What is taught in other nations schools about WW1/2?

Dann said:
About time they did!

Those things took place half a century ago! They should be taught to serve as a lesson but not to forment hatred. China and Japan need to cooperate now.

And it should be done on both sides. The Japanese also need to revise the way they teach their history.

Anyway the next generation here might do better. They're growing up with daily doses of anime on TV. :D


Good to hear- actually many (I don't know if it is all) schools in japan now make mention of Nanking even to the extent of citing the Chinese estimates of fatalities. My wife who is Japanese and is 30 years old had never heard of it, but the younger people I have spoken to know about it.
 
BananaLee said:
Oh...
Here, you'd have the textbooks glorifying and harping about the 'greatness' of Melaka..

Well, I guess that since it was larger than Srivijaya and Majapahit..... :rolleyes:
Don't I know that! :lol:

Even today, I still paled when remembering that list of Malaccan sultans we'd to memorize, and their reign years, and their 'empayar', and their (primitive) admin structure. *shudders*
 
@XIII and BananaLee
At least you had something to brag about. We in the Philippines have only very little information about our history before Magellan. :( No large empires (like Srivijaya and Madjapahit of Indonesia) or even significant kingdoms (like Malacca of Malaysia) existed who kept comprehensive records. Our original Sanskrit-like script is dead. :cry: The original Muslim culture continues to exist only in Mindanao. The rest of the Philippines actually resembles Mexico, despite being in Asia. :crazyeye:
 
Ditto XIII
LoL

Seriously, the kingdom of Melaka lasted a grand total of 111 years with 5 sultans along the way..
Not much worth talking about in fact.. LoL

Matter of fact, Melaka's dominions takes up as much area as modern Peninsular Malaysia and they were paying tribute to China.. LoL
 
I got made to sit at the front of the history class, on account of me being inattentive and stupid, by the pretty Irish girl who tried to teach me historical stuff . I can't remember anything about it other than she was a curvacious brunette with very nice legs.
 
BananaLee said:
Ditto XIII
LoL

Seriously, the kingdom of Melaka lasted a grand total of 111 years with 5 sultans along the way..
Not much worth talking about in fact.. LoL
11 sultans actually. :p

Matter of fact, Melaka's dominions takes up as much area as modern Peninsular Malaysia and they were paying tribute to China.. LoL
Modern W Malaysia, Patani, as well as the east coast of Sumatera island. But I'm never sure how strong the Malaccan control over its 'fiefs' was, considering the primitive stage of its administration (only 4 'main' officials; no bureaucracy).
 
XIII said:
It isn't something I want or can brag about; it's Malay, not Chinese. ;)
I thought you're a Malaysian citizen. Isn't it your duty to be proud of your nation's history whatever your ethnicity? :D :mischief:
BananaLee said:
Seriously, the kingdom of Melaka lasted a grand total of 111 years ...
...Not much worth talking about in fact.. LoL
XIII said:
Modern W Malaysia, Patani, as well as the east coast of Sumatera island. But I'm never sure how strong the Malaccan control over its 'fiefs' was, considering the primitive stage of its administration (only 4 'main' officials; no bureaucracy).
That's still much stronger than what we had. There was a relatively strong Muslim kingdom in both Sulu and the area that would later become Manila but that's about it. Other areas of Luzon and Mindanao and the rest of the islands were divided into small tribal kingdoms. For a rajah, Rajah Humabon of Cebu couldn't even handle the neighboring tiny Mactan island. Magellan trying to intervene and impress this Rajah was what got him killed.
samildanach said:
I got made to sit at the front of the history class, on account of me being inattentive and stupid, by the pretty Irish girl who tried to teach me historical stuff . I can't remember anything about it other than she was a curvacious brunette with very nice legs.
:lol: Yeah they do distract big-time don't they?
 
