NationStates Jolt Archive

This is something that I have wondered about all my life but I never had a place to ask. I understand that modern germans are not at all Nazis, but I am curious as to how that portion of your nation's history is taught.

I'm guessing they'd have the kids of a similar age sit in a group in one room while someone who is employed to teach gives them brief lectures and activities.

I'm guessing they'd have the kids of a similar age sit in a group while someone who is employed to teach gives them brief lectures and activities.

Quote of the Day!

I'm guessing they'd have the kids of a similar age sit in a group in one room while someone who is employed to teach gives them brief lectures and activities.

Yes, that makes sense. :D But of course you realize that what I am asking is for an example of a lesson or something. Whatever. If no one feels like answering, that's fine. I understand how it's still a sensitive subject.

I'm guessing they'd have the kids of a similar age sit in a group in one room while someone who is employed to teach gives them brief lectures and activities.
Well, that is pretty much the way it is. How else do you think. This period of time (Weimar Republic, Third Reich) plays a big role in historic teachings - though it is of course not the only subject. German history after all doesn´t begin in 1933 and doesn´t end in 1945.
Though it gets a big role.
Aside of the information about the time and about how a - however destable - democracy ended in a dictatorship and what this dictatorship has done very detailled information is given about the development between 1933-1945. That also includes biographies of people who lived at those time (from Bonhoeffer, Scholl, Anne Frank, or (also) Hitler - after all it is important to know who he was and how he came to power). The policy towards minorities of course plays a role as well as the Holocaust. It is not only important to know about the Holocaust but the way which led to this development.
Visiting historic museums (like those of Anne Frank) and a concentration camp - mainly small once, the big onces are in Poland actually - also belongs to the subject.
I´ve however heard that in East Germany that doesn´t have such a big tradition. Most teachers were after all qualified in the old communists times. They use to portray national socialism as a form of capitalism. That is over now. However more needs to be done to inform about those issues in the East and to present it like in the west. The exchange of teachers and the qualifications of new teachers are leading to a process where that is happening. Though, more needs to be done in that respect.

I'm guessing they'd have the kids of a similar age sit in a group in one room while someone who is employed to teach gives them brief lectures and activities.
I imagine they use books as well.

And computers. And videos/ DVD's

If they are a modern classroom.

And computers. And videos/ DVD's
If they are a modern classroom.
That is not that usual. Germany doesn´t spend that much on education. It is mainly frontal instruction.
But that is a general question of teaching method.
Videos are occasinally used - or visits to museums for that matter.
Books are more used though.

I guess they do like they do here in Sweden, trying to centralize on that Hitler and his co-operatives were the rulers and did pretty much everything, the people's involvement were minimal. This is, of course, wrong, but since Sweden was a neutral ally to Germany they supported the German rule and let the Germans transport troops on our railroads we have to tone it down a bit, giving 99% of the lessons to Hitler.

I guess they do like they do here in Sweden, trying to centralize on that Hitler and his co-operatives were the rulers and did pretty much everything, the people's involvement were minimal. This is, of course, wrong, but since Sweden was a neutral ally to Germany they supported the German rule and let the Germans transport troops on our railroads we have to tone it down a bit, giving 99% of the lessons to Hitler.
No, not only to Hitler but also the other figures. But if you speak about peoples involvement what do you think? That all 75 million Germans and Austrians participated on it. Technically hardly possibly. Though that is of course a sensitive issue. How many people participated on it - and how they participated on it - is another question even historians disagree. The focus is rather on the things that happened, about the major leaders of the movement and about the development to a dictatorship.
I don´t think it can be argued that Sweden was an ally of Germany. It was neutral. That was the only thing Sweden could have done in order to avoid invasion. Sweden actually saved many jews (from Denmark) by granting them asylum.

Can't buy risk in Germany. Hard turn learn about the War and its attrocity from games that way.

