How is World War II history taught in the US and in which way does it affect Americans' perception of contemporary Germany?

Actually, World War II is taught pretty straightforwardly in U.S. high schools. Everything that's vexing you flows out of the very patchy treatment of German history from 1946 to the present day. To wit, the main elements in a high-end U.S. high school world-history course will be: Germany was in tatters after World War II, but the noble Marshall Plan -- sponsored by a magnanimous U.S. -- made the German economy better. West Berlin got off to a perilous start, but heroic American airlifts saved it. Israeli athletes were massacred in the 1972 Munich Olympics The Berlin Wall was torn down in 1989, as Communism collapsed of its own weight. Germany achieved a costly but probably beneficial reunification. That's it. No discussion of the post-Hitler German leaders, be they Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, Helmut Kohl or Angela Merkel. Nothing about 1968. Nothing about the Greens. No sense of German social programs, pacifism, pro-European sentiment, etc. I'm summarizing what's in high-school honors or advanced-placement textbooks, but basically, after 1945, Germany largely vanishes from the curriculum. This is a pity for many reasons, but bear in mind how post-1945 world history generally is taught in the U.S. The spotlight mainly focuses on: atomic weapons, the Cold War and rivalry with the U.S.S.R. the first two U.S. wars in Asia: Korea and Vietnam the rise of U.S. multinationals and anxieties about their influence. (Coca-Cola gets an odd amount of attention here.) the collapse of European colonial empires (mostly British) and the tangled ensuing search for national identities in Asia, Africa, etc. Nixon goes to China. Deng Xiaoping and China's modernization. Israel's birth and battles. Maggie Thatcher More wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A few U.S, students may pursue European history in more depth and develop a fuller view of how much Germany has redefined its identify in the past 60 years. But most don't. So their views of Germany -- even today -- are shaped mostly by what they learn of the horrors of 1933-1945. And those were quite horrible.

I would suggest that Donato Santo is following a particularly Orthodox version of history in regards to WWII. I would not say Germany was entirely responsible for WWII, as there remain a myriad of factors - such as general high nationalistic tensions, resentment over the unfair Treaty of Versailles, the failure of Appeasement, as well as the failure of the League of Nations, which he has not accounted for, which worked in tandem with the policies of Hitler. In regards to Americans viewing the German people as responsible for atrocities such as the Holocaust, and responsible for WWII as a whole, I would agree, perhaps tentatively, that a percentage of Americans do view the German people as directly responsible. However, I do not think this is an affront on American intelligence, but rather a more cultural effect America may have imparted upon its youth. In the post-war period of 1945 - 1955, a very black-and-white account of history regarding WWII, which is still somewhat in flotation today (for example, American cinema often portrayed the American effort as the main cause of winning WWII, British cinema of the period portrayed 'plucky Brits' who always maintained stiff upper lip during the Blitz and Battle of Britain, and Soviet cinema created grand epics about heroes of Stalingrad.) was developed and received widespread distribution - a certain subjectivity of nations obscuring facts. I believe this culture has remained impregnated into these nations' collective consciousness, as indeed, the stereotype of the Soviet hero who sacrifices everything for the motherland, the American soldiers - all grit and determination and brotherhood, and the British - all tea, cozy, quaint and stiffed lipped, have similarly survived. In this regard, it is highly likely that the influence of Hollywood cinema is more than we credit, as to this day, many people I have met refuse to give the Soviet soldiers and 'General Zimoi' (General Winter, the cold weather conditions that killed hundreds of thousands) their due credit, and many Russians I have met refuse to give the USA due credit for the industrial-militarial and agricultural complexes to allow the Russians to continue fighting. Going deeper into a historiographical method, two things are clear: Primarily, with the onset of the Cold War, which began almost immediately post-war, many historians stopped studying WWII as the Cold War began to be intensely studied, even in its early days. As an example, the Cold War has three schools of thought - Orthodox History (the Soviet aggression was the main cause of the Cold War), Revisionist (American inflexibility was the main cause of the cold war) and Post-Revisionist (a number of factors developed the Cold War). On the other hand, WWII historiography has mainly two schools of thought - Traditionalist (the Germans are to blame) and Realist (a number of factors developed WWII) The second thing I perceive, is that it took a massive number of people to be part of the German machine, to keep the mechanics ticking over - logistics, planning, construction, guarding, feeding - all of these things would have to be done by Germans. In this regard, we could say the German people - at least those who were part of the machine, are definitely to blame in their causation of the Holocaust. On the other hand, Soviet atrocities such as the Purges, or Holodomor (the Ukranian famine of 1932 -33) killed many millions as well, yet I doubt many Americans would conclude the entire Soviet people are to blame for Holodomor or the Purges. Despite both being autocratically ran, and a similarly massive network of planned deaths. In this regard, perhaps it is fair to say Americans are being either unduly critical of the German people, or too light on the Soviet people? Ultimately, to conclude, I would suggest that Americans may have a cultural slant to naturally perceive the German people as responsible for WWII, however it's an outdated view, especially for the modern Germany who have truly been humbled by the atrocities they have committed. Similarly Russia who have never truly been humbled by the atrocities they have committed are often seen in a more positive light, despite equally attempting a genocide. To this cause, I would suggest a cultural slant - whilst WWII became an almost jingoistic nationalist celebration of victory, the Cold War became a more sluggish affair, with massive opposition, which would perhaps account for this. Even more ultimately, there are a massive amount of generalisations and speculations included within this answer, and similarly within your question, but I have attempted to my fullest ability to answer it as succinctly as possible without creating an entire academic work.

