WW II

Do you not understand that people opinions on the war and its belligerents are coloured by their education in such topic

Just look it up and see the change over time. You'll get what I mean.

>When you can't even cite your own source

Just wanted to save the surprise.

I am looking at them now, but they do not share the same meaning as what I am trying to tell you. Most countries educational systems when it comes to History and particularly the Second World War, only really teach about their own involvement and the obvious things like the Holocaust etc. You really have to do your own digging to become informed on other people involvement. One of the Canadians that was in the conversation even said that he at school was only ever taught about the basics and the Homefront. I also experienced the same at my own school up until college that is.

Fair enough, I would tend to believe the one closest to the actual event considering it is freshest in peoples minds.

I love how these decades of American propaganda make irrelevant Britshit's recognition grow higher

It's crazy how US cultural domination indirectly advantage Britain due to Americans always overrating them

Fot exemple, lot of uneducated people think that Britain was very powerful and relevant in the 18th century because of American propaganda about their revolution

Many people also wrongly believe that Britain was more relevant than France in WW1 because Americans always depict and overrate the Brits rather than frogs in their media about that conflict due to indentifying with hem more easily (same language, shared history...etc
The recent American game on the topic (BF1) was a great exemple of shameful overrating of British history by American cultural media

Though I would agree in some aspects to what you have said I do have to disagree with the comment about the First World War. Without the British support, the war would very likely been a lot longer, the French would have been fighting for many years. Not to mention things like the Somme, the Battle of Amiens and the first real idea of the tank

Never denied the Brits were very relevant in WW1 as well
Just pointed out they weren't more relevant than France like American media often make it seem

BF1 was developed by Dice, who are Swedish.

There's a pretty clear difference between intentionally dismissing another nation's role, i.e. the Soviet Union's Cold War policy to downplay Western efforts in WWII, and a nation's media participating in ethnocentrism when producing content for their own consumption.

Under the direction of EA, an American company

what is the alternative?

you are saying the United States lost the war?

Think you're giving EA too much credit.

If anything the more diverse WW2 games I can think of were American-developed. The original Day of Defeat featured British vs German gameplay, Red Orchestra may still be the best Eastern Front shooter, clearly better than Company of Heroes 2 (Canadian made).

youtube.com/watch?v=2m4SCUaBHS8

Why isn't Germany an option?

>What do you guys think?

It's a nonstarter. It was an allied effort. Arguing anything else is academic.

I have always been annoyed by that, cant believe that BF1 would have left out nations like Russia and the French from a game about WW1

I mean I know you have to sell games and make bank but jesus. But to the person talking about the over selling of American involvement, this was the point I was making to my friends. That the Americans, whilst welcome in joining the fight. did not "Win it for the Allies"