Schools Teaching Too Much Hitler

[privatehudson]

I may as well not even exist for all the notice my posts get.

Join the club, I'm a founder member

 

[Stefan Haertel]

I seem to have joined the club fairly recently too

 

[pawpaw]

Join the club, I'm a founder member

Who are you ?

 

[El_Tigre]

History is histroy, including military, reglious, social, economic, political etc. To understand any event in histroy, you have to understand each and every aspect of the situation. I personally tend to favor non-military history, but I do sometimes find myself engrosed in Sun Tzu's Art of War or a more modern history of war. And yes, it is important how this particular general won this particular war. Understanding why, say, Genghis Khan was able to charge across the steppes victory after victory is crucial to understanding the social feeling of the time. If you didn't know that Genghis Khan used terror tactics (although not to the amount that most people believe), than you wouldn't understand why everyone was so bloody scared, why the cities became overpopulated, and then suddenly depopulated, and such a vast area of land came under the control of one person in such a short period of time. While military history may not be the most important aspect of history, it is extremely important to understanding the whole situation at any given point in time, and isn't that what historians strive to do?

and

Once again, I must emphasize that military history is just one aspect of the broader picture, a crucial aspect like any other. In order to understand any point in history, one must understand all the forces at work. Wether those be political, relgious, economic, social, or military, they all msut be understood. To simply dismiss one important aspect of history because some people take it a little far in their dedication to that one aspect is ridiculous. To be a true student of history, you must approach things from a well rounded point of view.

As long as we don't agree on a definition of "military history" this discussion will be characterized by misunderstandings and we will be talking at crossed purposes. (<- a dictionary made me write this)
Your definition must be quite broad if you categorize Genghis Khan's terror tactics as military history. Just because an event is violent doesn't make it military history. For me, terror is a political action, and it doesn't matter if it is implemented by the military, the police or, well.. terrorists. Is Hitler's infamous directive to liquidate all political commissioners of the Red Army a subject of military history just because it was executed (pardon the pun) by soldiers? I don't want to argue semantics, I just want to point out that you seem to be irritated only by my narrow definition of military history and nothing else. Furthermore, I already posted several reasons why historians might profit from studying even purely military topics.

I 100 % agree with your statement that every facette of history should be considered. But what about studying battles/weaponry/tactics/strategy just for the sake of it? I strongly oppose that such topics are taught at history classes.

Have a look at this website as an example. It will load a flash animation of the battle of Zama:

Battle of Zama - Flash animation

Besides the first page (Background), did it help you understand the history of the Romans and Carthaginians?

I find military history not at all shallow.

Neither do I. I think it can - and it almost always is - fascinating, exiting and very informative. Military history is as scientific and legitimate as history, but I do think that logistics, orders of battles and tactical analyses should be rather taught at military academies and not at departments of history.

 

[privatehudson]

That comment wasn't directed at you.

Frankly nor do I suggest that an in depth analysis of battles or periods is wise at school level under the current system, however the military aspect of history was by an large utterly ignored or glossed over very quickly during my studies, even during WW2 which we spent quite some time studying. The only notable time I can think when we went into any detail at all of a specific battle was Hastings, and that wasn't exactly about tactics either but what happened.

I can remember being very specifically being marked down on an essay because I went into too much detail about the military reasons that Israel won the 6 days war (example: I talked in detail about superior weaponry and tactics when the marker wanted "they had a better army" - I found that kind of statement somewhat lacking), even though I mentioned the other reasons. I wasn't impressed as I had been looking forward to that part of A Level history for some time as I presumed that the info I had from outside study would prove of some use.

I would have preferred more choice at that point rather than having to choose a history class that some bigwig has decided is important and relevant to my future. So to whether military subjects should be studied in history classes I'd say it would be ideal if the option should at least be available as a choice - even if that's not realistic in the current system. It returns to what I was saying before, that our education system is rigid and seeks to imprint on everyone roughly the same education, whether that education is relevant to their future or not, regardless of whether they will find it of any interest.

 

[El_Tigre]

What happens on the battlefield is just as important to learn as the generic stuff, because it is what has determined many cultural, regional, and state boundaries.