That is not that usual. Germany doesn´t spend that much on education. It is mainly frontal instruction.
But that is a general question of teaching method.
Videos are occasinally used - or visits to museums for that matter.
Books are more used though.


Ah. We spent A LOT of time learning through videos. Except we never made it to a museum.

I'm just comparing this to how we learnt about Germany. I'm sure that they would teach it in Germany before they taught it here (final year of HS)

it was like this:
"the war started 1.9.39 with germanys attack on poland and ended 8.5.45. and there happened the holocaust. ...blah...jews...blah...auschwitz... " and so on. nothing about the war, only holocaust and jews for 3 month (if i remember right). annoying! or in german: zum kotzen!

I'm just comparing this to how we learnt about Germany. I'm sure that they would teach it in Germany before they taught it here (final year of HS)
I think it also partly depends on the school and even more on the state. In Germany education is a state issue. Any of the 16 states has its own plans - they should be equivalent but they not always are actually.
It is taught before - even at the begining of gymasium (6 or 7 th grade), but also at the end again (12 th grade). Though that my differ from school type to school type and from state to state a bit.
I can only speak about myself.
Aside of the fact that it is an issue in social and politic lessons (Federal Republic of Germany (founded in 1949) compared to the time before).
I have to admitt that we didn´t learn about so much about the national history of other countries though (except other European countries - all have influeced each other after (especially the French revolution plays a big role), especially non-European countries.
My historic knowledge about the United States mainly comes from my English. My English teacher was an American. But it is generally an issue for English lessons. After all: English is compulsory for 6 years.

it was like this:
"the war started 1.9.39 with germanys attack on poland and ended 8.5.45. and there happened the holocaust. ...blah...jews...blah...auschwitz... " and so on. nothing about the war, only holocaust and jews for 3 month (if i remember right). annoying! or in german: zum kotzen!
Obviously they did it right. Because that is the main issue. A victory of the Nazi regime would have caused more lifes than its defeat. It is in that sense unfortunate that the war lasted that long.
If you want to know more about the battles you can buy books or look into the internet. There is a lot information about that actually. But historic teaching is not military teaching. The major turning points are named (Stalingrad, North Africa, Italy, Normandy) in their historic context.
But questions of military history don´t and shouldn´t play a major role. People with private interests in that can do their own research after all. Or: they can study history and focus on that subject if they like. There is a lot of information available about that.

I think it also partly depends on the school and even more on the state. In Germany education is a state issue. Any of the 16 states has its own plans - they should be equivalent but they not always are actually.
It is taught before - even at the begining of gymasium (6 or 7 th grade), but also at the end again (12 th grade). Though that my differ from school type to school type and from state to state a bit.
I can only speak about myself.
Aside of the fact that it is an issue in social and politic lessons (Federal Republic of Germany (founded in 1949) compared to the time before).
I have to admitt that we didn´t learn about so much about the national history of other countries though (except other European countries - all have influeced each other after (especially the French revolution plays a big role), especially non-European countries.
My historic knowledge about the United States mainly comes from my English. My English teacher was an American. But it is generally an issue for English lessons. After all: English is compulsory for 6 years.

Last 2 years of HS, if you choose to do Modern History, you only learn about world history, and World War I.

The first 2 years of HS, it's all ancient history (ie Greece and Rome) Then everyone has to do 2 years of Australian History/Geography. That extends from 1901-today, 1901 being the year that the seperate colonies united into the Commonwealth of Australia.

Last 2 years of HS, if you choose to do Modern History, you only learn about world history, and World War I.
The first 2 years of HS, it's all ancient history (ie Greece and Rome) Then everyone has to do 2 years of Australian History/Geography. That extends from 1901-today, 1901 being the year that the seperate colonies united into the Commonwealth of Australia.
I don´t remember everything back of my old school days - though they weren´t that long ago. But the ancient cultures play a role (Egypt, Israel, Babylonians). And of course: Greece and Rome play a central role.
Without them European history can´t be explained.
Almost all European countries (except Britain and Ireland) have a Roman law system (and not a common law system). And from 800-1806 there was a thing called the Holy Roman Empire (though after reformation and the 30-year war (1618-48) it mainly existed on paper only).

