History from other perspectives

[AdminAssistant]

Ah, as far as made during the war goes...Triumph of the Will is the best example I can think of...it's before the war (1934) but is an excellent example of Goebbels-esque propaganda.

[SongsOfDragons]

Not to denigrate the lessons learnt and the people who fought, but my history lessons made me sodding bored of WWII. Had it as the primary topic in primary school where we did all the stuff that happened to Brits. Had it again in Year 8-9 ish where we started on the politics. Covered it AGAIN, almost solely, for GCSE, focusing on all the gibbering in the background and none of the battles at all. When I learnt that I was to look forward to learning about, guess what!! WWII!! for A-level I went F that S and dropped History for Class Civ.

I learnt better, more interesting things about WWII from my granddad. He was a gunner in the Merchant Navy and he was in both the Anzio and the Normandy landings. When I asked to be told more about the former when we were around that month of the war in the coverage... I was told it 'wasn't important'.

American History? Not a sausage. Doubt my history teachers could immediately guess whether X battle happened in the War for Independance or the Civil War.

The only bit in GCSE which was really interesting was when we spent three weeks on the Vietnam War. Found out later we missed things like the Hue and My Lai Massacres and got he Viet Cong mixed up with the Viet Nimh.

Forced to spend about two months covering american slavery in Year 8. It was good at first, a fresh look at a new topic, but when it got to being solely 'Slavery is bad mmkay? Be glad we don't have it any more' ...yeah. I knew that, and yes we still do.

I remember close to Christmas one year, they asked us to nominate and then vote on topics to talk/learn about that happened in the last 200 years that we could cover in the last week or so. Lots of good stuff on the board - I think Chernobyl and the Soviet Union in general was the winner. The next lesson started on a discussion about the politics around the Industrial Revolution. -_- Not even the parts about the amazing inventions...just the politics.

I learnt more history from Terry Deary and later from my own research than I did in school. I still can't watch WWII documentaries because I - involuntarily - lose interest. I'd want less repetition of it as a topic, and more on other things that happened. Can't help but notice, even in modern history classes which are supposed to cover things up to the 1990s...those I've talked to about how these are run all seem to miss the Khmer Rouge, which imo is scarier than a lot of other things but seem to be nothing more than 'some little thing that happened in Cambodia at some point'...

[Tanasi]

The US focus on WWII was primarily Europe and to keep the British afloat. The main British contribution to the Pacific was that we (US) were allowed to use Oz and NZ. My Dad served and fought with An-zac troops in New Guinea. His name in on some memorial of a battle that was fought there. Since my Dad and most of my family served in the Pacific theater that where most of my WWII knowledge lies but I've also done some extensive reading about WWII around the world. For instance about 2 weeks ago I learned that my Dad's twin brother served on the USS Hutchins which was badly damaged at Iwo Jima. Unknown to my uncle at the time my Dad was also there but on the USS Tennessee directing fire. The Tennessee also took hits but nothing serious. The Tennessee was one of the battleships at Pearl Harbor but it wasn't sunk on damaged, it was also part of the fleet of older battleships that were used for shore bombardment during invasions.
During my education I don't remember exactly what and when we studied during 1-6 but it was fairly varied. In 7th we had Tennessee state history and 8th US history. In HS only US history in 11th was required but I liked history and took World History in 10th and learned about Egypt, Greece, Rome and a few others that escape me at the time (it's been 40 years.)
During college I kinda chased the idea of being a History major but job opportunities being poor I stuck with Comp Sci. I did take several history classes both required and to fulfill electives. Since then reading history is a hobby and particularly enjoy reading alternative history in the Sci-Fi realm. Harry Turtledove is a favorite author.

[Panacea]

I can see why it's treated with such reverence in the US as it's where you came from and well documented, but our past is a far more lengthy and murky affair. No clean formation of the nation.

Rapscallion

Well, the American Revolution really wasn't on the public radar at the time; their ongoing conflicts with France were. The rebellion in the colonies was little more than a manpower and resource drain that the Brits got tired of dealing with. After Cornwallis got his ass handed to him in Yorktown, it was easier for the Brits to cut their losses and let us go our own way.

But every country tends to view history from its own lens and downplay issues it finds embarrassing. That's why the Indian Wars are glossed over, as well as American imperialistic ambitions in Panama (we screwed over Colombia, creating the nation of Panama to get rights to build our canal there).

The Japanese still gloss over the nastier aspects of WWII: the slave labor camps and mines where POWs were worked to death, and their forced enlistment of Korean women into "comfort brigades" to serve as prostitutes to the Japanese army. It's still a very sensitive issue between Japan and South Korea and Japan continues to refuse to apologize for it.

[hinakiba777]

The War of 1812 from Canada.

It being the 200 year anniversary of this war that is tons of information on the War of 1812. I find it weird how important it is to Canadian history, but to most Americans they don't even know what it was. I love this video that was made for the anniversary.

