American History by British Authors ...

[LizzieMaine]

I think the Chinese would suggest that the war started in July of 1937 when the Japanese invaded mainland China.

Doug

Bingo. There are far too many people who have no idea that Pearl Harbor was far from the first gun fired by Japan -- and Americans are among the worst offenders in this respect. I've talked to plenty of otherwise-intelligent college graduates who never once in their lives heard the word "Nanking," and there's no excuse for that at all.

 

[Tomasso]

a bunch of folks from the US who were genuinely outraged that I did not share their apparently very genuine view that I would be (and I promise you, one of them really said this) "speaking German if it weren't for us".

Not sure about the language but your currency would definitely be the Reichsmark......

 

[MisterCairo]

Not WWII, but the American Revolution. A few years ago there was a series on PBS i think by a british historian about the Am. Rev. from the British point of view. Really quite fascinating to hear how the war was just one small part of a larger global war. Great perspective and i learned alot about OUR history as well.

Canadians and Americans tend to forget that the so-called War of 1812 was literally a minor sideshow to the ongoing conflict in Europe. Most British, for example, have never heard of it.

And what we Canadians call the Seven Years War (1756-63) was also a North American sideshow. It's all relative (Hmmm, how did that affect me or MY country???).

As for World War II, I won't go down the 1937 vs. 1939 slope, but merely point out that the whole 42-45 thing isn't just an American issue. To Russians (Soviets) the "Great Patriotic War" lasted from 1941 to 1945. Apparently, the bit about them being Hitler's ally for the three years preceding that patriotic conflict is conveniently airbrushed out of the "history" books!

I had some interesting conversations with a Russian girlfriend in my undergraduate university days!

 

[Edward]

Not sure about the language but your currency would definitely be the Reichsmark......

My pet theory has long been that it was less a case of the Allies winning the war, and more that Hitler lost it. Pulling out of the Battle of Britain just a week before victory, opening up a war on a second front (as Eddie Izzard put it, "Hitler never played Risk as a kid...")....

 

[dhermann1]

I hope nobody minds me wandering down this particular path to insanity, but the big "if" of WW II that I tend to think about these days is "what if" the Germans had made the breakthrough to the Middle East they were attempting in North Africa. What if they had gotten control of the Suez Canal, and direct access to Iraq's oil?
Anyhow, back to the subject of a Brit writing about US history: Please do!

 

[Flicka]

Not sure about the language but your currency would definitely be the Reichsmark......

If we're going to play 'what if', maybe we'd all be using rubles... Who knows?

 

[Two Types]

Not sure about the language but your currency would definitely be the Reichsmark......

Oh, I don't know, remember the British had the Russians on their side by then.

 

[Tomasso]

remember the British had the Russians on their side by then.

Ah, so you were set....Who knew? [huh] And of course it's always a godsend to have the relentlessly loyal Russian Army by your side, no matter how historically ill-equipped and underfed. But please, in the future tell us when our help is not needed so that we won't waste our time creating the greatest war machine in military history (complete with nuclear holocaust).....Seriously, now I'm embarrassed that my people may have brought way too much to the party.....So American of them........

 

[B-24J]

Hi Two Types,

Back on subject,

The question is not how to appeal to an American audience, but rather the editors and publishers.

It may be worthwhile to contact the departments of history at some U.S. universities. They often have lists of publishers. A university might also be kind enough to steer you to the publishers that specialize in your specific subject. Probably all of the departments of history are on the web. Why not send a few introductory emails?

Best of luck!

John

 

[Stearmen]

Ah, so you were set....Who knew? [huh] And of course it's always a godsend to have the relentlessly loyal Russian Army by your side, no matter how historically ill-equipped and underfed. But please, in the future tell us when our help is not needed so that we won't waste our time creating the greatest war machine in military history (complete with nuclear holocaust).....Seriously, now I'm embarrassed that my people may have brought way too much to the party.....So American of them........

You need to remember that when the Commonwealth and Americans landed at Normandy, [including my dad overhead in a C-47 and my uncles at Omaha] they were facing 59 German Divisions, The Russians were facing 157 Divisions. They made it posable for us to land, if we were facing 216 Divisions, well, you do the math! I probably wouldn't be here today!

 

[Two Types]

Ah, so you were set....Who knew? [huh] And of course it's always a godsend to have the relentlessly loyal Russian Army by your side, no matter how historically ill-equipped and underfed. But please, in the future tell us when our help is not needed so that we won't waste our time creating the greatest war machine in military history (complete with nuclear holocaust).....Seriously, now I'm embarrassed that my people may have brought way too much to the party.....So American of them........

But I wasn't implying that the American assistance wasn't needed or gratefully received (I am a historian, after all) simply that it wasn't a forgone conclusion. None of us can know what would have happened if the Americans had not come into the war. That is pure guesswork. Furthermore, the economic might of the USA would have counted for a lot less had it not been for the Red Army. Imagine the combined might of Britain, the USA, Canada and the other allied nations trying to land in Normandy against a German army not fighting in both East and West.

History has taught me that very little can be predicted, apart from:

Empires rise and empires fall
Economies work in cycles
There will always be wars

 

[Two Types]

Hi Two Types,

Back on subject,

The question is not how to appeal to an American audience, but rather the editors and publishers.

