At the end of WW 2, in a valley of the Southern Alps, a young boy found a smelly canvas bag lying on the bank of the river. He had a look and ran, horrified, to his parents in my grand-mother's village. There was the body of a woman cut in bits. A month later, the gendarmes told the village she was the wife of a Polish Marechal, that she must have been involved in a spy affair. She was buried in my grand-mother little cemetery with a wooden cross on top and nothing written on it. About 20 years ago, they cleaned up the cemetery to have new tombs and her trace disappears. Nobody would never know who she was and how she arrived there.
Originally posted by Wobbletastic: Hmmm interesting… I have to say that World War Two is my favourite war; it had everything!
It certainly did. Genocide, indiscriminate killing of civilians, US exploitation of British weakness... I hope I am not alone in deploring this site's and the media's in general obsession with WWII, Hitler et al. Real history (not contemporary studies) demands far more attention IMHO.
'Real History'??...you've picked a high horse to sit on there. Ask most teenagers about anything past last years X Factor and you may get a shock. The media appears'to go with the flow',the public see Braveheart you get six months of interest in that era.Presently we've had Saving Private Ryan,Thin Red Line, Pearl Harbour,Flags of My Fathers etc etc etc so an interest in WW2 is expected ....expect a sudden interest in real history with the release of The 300,but don't hold your breath on anything of value coming out of it.
Owain, No I agree with you. My own children's study of history is very two dimensional; Tudors and WW2. To be fair at GCSE and A-level they have looked at English Civil War and Louis XIV but compared to previous curricula the way history is taught in schools today is very shallow. The abiding media and Hollywood interest in WW2 is I think mainly to do with its seminal role in American history transforming them into today's superpower. They have no real history to speak of so they don't make films about it (much). I actually have nothing against WW2 other than believing that it does get a disproportionate amount of airtime on TV (at one point BBC's Timewatch was always about WW2), but I acknowlege that I am in a very small minority who would prefer to see more medieval or Roman stuff on TV. At least nowadays there is far more general history broadcast and 3 dedicated channels can never be a bad thing. Real historians read books about it anyway rather than relying upon the broadcast media!
Bretwalda What would your perfect curiculum be? My gripe was that when I was in school my local history and the history of my nation was not covered.Thankfully that has changed for the better.
My perfect curriculum eh? Before I try and answer let me say that this is obviously personal to me and in no way implies that it would be suitable for others; I'll try and keep it as impersonal as possible.
Curriculum should cover all a nation's history from an agreed starting point - when this should be is a whole debate in its own right! For us in the UK this is difficult as does this mean English history for me, Welsh for you (presumably?), Scottish for Warney600 etc? I personally feel slightly ashamed at my lack of in depth knowledge of Welsh and Scottish (and Irish) history, and I was lucky enough to read history at an (English) university. So I would very much like to see an inclusive UK curriculum in the belief that it is only by knowing our past that we can truly understand our present, where we have come from and what made us what we are. It would also I believe promote more tolerance between the various nations of the UK, although of course a bit of good natured banter and ribbing is to be welcomed! My course at university was based very much on English history from Anglo-Saxon times to WW2. British history was very much 2nd fiddle although there were various options to allow a bit of study of Celtic history but not much. I know more about French history than I do about Scottish for example - and what little I know of the famous Welshman whose name you have adopted is very much from an English perspective I suspect.
Within the curriculum I would allow for the study of local history, probably focussing upon the years sicne 1750 as I would argue that these have shaped and influenced our localities the most, partly becuase they are closest in time, but mainly becasue of the technological developments that have changed our lives and the countryside in which we live - the agrarian revolution, the industrial revolution, transport etc. But I agree with you that local history is woefully overlooked in the current curriculum.
Stress again this is just my personal views - if I could really personalise the curriculum I'd be doing medieval studies but also allowing for great European and World figures. Again I know zippo really about the history of the USA for example.
Interested to know what your ideal curriculum would be (and others too).
Some of the emphasis on WW2 may also arise because it was the first conflict to produce thousands of hours of newsreel footage which, with a voiceover from a D list actor, can be converted into thousands of hours of very cheap television.
Originally posted by Bretwalda:It would also I believe promote more tolerance between the various nations of the UK, although of course a bit of good natured banter and ribbing is to be welcomed!