Don't you think that it is even more important to know how these different cultures, regions and states actually came into existance? How they differed? What made them unique?
It seems to me that the "battlefield" is only the tip of the iceberg (= the "generic stuff").

Military History provides a more realistic and sceptical view of history rather purely abstract and essentially random basic information that of course is important, but certainly should not be the emphasis. It should be taught early on, and remembered. It shouldn't be the core curriculum of history classes for 12 years of our lives. Military History to me provides with an in-depth "story", something with meaning behind it.

What's the in-depth story of Gettysburg? If your answer contains topics as slavery, secession, state rights, economic antagonism, or regional/cultural differences, then see my post above about "definition of military history".
Feel free to substitute Gettysburg with any other battle / war of your liking.

Generic history is too bland and dry, and lacks the factual support in reference to how world leaders used to determine political outcomes. It was almost always through war.

I disagree. War is certainly prominent in human history, but society tends to remember bloody sacrifices and heroic battles instead of peaceful settlements or averted conflicts.

Sure, it is nice to know the names of the wars and the basic ideas of what happened, and the basic outcomes. But why is what happened in the actual war, battle to battle not emphasized?

Why should I want to know the details of a battle instead of, say, the underlying causes of war? Is it really more important to know the tactical decisions made by generals instead of the strategic war aims made by politicians?
Do you really want to focus on military decisions while disregarding their vast political, economic and social context? This approach isn't scientific. The entertainment factor is immense, however.

Many times, certain battles and individual employed strategical maneauvers made men famous, and earned them their names. Alexander wasn't just "Great" because he lived around 323 B.C. and won a bunch of wars and battles. He was great because he pursued one of the richest monarchs of the ancient world, he knew exactly what his enemy's moves would be, he knew the best routes to pursue the enemy, he knew how to deploy his troops to counter Darius's massive cavalry charges. He knew how to render the potentially destructive chariots obsolete and useless. Alexander was influenced greatly by his tutor Aristotle, and learned discipline and patience from him. Generic history won't teach you the details of these facts. It all ties together, and without the tedious core, it is a dry bunch of information that is meaningless to me. I wouldn't appreciate and respect Napoleon if I hadn't known all the battles he won, who his generals were, and the weaponry he preferred. He'd just be another "good" leader in history, along with the thousands of other storyless people.

You don't have to know the details of an art in order to appreciate its geniusses. Do you know how to paint a fresco? If not, how can you admire Michelangelo's paintings in the Sistine Chapel?

Generic history undermines the behind-the-scenes action which has been the most decisive factor in almost all historical situations and attempts to overvalue other subjects in history in favor of the women who "don't like battles and don't like war".

Basically you are saying that a part (=military history) is more important than the whole (=generic history).

Oh, and your conspiracy theory of "women who don't like battles and don't like war" against military history just made my day.

 

[El_Tigre]

privatehudson,
I often felt the same in history class. However, history is not a priority at school, and time is scarce: if your teacher would have had to skip (for example) the Yom Kippur War in order to talk about the military history of the 6 Days War, I would support this decision.
It's very strange though that your teacher penalized you for your outside study about military history. He should have encouraged you - or are you a victim of a female history teacher who doesn't like battles and doesn't like war?!

 

[Israelite9191]

Actually, I define the terror tactics of Genghis Khan as military history because they were a military strategy designed by Genghis Khan to help him win military victories that would end up shaping the world up to the modern day. Besides this one example, there are many others. Another example might be the tactics used by the ancient Israelites in their wars against the Philistines. By comparing their strategies to those of the surounding peoples, we can understand more about where they may have come from, who their biggest influences were, etc. For instance, the Israelites used a light infantry style of warfare as opposed to the Philistine use of the heavy infantry phalanx. This shows us that the Israelites were most likely not close relatives of the Phlistines, as well as other information (my opinion on Israelite origins are skewed because of relisious beliefs so I will not dicsuss the topic further). As for the Philistine use of the phalanx, this suggests Greek influence or other more northern Mediterranean influence. This, of course, helps both the theories that a) the Philistines were Minoans (I disagree with this) and b) the Philistines were Sea Peoples originating around Sardinia, in close proximity to the Greek colonies. If you think of our past as a locked box, and each field of history another number in the combination, this helps you understand the necessity for mlitary history. Just like each number in the combination is worthless without the others, so is each historical field. Just like how having all but one number does not help you, so does understanding all but one aspect of history. Military history is vitally important to understanding the whole situation, and must always be taken acount of.