Dann said:
I thought you're a Malaysian citizen. Isn't it your duty to be proud of your nation's history whatever your ethnicity? :D :mischief:
I have a brain. I refuse to be brainwashed. :p
 
well i think thats something that very strongly depends on which teacher you get in history class. here in austria you can happen to have ones that will talk about every litte troop movement happening during ww2, ones that talk only about holocaust, ones that will tell you austria was hitlers first victim and dollfuss a great patriot or ones who at least know about the guilt of austrian people being involved in holocaust, the war, the admiring of hitler.

surely everything you learn here is eurocentric. the pacific theatre isnt mentioned at all, (maybe one of those pages written in letters half as small as the rest of the book), although the role the us played in europe is greatly over-estimated (you dont hear much about the read army proceeding from the east, its more like stalingrad and shortly after the fall of berlin, the invasion in the west seems to be more interesting).
you learn about german war crimes and about how cold it was for the soldiers in stalingrad.
and of course holocaust. then again holocaust and again. shortly after that again holocaust. so that no one will misunderstand me: i dont think thats bad, its ok, its right, it should be so, but theres a point when it starts to get boring.
furthermore every pupil visits the concentration mauthausen camp once during his school carreer.
 
Incredibleee !!!
And it's say that just the communist regime "manipulate" the history !!

Sorry guys - but some of your presentation really surprise me ! Incredible ... :(

Regards

P.S. : I will come back with my comments a little bit later. ;)
 
furthermore every pupil visits the concentration mauthausen camp once during his school carreer.

I think that's an excellent idea, and more should do something like this in other countries :) Too much of history teaching is selective and through books, there's nothing like experiencing the actual events by talking to those involved, or visiting the areas.
 
Dann said:
About time they did!

Those things took place half a century ago! They should be taught to serve as a lesson but not to forment hatred. China and Japan need to cooperate now.

And it should be done on both sides. The Japanese also need to revise the way they teach their history.

Well - but let's think : why to do so ? :mischief:
As the others said - the Holocaust is still hardly presented when discussion about WWII. And this may also create "anti-german" feelings - isn't it ? ;)

Regards
 
The holocaust was mentioned in secondary school here, but it's not part of an exam or anything when I was there.
 
Mîtiu Ioan said:
Well - but let's think : why to do so ? :mischief:
Because we live today in the age of MONEY! $$$

Nationalistic pride is all good and necessary but not to the point of causing you to lose trade and research opportunities, and by extension, the means to further improve your own power. :evil:
 
In the U.S., and especially it seems in New York, where I went to school, the focus of history class is overwhelmingly on American history with the near-total exclusion of history everywhere else in the world until WW1, then another break until WW2. WW1 and 2 are presented pretty fairly, I think, but little is mentioned outside of American contributions. The Soviet Union is presented in a fairly negative light only after WW2, when the Cold War began. This actually makes sense. FDR, by all accounts, was pretty naive and actually thought Stalin was a decent guy.
 
America:
In my school in particular, we start history in the stone/agricultural ages and push towards the civil war and then skip 80 years forward to the holocaust. I find it pathetic.
Come to think of it, they just skim over anything and everything related to battle and talk about the "great arts" of the time period. Probably the only time wars are mentioned are when crimes are committed against women and/or minorities.

I must take this oppertunity to preach:gripe:, so those who prefer to avoid politics, do not read the following:

To quote General Patton: "A pint of sweat will save gallons of blood"... I think history teachers need to teach war (especially the World Wars), go out of their way to do so, or our sofened-up youth will not understand both what real evil can be and how to combat it. If that effort is not put up, we will pay with more innocent lives in the future than we have payed in the past.
 
Jack the Ripper said:
I think history teachers need to teach war (especially the World Wars), go out of their way to do so, or our sofened-up youth will not understand both what real evil can be and how to combat it. If that effort is not put up, we will pay with more innocent lives in the future than we have payed in the past.

I agree with you, but probably they think that's difficult to do so how it's neccesary. :rolleyes:

Anyway - Romania is probably one of the few country where ... WWI is ( or at least was ) more presented than the WWII. :crazyeye:
Especially looking to the fact that I studied during 1987-1995 ... it's really "cool" and somewhat amusing to see the differences in manuals because of political changes !! :D

Regards
 
Kamilian1 said:
And, right after the WW1, we are taught about the hard re-formation of Poland as an independent republic: the battles and uprisings in the Western Provinces (Poznan/Posen, parts of Slask/Silesia),
I'd like to know what they teach Polish children about that.
 
