Schools Teaching Too Much Hitler

[Shaihulud]

I suppose that the British system wants to teach more about WW11 becaue it was their finest hours and all that. Every countries tries to put the history of their nation in the best light and we can sometimes see what they really think by the history subjects that they put emphasis in. I understand it somewhat that it places a biased view of German and France in the eyes of the students, 4 yrs really is too much to study a mere 12 yrs especially in a region with so long a history.

 

[Rambuchan]

Stefan Haertel: Yes I must confess that I too do not post as much as I would like to in History. So consider your sentiments seconded!

Once again, I must emphasize that military history is just one aspect of the broader picture, a crucial aspect like any other.

Quite right and I don't mean to encourage people to discount these elements when appraising any situation or dynamic in history.

I find military history not at all shallow. To study it to any great degree of understanding means to gain a basic knowledge of the other historical aspects of the period. It's pointless trying to study the Crusades to any depth without understanding the religious and political motivations behind them. Likewise any real student of WW2 military history should get a basic understanding of the social problems and political situation in the world at the time. Therefore of course I'm going to read about those topics when I can, but I'm not going to study those by themselves as I'd rather... well you get the picture.

This is most encouraging to read. Of course, I too see the place of military history, in a broad sense of the term.

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?

Very good observation here.

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.

I feel somewhat guilty for leading this thread off topic. For what it's worth, I feel that the focus on Hitler in schools had little to do with military dynamics. What I remember from school with regard to a perceived emphasis on Hitler was the economic situation Germany found itself in after WWI (see reparations), the lack of or damaged sense of national pride, Hitler's own life (including his stint as a poor artist in Austria), Britain's dithering diplomacy and so on.

 

[la cosa nostra]

 

[Plotinus]

More evidence that Hitler was mad as a brush. Everyone knows you need a wand to cast that spell!

 

[Sybot]

My history lessons went like this:

Primary School:
Ancient Eygpt/Greece/Rome
Vikings/Normans
Tudors/Stuarts
Victorians

Secondary School:
Middle Ages
Arabic Empire
Tudors/Stuarts (again!)
French Revolution
Industrial Revolution
WWI/WWII

GCSE:
History of Medicine
The American West

I feel that the Tudors/Stuart period is overdone. Its one of the reasons I didn't do A-Level history, as there was a topic or twenty on it in the syllabus. Contrary to what everyone seems to be saying I only got a few lessons on WWII, however we covered WWI in stupid detail (even got a trip to Belgium to look at WWI stuff).

 

[Rambuchan]

Everyone knows you need a wand to cast that spell!

You do????

And there's yet another way the British education system is failing its pupils!

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Yes, you need a wand and then loudly ennunciate Expecto Patronum.

 

[la cosa nostra]

More evidence that Hitler was mad as a brush. Everyone knows you need a wand to cast that spell!

Not Adolf, he's an ubermensch.

 

[El Justo]

i had a history professor as an under-grad who staunchly refused to not only cover hitler (and stalin) but he also refused to allow for us students to do any sort of independent research on him.

 

[Israelite9191]

American education at its worst

 

[TrailblazingScot]

but he also refused to allow for us students to do any sort of independent research on him.

I suspect you mean he didn't allow you to go out of class to do independent research in the library or computer rooms. He can't stop you learning about Hitler/Stalin independently in your own time.

You have a syllabus presumably, he'll have to keep to that or you all gonna fail

 

[El Justo]

I suspect you mean he didn't allow you to go out of class to do independent research in the library or computer rooms. He can't stop you learning about Hitler/Stalin independently in your own time.

You have a syllabus presumably, he'll have to keep to that or you all gonna fail

well, to be honest, it was an upper level seminar class which explored abstract notions of 'power' in history and many of the students were intrigued by both hitler and stalin from an historical and political point of view. me? nah...i had other more 'ameri-centric' inclinations.

to be even more honest, i learned a tremendous amount about hitler and during the course of my studies. what i think my prof was getting at (and rightfully so imho) was that he did not want an over-saturation of papers and such on those 2 rat finks.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Yeah, far better to get loads of papers on Mao Tse Tung and Napoleon - may his little red genie live forever

 

[7ronin]

When I attended school in the United States (well over fifty years ago) the events of World War II were perhaps too recent to have been considered "history." Instead, we received massive doses of the American Revolution and Civil War. They still don't seem to be teaching much about World War II here if my conversations with my grandchildren are any indication: "Hitler, who's he?"

 

[Rambuchan]

He's the guy who Saddam was like.

 

[Israelite9191]

We in the states never seemed to get around to thinking of WWII as history. From what my father says of history (he was born in 1950), as well as my mother (born 1959) and 7ronin, history is pretty much teh same. Of course now they have to be a little more careful about political correctness (there was a good King of the Hill episode about this). Other than that, we still pretty much resieve a bunch of Civil War and Revolutionary War with some colonialism, reconstruction, and Great Depression thrown in.

 

[El Justo]

i should probably clarify the american system of education w/ regard to the teaching of history...

the primary schools (ie elementary - K through 6) teach a heavy dose of "Plymouth Rock", the "pilgrims", "GW" and the other prominent US presidents. european history is largely ignored as is most every other region of the world (generally speaking of course).

by age 12 or so (grade 7), european or "Western Civ" is introduced. it is a very basic and waterd down version of european history.

by high school (grades 8 & 9 and onwards), a more intensive curriculi is introduced, especially in the American history realm. the 13 colonies, the revolution against britain, the early years of the US of A, the antebellum period and the subsequent war between the states is covered in more detail. this is generally referred to as "US History I".

"US History II" begins w/ the reconstruction period, the rise of the US as a global player, WWI, the great depression, WWII, a little on the korean war, the post war boom, vietnam, and even the first gulf war.

other history classes are offered but are deemed "optional" or as "electives". many of these classes are relating to european history and many are often "AP" (advanced placement) classes. however, they are not mandatory as are the US history classes.

now, i say this all simply b/c i began student teaching this past term in a local high school and paricipated in both the US History II classes as well as the AP Euro Hisotry classes. the depth at which these classes are taught almost certainly varies from one school district to the next but the school in which i did my field work at made a pretty good impression on me that today's students (at least where i live) are exposed to the essential aspects of their own histories (ie american). now, the world at large is a different story altogether.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

there was a good King of the Hill episode

That is surely an oxymoron, a good King of the Hill episode, never happened mate.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Kids will never learn too much nazi. I am for the teaching of no History at early school, except for WW1 & 2. This must not happen again, everybody must be sensible to it. Genocides are wrong. Btw, History teaching (if not the averall teching) sucks, because of "reminder titles" that put in evidence some facts at the depend of the logic of the events, and of the logic of the period teached and studied. Knowing by heart some isolated fact is useless if you plainfully don't instinctively understand why and what for. Too much nazi teaching? No, too much bad teaching, probably.

 

[Naokaukodem]

A kid History is his own future. Let the wild learn the life, show the way. The way of the wild, the way of the nature. The way. A way. The only thing a kid should be teached is Economy, Enterprises. Kids should be teached real life, so there would be less desespair on this ****ing bloody Earth. Kids should be de-schoolarized, and enter the life with the right foot. The nose free of **** to be able to breathe by itself. Sure they will (would) breathe. How couldn't they.