 

[Adler17]

As a history crack I was ever a fan of military history. However you can&#180;t understand military history without the knowledge of the time and social, religious and other important facts. Also you can&#180;t understand the social situations not without the wars lead. You have to know every aspect. But the level of detail is another question. For me social history was ever boring. My last (female) history teacher in the Leistungskurs was not a fan of military history. However the lessons I ever liked very much. She did not decourage me nor did I stop her. However we had lessons in which we spoke about Bismarck and his time to go over Hitler to Kohl only to return via Frederic the Great to Bismarck! We discussed the details and compared them with the other times. In every aspect. Although I thought military history should have been discussed more I was also the opinion that more details were not able to have in the current system with 5 lessons a week.
The point is you have to know all aspects. An example: The Seven Years war. Why did break it out? You have to know about the situation: Prussia as a state of many improvements in all aspects by the father of Frederic, the Soldier King, Frederic William I. You have to know the struggles between father and son. You have to know the absolutism and the enlightened absolutism. You have to know about religion and the broken promises by the Kaiser. And about the soldier king&#180;s love for peace. While his son, eager to get fame, started a war, acting like Macchiavelli, who he just denied in a book, to get the Austrian Jewel Silesia as replacement for J&#252;lich and Berg, of which Prussia was betrayed. You have to know about Maria Theresia and her sought for revenge, Elisabeth of Russia and Madame Pompadour, the three *****es (Frederic the Great). You have to know about the situation in Prussia as well as the situation in America and India to get the full level of a world war.
It is in no way a must of knowing Frederic&#180;s victories and defeats but these details would lead to a much better understanding of the situation. How he was able to fight with only one, not very trustworthy, ally against nearly all European powers. Ro&#223;bach and Leuthen should be at least named and roughly described. Also to characterize Frederic, who was a very difficult man. And only for cracks is perhaps reading about the two sieges of Kolberg. In which Sigismund von der Heyde, the commander of Kolberg, was promoted after the first siege from Major to Colonel and got the Pour le m&#233;rite, although it seemed his career was over since he felt from grace. After the second siege, Frederic said: "Ich bin nicht infallible. In diesem Mann habe ich mich schwer geirrt!" (i am not infallible. In this man I erred very much). But to know this is knowing a better understanding of the character of Frederic and it helps a little bit more to get to know the situation. Although this is only a small puzzle peace, it is important for the whole as without it would not be complete. However this is not possible in history lessons.
Nevertheless we did not talk about perhaps the most important feature of a history lesson: The teacher. His/ her quality is decisive. You can learn much or hate the whole thing. You can find it boring or exciting. Good teacher are unfortunately rare. So I was lucky that all of my history teacher, this is not limited to history but to every subject, were very good or outstanding. You should roughly know about the major subjects in history. About social background as well as military and political. So you have to start in the ancients or even before and go the timeline to present day. Then you have a good history education. And hopefully you get the fun to research history by your own. Then you can be on the field you want. If you want to know about the Jews in medievel Germany or about the workers in England during the Industrialization, okay. Or you can study ww2. Or read about the developement of diplomacy and international law after the battle of Kadesh. It is your own decision. So a good teacher should give the kids a good background, in every aspect, to encourage them for going into detail.

Adler

 

[Harbringer]

Lucky Brits, I would have loved to learn about World War II in school, but all we learned about wasw the American Revolution and a ton of stuff on the Civil War which was a bunch of rubbish and completely useless. American huistroy teaching is very biased BTW, we make the brits in our books look like total evildoers and americans look like the goody-goody two-shoes of the day. Most kids in my class didnt even realize that we were revolting terrorists.....