I can quote You Polish elementary books from both primary and secundary schools if You like. But only when I come back home, and it will not be soon :)
I don't remember much details myself, it's not part of history I'm very keen on.
I remember there was a long story about Polish organisations and scouting, especially in Galicia (Austria), and about German bombing of Kalisz (it was supposed to threaten the population so it'd not pose any resistance, so a defenceless city was completely destroyed, with something like 5000 of 50000 population left after the bombing (not all of the missing were killed, however, some managed to escape), and I think it was one of the reasons for something that was emphasised, that while there were pro-Austrian (Pilsudski) and pro-Russian (Dmowski) political fractions, there were no pro-German ones.
I remember there was unsuccessful attempt of causing an insurection in Poland by Pilsudski, and there was information (and the text too I think) about both German and Polish appeals (?) to Polish people, and about the official plans of the sides of conflicts
when it comes to Poland, and later about Wilson's 13th article and what Soviets initially proclaimed in Polish matter (its right to independance), earlier about the conduct of war on Polish grounds (and elsewhere too, of course),
and later all about forming of Polish state, and the question of both German (the question of Pommerania, the question of Upper Silesia, the question of Masures),
southern (

anyway, there's A LOT we had to learn about it. Too much to brief it here.
What do You mean exactly?
On the other hand, I'd love to read German, Czech etc history school books too.

In fact, our teacher was definitely not very much ueberPolish, if that's what You mean.
In fact, I found her pretty ignorant when it comes to results of Silesian plebiscite.
Because she added that not only Germans won in industrial cities, but even in some other, presumably more "Polish" ones, and she was very suprised to know that Poles in fact won in the areas (mostly rural) that today are inhabited by self-claimed Silesian nation. I think she wanted to counter what was usually taught earlier too much and she's overdone it.
When it comes to Poznan, it is about that Paderewski came, blah blah, the only (almost) fully successful uprising, because they were well organised there, not as lousy Poles elsewhere - the Prussian school made them good.
Silesia - there's a map of ethnic distribution, which may be a bit misleading, because Germans were more numberous than it may seem (as they were a majority in bigger cities). Upper Silesia was originally supposed to be added to Poland without a plebiscite, but Great Britain didn't want to give us the industry.
I don't remember all the details. One of the two first Silesian uprising was due to that Germans killed some Polish miners, and it ended up in that the Police from then had to consist of both Poles and Germans (earlier it was clearly German and was terrorising Poles). Then poland was dumb enough to propose (but I don't know if it is mentioned in all the schoolbooks that it was Poland to propose that) that all the ones that were borned in the region could vote, and it counted in Poles that emmigrated to Ruhra.
Of course, it turned against Poland, because it did nothing to motivate these people to vote (and it was against their interest anyway, I guess), while Germans nicely organised transport of German voters. Eventually, Poland got 40% votes, Germany 60%. According to the rules (but I don't think it was mentioned in the schoolbook), the voting was held by gminas (small districtive regions), and W. Korfanty, who was the leader of Poles in Silesia, demanded a boarder which divided the region according to the results, but giving the entire German exclave - the industrial towns - on Polish side. The allies, however, planned to give Poland just Pszczyna and Rybnik or something, so a third uprising broke out; it was the biggest and the biggest fights were around the mountain of st Anne, which the Germans finally managed to capture.
Eventually, a boarder was settled, giving Poland only 29% of the territory - but with most industry, though
Ironically, the sit of Polish comission for the plebiscite was in Bytom, which stayed on German side, and the sit of German one was in Katowice, which was given to Poland.
Oh, another thing blaimed for failure was that the plebiscite area included areas Poland actually didn't aspire too, as they were clearly German at this time.

There's not much talking about the Masures, except for that there was a plebiscite which was a complete disaster for Poland, mostly due to that at the time it was held,
Soviets were just about to capture Warsaw and voting for Poland seemed a suicide.
There were other reasons, though, I guess: Masures were protestant, unlike majority of Poland, and when it comes to catholics of Warmia, the pope's legate was so kind to tell that people should vote for Germany in fact (I'm not sure if this legate didn't become a pope later), and there were some tricks like that people there were to vote for Poland (written in latin font, which was not used there) or for "East Prussia" (not Germany), written in Gothic font, and there was not kind of good atmosphere around, with some Polish politicians being persecuted or even killed (not only in Eastern Prussia, I recall a memorial plate to some Polish activist named Styczynski killed in my city during the plebiscite as well), and some Polish organisations in east Prussia called for boycotting the plebiscite.
And generally, Poland was busy fighting in the east and didn't pay enough attention to its western boarders.
That's why I was pretty angry at Pilsudski's statue standing in my city.
He did nothing for this town, and I don't know why should he have a statue here.
They could have erected a statue of Korfanty perhaps.
 
Back
Top Bottom