>I fully support government agencies like the NSA
>I fully support putting the entire populace (even that of other countries, which is against international law) under universal suspicion
>I fully support eavesdropping
>I fully support the goverment having a metric fuckton of data on my day-to-day behaviour with no court order
Because Wilson was a university professor before he became president, so professors are vary weary over making him look bad. So instead they bury the truth for the can use him up as an example of how they are always right.
>You can still create wars without propagating that someone's facial features or flag are indicative of their character.
Are you seriously insinuating that such a thing as a national character does not exist? I mean come on, that is something only internationalist believe.
Maybe because just a few years earlier Pershing Expedition completely failed to capture a single bandit? Also, I highly doubt Germany expected Mexico to win. They just wanted the US to busy it self with Mexico keeping them from interfering in Europe. An insurgency can last a long time, tying up vital resources, even if it is largely unsuccessful in the end.
I am aware of what nationalities are, however, putting such characters on screen with Daffy Duck is largely inappropriate. Children can't understand what's happening in a separate hemisphere with the same depth as an adult, so to simplify it to, "people who look like this are the enemy," seems entirely unrepresentative of the situation. Do the children necessarily have to harbor feelings of hatred to entire cultures rather than the ideas that those cultures have?