 

[Atlas14]

Don't you think that it is even more important to know how these different cultures, regions and states actually came into existance? How they differed? What made them unique?
It seems to me that the "battlefield" is only the tip of the iceberg (= the "generic stuff").

Not more important, equally important. Believe me, come to America, sit in a highschool world history class and tell me with a straight face that these kids know even 1% of the military history you or I know. Without military history, these cultures coming into existance are meaningless. OK, maybe teaching individual battle tactics is a bit over-the-edge, but seriously, knowing Egypt existed and that there were cool pharoh people with mummies and stuff is essentially what we are taught over in America, and that Egypt was in the middle east somewhere. Do we learn that they even made war with other nations, conquered other peoples, how they expanded their empire? No, except for the usual one paragraph brief explanation that Egypt made war with so-and-so. They don't tell you the names of these wars, the importance of these wars, the consequences of these wars, the major figures of these wars. You live in Germany, so you probably are satisfied with the balance of military history and generic history taught in schools. Here in America, it pisses me off that learning 5th grade history in 11th grade is considered OK. You'd be surprised at how much military history can shape peoples' political views too. It always seems to be the case that those (at least around here) who don't know a lick about any military history outside of maybe a few Civil War facts and WWII/WWI facts are ignorant when it comes to war on the national level in America, their ill-conceived perceptions of war even in Iraq, their supposedly ingenius solutions to all of America's probelems in Afghanistan and Iraq. How easy it should have been for us to go in and out of those countries. This ignorance stems from a severe lack of military history, and it shows in the shoddy beliefs of many Americans.

What's the in-depth story of Gettysburg? If your answer contains topics as slavery, secession, state rights, economic antagonism, or regional/cultural differences, then see my post above about "definition of military history".
Feel free to substitute Gettysburg with any other battle / war of your liking.

The in-depth story of Gettysburg would be the reasons for failure and success, the tactical and strategic vantage points gained and lost in the many stages of this individual battle. The generals who fought this battle and the men who fought for them.

I disagree. War is certainly prominent in human history, but society tends to remember bloody sacrifices and heroic battles instead of peaceful settlements or averted conflicts.

Maybe in Germany. Not here in America. Ask anyone in my grade to name any war or battle Oliver Cromwell fought in, and Im sure maybe 1 person could. Most would ask me why this is even important, and I'd tell them that sure, taken out of context of a historical lesson, it may very well be insignificant knowledge. But without knowing the leadership Cromwell showed on the battlefield, and the extent of success he won, peoples perceptions of the beheading of Charles I might change a bit, and ultimately the entire political background of the formation of Parliamentary and Protestant doctrines.

Why should I want to know the details of a battle instead of, say, the underlying causes of war?

Why should I want to know the underlying causes of war if I've been taught them for seven years, and it only takes a normal person a few years to pick up on the basics? The next step is the details of battle to complete the picture, and these details are conveniently and craftily being left out.

You don't have to know the details of an art in order to appreciate its geniusses. Do you know how to paint a fresco? If not, how can you admire Michelangelo's paintings in the Sistine Chapel?

Anyone can admire, but I wouldn't be knowledgeable on his paintings. Anyone can watch a game of football, but if they don't know the rules, tricks, strategies, and positions used to win, they are left in the dark about the best and most important part of the game.

Basically you are saying that a part (=military history) is more important than the whole (=generic history).

No, equal.

Oh, and your conspiracy theory of "women who don't like battles and don't like war" against military history just made my day.

Im glad you didn't take my ranting and overexaggeration too seriously . Im known for being a bit of an oversimplifier and exaggerator.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Lucky Brits, I would have loved to learn about World War II in school, but all we learned about wasw the American Revolution and a ton of stuff on the Civil War which was a bunch of rubbish and completely useless. American huistroy teaching is very biased BTW, we make the brits in our books look like total evildoers and americans look like the goody-goody two-shoes of the day. Most kids in my class didnt even realize that we were revolting terrorists.....