Agreed
My own schools History lessons revolved around The Middle Ages and WW2.No Welsh or local history or anything post 1950....shocking realy. My children on the other hand benefit from a well balanced Welsh education,which is about as good as it gets. They can look out over the river valley where we live and tell you the basics of the local peoples who have dwelt in it since the Bronze Age and how they fitted into the big picture. Sadly re the media the bias of the likes of Schama and The BBC (known here as the EBC)have been given unquestioned power to corrupt the view of the masses,I personaly wouldn't let the likes of Crispin Swayne near a camera. Perhaps history is still being written by the victors,its just the vanquished have gotten streetwise.
Details please, how could the Western Allies have caused 2 million Russian deaths in 1945?
Are you saying that Russian casualties where higher than they needed to be because of the decision to allow the Russians to take Berlin, if so they were no where near 2 million, more like 90,000 dead.
just to set the record straight... not all teens are completely uninterested in history. i'm a 16 year old currently at secondary school studying GCSE history among other subjects. i find the past highly interesting and WW2 happens to be my favourite period of history. i look forward to A-level history when i shall be learning about nazi germany and several other subjects related to WW2!!
although i can see where you're coming from about teens maybe not being so interested in history, but i guess its each to their own!
Mysteriousminx, Welcome to the forum! And great to hear that you are so interested in history. I don't think that anyone has actually said that teens are not interested in history, just that what is taught in most schools nowadays tends to be very focused upon WW2, Hitler et al. Your post in fact maybe reinforces this (Although you do not say whether you are studying WW2 or just very interested in it). In one of my earlier posts I suggested that IMHO, there needs to be a far greater interest in what I (rather superciliously maybe) referred to as real history. By which I meant medieaval, or Roman, or Viking. But real history will of course mean different things to different people, as some of the other comments in this thread show.
One further point that occurs to me reading your thoughts is that you and other young people will of necessity have a differnt outlook on WW2 than people of my generation. I was born in 1958 and my parents were teenagers during the war, and their parents were actively involved or affected. My grandfather fought in the desert war for example and was away from his family for nearly 5 years. You will be more removed from this, although maybe your grandparents and great grandparetns were still involved; but time lessens the impact I suggest. Thus for you WW2 may well be a much better academic exercise than it is for me and those a bit older than me. I don't know if this is fair comment or not?
Anyway, best of luck with all your GCSEs. My son is doing A-level history this year and hopes to read the subject at university. He really enjoys his A-level course (17th century British history and 18th century European) so whatever you do, enjoy and goodluck!!
no we havent studied world war 2 at GCSE but we did in year 9.... but history is still compulsory then. at GCSE we study northern ireland, local history [history of our town], medicine and american west.
its quite a good mix i think. i enjoyed ireland as it sort of incorporates history with whats still going on now with the good friday agreement.
Great that you study local history, something that I wish we did in England (I take it you don't live in England?) And the American West sounds cool - wish I could have studied that back in the stone age when I was at school.....
Originally posted by Bretwalda: Mysteriousminx, Welcome to the forum! And great to hear that you are so interested in history. I don't think that anyone has actually said that teens are not interested in history, just that what is taught in most schools nowadays tends to be very focused upon WW2, Hitler et al. Your post in fact maybe reinforces this (Although you do not say whether you are studying WW2 or just very interested in it). In one of my earlier posts I suggested that IMHO, there needs to be a far greater interest in what I (rather superciliously maybe) referred to as real history. By which I meant medieaval, or Roman, or Viking. But real history will of course mean different things to different people, as some of the other comments in this thread show.
One further point that occurs to me reading your thoughts is that you and other young people will of necessity have a differnt outlook on WW2 than people of my generation. I was born in 1958 and my parents were teenagers during the war, and their parents were actively involved or affected. My grandfather fought in the desert war for example and was away from his family for nearly 5 years. You will be more removed from this, although maybe your grandparents and great grandparetns were still involved; but time lessens the impact I suggest. Thus for you WW2 may well be a much better academic exercise than it is for me and those a bit older than me. I don't know if this is fair comment or not?
Anyway, best of luck with all your GCSEs. My son is doing A-level history this year and hopes to read the subject at university. He really enjoys his A-level course (17th century British history and 18th century European) so whatever you do, enjoy and goodluck!!
My daughters doing A level History, but different syllabus - Italy and germany and Rise of fascism, then Nazi Germany and irish independence. Fortunately, her Archaeology A level gave some background to the island pre Roman occupation onwards.