History education in the US is very US -centric, as seems appropriate to educational leaders in a country that remained as culturally isolationist after 1945 as it was before.  Most American students receive one year of world history during their secondary education.  It's not just Germany that gets only minimal attention.

The fundamental discussion regarding the role of the German public in the rise of the Nazi party in Germany is to ask how and why so many (though not all) educated and cultured people in a prosperous country like Germany could be co-opted by Nazi ideology and seemingly ignore the authoritarian and criminal actions of that regime. I think both complicity and the martyrdom of anti-Nazi agitators is noted in what is  a balanced and realistic understanding. I think US perceptions of WWII has become more accurate and complete with the end of the Cold War as the scope of the Soviet role in victory is acknowledged History taught at the secondary school level doesn't have muc time to note the postwar situation beyond the Marshall plan, the onset of the Cold War, the Berlin airlift and the end of the Soviet block in 1989.

Irene is correct that, generally speaking, the high school curriculum includes 1 year of WORLD HISTORY.There are like a kabillion events to cover in the whole time of WORLD HISTORY.Great civilizations of the past like Summeria, Greece, Persia, China, India, Rome, Egypt, France, England, Spain, Vikings and many others take you near the end of the school year. There is a limited amount of time to go into any of these eras in very much detail. That's what college is for.By the time you roll around to WW2 (this is a very recent occurrence in the big scheme of World History) there is little time left and this is what gets covered about WW2: There might be 5 minutes devoted to The Pearl Harbor attack. Basically you get a date, June 7th. That's it. There will be maybe five minutes devoted to D-Day. Basically, you again get a date. There will be more time dedicated to how the US interred Japanese-American citizens. There will time spent on the Holocaust. Then a day on how the US dropped two atomic bombs. That's it. No Eastern Front, no Battle of Britain, no Midway, no Lend-Lease. Nothing really about the major or minor players. They just hit the bullet points and do not cover details much on any stuff past 1900.Post WE2, Korea, Vietnam, Cold War, Middle East. None of that stuff really gets covered or just superficially.Then time runs out and the kids are pretty disinterested in that stuff anyways. Not a conspiracy. Just a time management and prioritization issue. Recent World History just doesnt get a high priority.If I was king for a day, I'd add a Post 1900 World History course with a lot more detail. Not sure what subject it would supplant, though.