I'd be pushed to ask for a more interesting topic than the US Civil War, it has everything, internal/external politics, ideologies, economic issues, sufferage and lots of gory battles not to mention plenty of interesting characters. I wouldn't complain about having that on the syllabus, at school I even gave a talk about it highlighting the Battle of Antietum it interested me that much to learn so much about it.

As for the American War of Independence, yeah, boring as the British lose

 

[Plotinus]

No, equal.

But what do you mean by that? Are you saying that military history is equal in importance to all the other aspects of history put together? Or are you saying that it is equal to each of the other aspects of history taken individually?

Neither of those really seems right to me. Obviously military history is not equal in importance to the whole of the rest of history, as that would make it by far the most important element of history, which is daft. But can we say that each "kind" of history is equally important? Is the history of war equal in importance to, say, the history of drama? Surely in different periods they are of differing importance. For example, in early medieval Britain there was no drama at all (Bede, writing a glossary of Biblical terms, had to explain what "theatre" meant, because there weren't any in his day), so you could hardly say it was a feature of society as important as war, of which there was plenty at that time.

It relates to the problem of how one assesses "importance" in history in the first place. From one point of view, no historical subject is of any "importance" whatsoever, because you don't actually need to know any of it, apart from certain specialised people: for example, generals would need to know about military history, politicians about political history, playwrights about dramatic history, and so on, simply so they can do their own thing effectively. But no-one really needs to memorise the kings of England or know what life was like for the ancient Egyptians. From a purely pragmatic point of view, most history isn't much use. On the contrary, we learn it because it's just intrinsically worth knowing. Someone who doesn't know who Julius Caesar was is not, on that score, going to do any less well in life than someone who can enumerate the legions manning Hadrian's Wall in the mid-third century, but we'd still say that, other things being equal, the second person is doing better than the first.

So if we learn history just because of intrinsic interest, then it becomes extremely difficult to assess the relative "importance" of different bits of it. Surely anything that happened is equally historical and equally interesting, from that point of view. You can see that if you question why the traditional historical subjects were taught. Why did schoolchildren of the past memorise the dates of the kings of England, rather than (say) the names of seventeenth-century peasants? The former are no more historical than the latter. Hence the drive in recent years to focus on "ordinary" people in history, not just "the great and the good".

Some people have difficulty with this. I remember once arguing about it with a classicist friend of mine, when I asked him why classical history seemed to revolve around politicians and wars, and why it didn't look at (say) sport. He replied that, yes, sometimes sport is important in history, citing the Nikon riots of the 530s which led to a crisis for the emperor Justinian. But I replied that that's not the point. I didn't mean times when sport impinged upon politics, but sport as a subject in its own right. Why not forget all those emperors and just look at the history of sport? What makes the emperors more important?

Presumably the main reasons for looking at one area of history rather than another are:

(1) Supposed intrinsic interest - a bit of a will o' the wisp, really, given that, as I said before, all history is pretty much equally intrinsically interesting.

(2) What is traditionally studied. British history may no longer revolve around the sole Memorable Date of 1066, but the things that people study at school are still the *kinds* of things that are traditionally studied: politicians, kings, wars, battles, parliamentary legislation.

(3) What sheds light on other things. Presumably the reason why the doings of kings etc formed the sole topic of history in yesteryear was that their doings were judged more important than other people's, that is, they had greater ramifications. Of course, that was true when talking about individuals, but it led to imbalances. Perhaps Henry VIII had more influence over English life than anyone in his time, but it doesn't follow from that that Henry VIII was the most important thing in the lives of those who lived under his reign (unless they were monks, of course).

By this reckoning, one should focus on the kinds of history that help us to understand most. And the arguments in this thread bear this out - the implicit assumption on all sides seems to be that military history is either more important because it helps us understand more stuff, or less important because it neglects most stuff. It seems to me that any element of society will help you understand any other element more than if you didn't study it: after all, would studying the Crusades really tell you more about medieval society than studying the cookery of the time? Probably not. That just means that a rounded picture of medieval life needs to take in both cookery and Crusades (there's a book title if ever I saw one). So it seems to me something of a red herring to be arguing about whether one particular strand of history is important or not, and how important it is relative to other things. It's important simply in virtue of happening, but it is not of overriding importance, simply in virtue of not being the only thing that happened.