It may be worthwhile to contact the departments of history at some U.S. universities. They often have lists of publishers. A university might also be kind enough to steer you to the publishers that specialize in your specific subject. Probably all of the departments of history are on the web. Why not send a few introductory emails?

Best of luck!

John

Thanks. But my problem is not getting my proposals onto the right desks at the right publishers (indeed, I have already been approached by one of the major university publishers) since my agent handles that. The problem is simply that the editors tell him they are happy for British writers to cover broad topics, but do not want them to cover specifically American topics. They seem to say that US readers do not want to read US military history written by outsiders.

 

[dhermann1]

OK, so aside from the obvious World Wars era, what other parts of American history do you think you might find interesting?

 

[Atomic Age]

If we want to talk strictly about who paid the highest price in World War 2, the answer is VERY easy. The Soviet Union lost about 11 million soldiers, and around 24 million civilians. Next would be the Chinese who lost around 1.5 million soldiers, and 10 million civilians.

By comparison, the U.S. lost about 400,000 men(almost no civilians), and Great Britain lost about 298,950 military and 64,000 civilians.

To be fair, I don't think that England would have been speaking German, but it surely would have been very dark days for a very long time had the U.S. not entered the war when it did. For one thing, yes Britain had many other allies other than the U.S., but none had the anywhere close to the industrial might, nor the capital to make war that the U.S. did. The only country that came close to the U.S. in terms of industrial production was the Soviet Union, and they weren't sharing.

Another point is that U.S. delay or even not entering the war at all would have given Germany more time to developed and produce in large numbers, advanced weapons such as jet fighters, long range rockets, and yes atomic bombs. There is something to think about.

Doug

 

[Edward]

To be fair, I don't think that England would have been speaking German, but it surely would have been very dark days for a very long time had the U.S. not entered the war when it did. For one thing, yes Britain had many other allies other than the U.S., but none had the anywhere close to the industrial might, nor the capital to make war that the U.S. did. The only country that came close to the U.S. in terms of industrial production was the Soviet Union, and they weren't sharing.

fftopic:

I find it fascinating to speculate. One of my favourite "what if"s is the scenario where Hitler stops too early to win the Battle of Britain and cancels Operation Sealion (as he did), but fails to make the mistake of opening a war on two fronts. Not attacking Russia, he then doesn't mistakenly declare war on the US in the hope that Japan will respond by declaring war on Russia, putting them in a two-front situation. With the US not coming into the European war, I believe that the Brits would have come to an accommodation with Hitler. Sure, they'd never have trusted him, but I do believe they would have done a deal that kept them on their own, with the rest of Europe occupied. Inevitably, they'd have been giving serious covert support to resistance movements all over Europe. Still, in many ways that scenario seems more convincing to me than the 'jackboots on Whitehall' vision.

 

[Atomic Age]

fftopic:

I find it fascinating to speculate. One of my favourite "what if"s is the scenario where Hitler stops too early to win the Battle of Britain and cancels Operation Sealion (as he did), but fails to make the mistake of opening a war on two fronts. Not attacking Russia, he then doesn't mistakenly declare war on the US in the hope that Japan will respond by declaring war on Russia, putting them in a two-front situation. With the US not coming into the European war, I believe that the Brits would have come to an accommodation with Hitler. Sure, they'd never have trusted him, but I do believe they would have done a deal that kept them on their own, with the rest of Europe occupied. Inevitably, they'd have been giving serious covert support to resistance movements all over Europe. Still, in many ways that scenario seems more convincing to me than the 'jackboots on Whitehall' vision.

Oh no I don't see the Nazi's ever taking over England with out having to completely destroy it first. You guys just would never have allowed that. But I can see England being starved into making agreements with Hitler. And I can see the Third Reich lasting a good 20 or 30 years before collapsing of its own corruption.

Doug

 

[Flicka]

There's a book (in Swedish) in which one of the German trains we let pass through our territory is blown up by a few young men. Germany is forced to take action and declare war on Sweden. That in turn leads to Germany's Eastern front being weakened (due to a lot of partisan warfare, our territory is ideal for that) and in the end, the war ends already in 1943, with considerably lower death figures altogether.

It's the author's way of saying that yes, we could have made a difference, but we cowardly choose not to.

 

[BigFitz]

If the truth is told I don't care who is saying it. The best documentary of WWII in my opinion is "World at War".

As far as when WWII started, I would make the case that it started right after WWI. One has to wonder if Hitler would have been able to sway anyone in Germany if the US, France, and England wouldn't have been so adamant about Germany paying reparations for the war causing a lot of hardship and resentment in that country.

 

[MisterCairo]

I recall seeing an alternate history-type movie about Britain being part of the Nazi empire. Rutger Hauer was in it, and it took place in about 1964 (there's a scene where he's on a train I think, and passes a billboard advertising the Beatles' first album!). The British government, under Churchill still as I recall, is in exile in Canada, and there's a scene where an American news reporter is asking questions about the odd disappearance of Jewish relatives of American citizens.

Or am I dreaming all of this? Anyone else recall this film?

 

[hpalapdog]

I think we can all agree that Sweden contributed absolutely nothing to the allied cause.

Sweden played a crucial role in WWII. It sold iron ore to Britain. Unfortunately it also sold to Germany until well into the war.