When I was in elementary school and junior high, instead of having History we just had one class called Social Studies. So it was like Civics, History, Geography, etc all rolled into one. I don't recall the history elements very much.

History in grade 9 was pretty much just confederation and Vimy Ridge.

By the time i had gotten to high school they had removed European History from the curriculum, and while I registered for Ancient History in grade 10 they cancelled it in favor of another Math Basics course. So I took Grade 11 history instead.

Grade 11 history was a required course called Canadian History. It was pretty much just confederation and Vimy Ridge again.

The only other history was Global History in grade 12. It was Post WW2 History and focused pretty much solely on US history.

That was pretty much it for me for history.

[AdminAssistant]

American knowledge of the War of 1812 boils down to: White House on fire, Dolly Madison saves artifacts. The End.

[Rapscallion]

But every country tends to view history from its own lens and downplay issues it finds embarrassing. That's why the Indian Wars are glossed over, as well as American imperialistic ambitions in Panama (we screwed over Colombia, creating the nation of Panama to get rights to build our canal there).

To a certain extent I'd agree, but there were far more things going on at the time. 1812 was the Napoleonic era, and there were many more deaths in the military in Europe than in America. History of a rebellious colony that could only really throw us out and not threaten us versus someone on our doorstep who would like to invade? We're talking about someone who actually invaded Russia.

Granted, that was one of his most famous defeats, but this is someone who could take on a far larger country and cause significant damage in the process. News from the Americas took weeks to get back, but comparatively a few days within Europe. Of the two, who would the historians of the day concentrate on?

It's not just that there were more important (to us) things at the time. We have recorded history back to when the Romans invaded from their texts of the time. Our history before that, being at the arse end of Europe, is that we had successive waves of invaders or refugees who lost in wars on the continent.

We just have so much more history to go at.

Rapscallion

[Tanasi]

American knowledge of the War of 1812 boils down to: White House on fire, Dolly Madison saves artifacts. The End.

There's the battles that the USS Constitution fought in, the battles on the Great Lakes the Battle of New Orleans (this is where my family fought.) That victory just about single-handedily elected Andrew Jackson to the presidency.

[Tanasi]

To a certain extent I'd agree, but there were far more things going on at the time. 1812 was the Napoleonic era, and there were many more deaths in the military in Europe than in America. History of a rebellious colony that could only really throw us out and not threaten us versus someone on our doorstep who would like to invade? We're talking about someone who actually invaded Russia.

Granted, that was one of his most famous defeats, but this is someone who could take on a far larger country and cause significant damage in the process. News from the Americas took weeks to get back, but comparatively a few days within Europe. Of the two, who would the historians of the day concentrate on?

It's not just that there were more important (to us) things at the time. We have recorded history back to when the Romans invaded from their texts of the time. Our history before that, being at the arse end of Europe, is that we had successive waves of invaders or refugees who lost in wars on the continent.

We just have so much more history to go at.

Rapscallion

Personally I've always found European history interesting. I named our first mastiff Boudica after the queen of the Iceni.

When I was in the Army our Lt Col liked to re-stage battles from the ancient past. We'd study the battle and sometimes build dioramas. In most cases the best way to fight the battle is to not fight at all. Battle of Gettysburg, after the first day Lee should have never tried to engage again but should have marched south and then east and got between Meade and DC/Baltimore. Meade would have been cut-off from his supplies and command with the only option to attack with what he had with him or retreat further north and west away from where Lincoln wanted him to be. That being said I don't think Lee could have successfully laid siege to DC but he could have taken Baltimore and collected enough supplies and weapons to keep on fighting from a much stronger position.

[crashhelmet]

American knowledge of the War of 1812 boils down to: White House on fire, Dolly Madison saves artifacts. The End.

Don't forget it's also the war that spawned the Star Spangled Banner.

[Panacea]

There's the battles that the USS Constitution fought in, the battles on the Great Lakes the Battle of New Orleans (this is where my family fought.) That victory just about single-handedily elected Andrew Jackson to the presidency.

On the 2nd try. He lost his first bid for the White House to John Quincy Adams (Jackson claimed the election stolen from him).

In most cases the best way to fight the battle is to not fight at all. Battle of Gettysburg, after the first day Lee should have never tried to engage again but should have marched south and then east and got between Meade and DC/Baltimore. Meade would have been cut-off from his supplies and command with the only option to attack with what he had with him or retreat further north and west away from where Lincoln wanted him to be. That being said I don't think Lee could have successfully laid siege to DC but he could have taken Baltimore and collected enough supplies and weapons to keep on fighting from a much stronger position.

Your Lt. Col was smart to do this; it's a good way to get people to think beyond the moment in military planning.

However, I have to disagree with the assessment that Lee could have taken Baltimore (I do agree Lee should have withdrawn on the first day of Gettysburg).