It's worth pointing out, though, that the initial topic I meant to flag up was not an over-emphasis on one *kind* of history, but one on one *period* of history. When we studied Nazi Germany it certainly wasn't military history - indeed not much was said about WWII. It was all about how the Third Reich actually operated, including what it was like for the hoi polloi, although with most of the emphasis being on politicians (as usual). So it was fairly rounded. Indeed, military history, in the narrow sense of what battles happened and what happened in them, rarely showed its head in our history classes (apart from the topic of WWI at GCSE, which seemed to take longer than the real WWI did). The point, though, was that so much effort is spent teaching the Third Reich that you never seem to learn anything else: as I said, I don't believe I have ever been taught any British history pre-1865, other than doing the Romans at primary school. It seems odd to create a generation who are experts in Gladstone but know nothing of Palmerston. Now, of course, effective history teaching needs to focus on certain areas. You can't get a good sense of how history is done if all you ever have are brief introductions to each period without any depth. The question is - why is the "in-depth" bit invariably the Third Reich?

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

If you think that's bad, you shld come over to Malaysia. In my day, all they were teaching were about the 'glories' of the Malaccan 'empire' (loads of whitewashing) and a bit on the colonial history of Malaya and Sabah/Sarawak in Borneo.

No after independence history. Little on the history of the Chinese and Indian immigration into the country. Nothing on anything foreign (like Chinese, or European history).

That's so true.
They even didn't teach about their former colonial masters too(The colonial history is mostly based on rebelions!!)

It's funny when I speak to some of my chinese friends about their ethnic history and I know more about them

Well, I learned some of my ethnic history from some obscure forum or the Internet, so that evens things out.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

When I was in the final year of my secondary education, Modern European History consisted of the French and Russian Revolutions and the Rise of Fascism. Small vignettes, rather than an overall appreciation, even though it was jolly good.

Now, I am the history teacher, and the courses that I program and teach aim at giving an overall picture of the flow of history in sequence, and particular focus on certain areas, such as Australian participation in the World Wars and the colonisation of Australia. I do not avoid Hitler, and indeed give some time to him and that important period of history. I might try the Tudors next year, as part of a different look at the Renaissance and Reformation period.

 

[BCLG100]

Been studying history now for awhile and in the past 4 years my curriculum has consisted of
4 years ago Hitlers rise to power + League of nations
3 years ago Hitlers rise to power + bolshevik revolution
2 years ago hitlers rise to power + stalins rise to power + james I of england
this year hitlers consolidation of power + British civil war

its not that i dislike the topic but after 4 years nazism is so boring.

 

[Shaihulud]

I don't even know what I studied for history, but i wouldn't mind studying about WW2 or Hitler in school. Wars are pretty much the most important things that happens in the World since it brings on change much faster.

 

[Adler17]

Shaihulud, you have to remind that 4 years of Hitler are at least 3 too much. You have to get to know all the facettes of history and that doesn&#180;t work without knowing at least something about the previous periods. And the following. We on my school had Hitler for perhaps a 3/4 year- 1 year (in grades 10 and 13, estimated perhaps a bit less than 0.75 years). That is good and enough. Since you have to see the whole. From the beginning to the recent times. And so we were taught about Napoleon as well as Adenauer, Bismarck or Frederic the Great or Richelieu or the wars in America. About the industrial revolution as well as about abolishing slavery or the social sytem in medievel times. About Jews and Muslims. In a history of at least about 1100 years these 12 years are not that important to learn them the whole time by neglecting the other times.
Also it is dangerous that British children learn nearly everything about Hitler, who was even a foreigner (Austrian), and nearly nothing about Bismarck, Adenauer, Kohl, Kant, Frederic the Great, ...

Adler

 

[Kafka2]

Sorry, Kafka cannot start another historical thread; he woke up this morning and found himself transformed to a gigantic beetle.

Don't you just hate it when that happens? Takes more than aspirin to shift that, let me assure you.

 

[BCLG100]

bug spray tends to work