It would be considered extremely bizarre to claim [about WW2] "it was all for the best" and only a raving lunatic would make such a claim and direct that statement to someone jewish. No one would do such a thing. Notice that you state that it would be just as insulting to say something similar to a NA but the fact is such things are said everyday in history classes all over the US. NA's are repeatedly told to their face that "they really do have to admit it was all for the best." Go to a local high school and middle school and ask to see a copy of their history textbooks. "Regretable", "unavoidable", "accidental", "in spite of good intentions", and "it all worked out for the best in the end" is exactly what you'll find.
================================
I agree.
What you're describing matches my remembrance of the elementary, middle school and undregrad history courses I was subjected to.
There's a form of tension at work here - the US' existence is celebrated (without reservation by 'conservatives' and with caveats, of varying strength, by culturally sensitive 'liberals') as an achievment.
And yet, an ocean of blood was spilled and a mountain of skulls were crushed. How do you reconcile this horrific fact with the (from the point of view of many - or, most of us) positive elements of the US' arrival on the scene?
By saying, in so many words, that although this destruction was 'regrettable' it's worked out well enough (the freedoms and all).
In his book "Gunfighter Nation" (1998, Univ. of Oklahoma Press), Richard Slotkin traces the evolution of American attutudes towards Native Americans; from vermin that must be exterminated (the 'Indian Wars' period) to "noble savages" who, sadly, had to be removed to make way for a great nation's rise.
This is deeply woven into the collective American consciousness (well, at least that portion of it that bothers to think about the matter at all).
I'm surprised your very basic assertion would be challenged at all.
.d.