Lee could not have taken Baltimore, for several reasons. First of all, Maryland was NOT the bastion of Confederate sympathizers that Lee supposed, for several reasons: the ones who wanted to fight for the South were already in his Army (the 2nd Maryland was one of his best outfits). Plus, Maryland was as divided as the nation was as a whole. Western Maryland had more in common culturally with Pennsylvania and was strongly Pro North. Baltimore was a mix of both. It was Southern Maryland and the Eastern Shore that were solidly pro South, but Lee never invaded there.

The second reason Lee could not have taken Baltimore is because Lincoln had a strong garrison of Union soldiers posted there to keep order in the city. Baltimore is surrounded by hills Lee would have to take in order to take the City; he didn't have the manpower to do it before reinforcements arrived. Lincoln had several strong garrisons in Baltimore and Annapolis. One of the first things he did after the War started was to throw all of Maryland's political leaders who leaned south in prison, and put the state under military rule (starting under the infamous Maj Gen Benjamin Butler).

Neither Lee nor Jefferson Davis understood the complex political dynamics of Maryland. Lee made a mistake invading Western Maryland in the first invasion (and it cost him dearly at Sharpsburg/Antietam), then repeated it when he invaded the second time around, because he was in hostile territory from the get go.

What he should have done was invade the Eastern Shore of Virginia and move up Delmarva, which would have eventually led him right to Philadelphia. Then he could have forced the peace he wanted. But he would have had to do it in the first invasion, before Lincoln rebuilt the Navy.

They call Gettysburg the turning point of the war. But in reality, it was all over in September 1862, after Antietam.

I'm from Maryland, and studied her history. I wrote my Master's Thesis for my MA in History on the Civil War on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, so by extension I had to study the war's effects on the entire state.

[lordlundar]

To give another example, WW2 is often presented in American media as "the world was fucked until the courageous Americans walked in and the entire Axis forces caved at the mere sight of them and Japan rolled over and surrendered when the nukes were dropped."

Admittedly America getting involved did turn the tide of the war but it was more because with a few exceptions it was because American forces could reinforce held positions so joint operations could push forward. As for the nuke incident, Japan did not surrender right away. They were actually ready to push a very large invasion force in retaliation for the atrocious actions the Americans did until intelligence revealed that Soviet forces were amassing to take Japan after Germany fell and the realization that they were going to face increased forces on both fronts. That's when they chose to surrender.

[Jetfire]

American knowledge of the War of 1812 boils down to: White House on fire, Dolly Madison saves artifacts. The End.

Granted Canadian Knowledge of 1812 is:

We burned down the White House. (Really the Brits who did that, but we claim it anyway. :P )
Something about Laura Secord raising a warning of an impending attack (possibly with chocolate involved. )

As for my own history teaching, growing up in New Brunswick, I can't remember most of it. Partly because I was in the French Immersion program so what History I was taught was in french for most of my schooling, and partly because of Immersion, it focused more on Geography (in French) than history.

What I do remember is the discovery and colonization of the Eastern provinces, and a bit on Confederation, and that's about it. (To be fair, I'm not much of a history fan either; I was always a Science/Math geek, with no head for dates). Usually the history component would include a trip down to Kings Landing to see what 'life' was back way back then.

My mom is a high school teacher, teaching English and History, and she's trying to break the WW2 barrier. She doesn't focus as much on dates, and instead focuses on events, going on about what lead up to those events and what happened. (Usually via some self directed learning by the students). One of the things she's been trying this year is picking a song about a Canadian event, and touching on the events that surrounded the described event. (So a song like "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" or Great Big Sea's "Recruiting Sargeant" to spawn discussion of what's going on in the song and in the world at the time)

[static]

1234567890

[Kelmon]

Apparently half of German schoolchildren and teenagers don't know that the Third Reich was a dictatorship, and a third didn't know that The East German Government was a dictatorship.

True, but some context is needed: The pupils asked had apparently extensive knowledge about national socialism, but due to a lack in education in modern German politics and the history of the GDR (East Germany), they weren't able to tell those three systems apart.

Because if there's one thing you learn in German history lessons regarding WWII, it's third reich politics, third reich war crimes and the Holocaust. For quite a long time.

Regarding "american" history topics: Anything more recent than the Civil War is not mentioned at all, the American Civil War is more or less a footnote in history for us, and the American Revolutionary War is largely overshadowed by the revolutions in France and Germany, which are more important to us. All in all, our history lessons are mostly about European history, from romans/greeks/celts/germans to Charlemagne, to the middle ages with the conquest of England, and their war(s) with France, the Holy Roman Empire, the Italian Renaissance, 30-years War, the aforementioned revolutions and Napoleon, Prussia and the Franco-Prussian war, WW1 (politics, politics, politics), WW2...and i think that's mostly it.