And from 800-1806 there was a thing called the Holy Roman Empire (though after reformation and the 30-year war (1618-48) it mainly existed on paper only).

Incidentally, it is said about the Holy Roman Empire that it was neither Holy, Roman or an Empire...

Incidentally, it is said about the Holy Roman Empire that it was neither Holy, Roman or an Empire...
Well; I don´t think that any Empire can be called holy. Secondly the Roman Catholic Church played a major role.
And the Roman Catholic church played a central role in the last 2 centuries of the Roman Empire as well. There are some continuities in that respect. And Latin was the lingua franca of the Middle Age.
It was not related with the ancient Rome - it was a new era: the Middle Ages. But some aspects of the old system played a role. Well: it is like the Greeks and the Romans. It can´t be said that the Romans were Greeks but you it isn´t possible to think of Rome without influences by Greek culture.

Well; I don´t think that any Empire can be called holy. Secondly the Roman Catholic Church played a major role.
And the Roman Catholic church played a central role in the last 2 centuries of the Roman Empire as well. There are some continuities in that respect. And Latin was the lingua franca of the Middle Age.
It was not related with the ancient Rome - it was a new era: the Middle Ages. But some aspects of the old system played a role. Well: it is like the Greeks and the Romans. It can´t be said that the Romans were Greeks but you it isn´t possible to think of Rome without influences by Greek culture.

Drattit, missed the smiley, and it is rather veering off of the thread topic and all, but it is something that is said by scholars of the era of my acquanitance, though I suspect is based more upon the nadir of its existence when it was just an increasingly innappropriate title.

I've actually heard convincing evidence (first hand from one of the aforementioned scholars) that the Romans were essentially Celts. Or I might have misheard that.

Look, I'm not an expert, I'm half remembering what I've been told by others who are describable as so, but may have been cherry-picking facts out of context for my inexpert bemusement. This aint anything to do with Germans learning about the Holocaust, though, so forgive my butting in.

I´ve however heard that in East Germany that doesn´t have such a big tradition. Most teachers were after all qualified in the old communists times. They use to portray national socialism as a form of capitalism. That is over now.


From talking to East Germans (ie. those educated in the East German schools pre-1990) it seemed that there was quite a distinction made between East Germany and the German state that existed at the time of WWII - with the implication that West Germany carried most of the responsibility.


If you ever get a chance to look at old East German hsitory texts, take a look - they are very interesting (even if you can't read German, or can only get the vague sense of sentences like me) in the way they portray the capitalist western world - the Vietnam war and the civil rights movement in the US were given massive prominence, if only because they gave the chance to show unhappy American citizens being clubbed/shot/teargassed by the oppressive state machinery of the USA.

However more needs to be done to inform about those issues in the East and to present it like in the west. The exchange of teachers and the qualifications of new teachers are leading to a process where that is happening. Though, more needs to be done in that respect.

This assumes that the way the Holocaust is addressed in the west is correct (or at least better) than it was in East.

Incidentally, it is said about the Holy Roman Empire that it was neither Holy, Roman or an Empire...

Originally said by Voltaire, I believe.

I've actually heard convincing evidence (first hand from one of the aforementioned scholars) that the Romans were essentially Celts. Or I might have misheard that.
Look, I'm not an expert, I'm half remembering what I've been told by others who are describable as so, but may have been cherry-picking facts out of context for my inexpert bemusement.
I´m not an expert either. But the Etruscians are an interesting tribe, where we don´t know their origins either. The were at the early stage the rival of Rome, later it was Karthago - well, Rome used to tear down all of its rivals.
It may be related to other tribes in Italy (Italiker) and partly even to the Greeks (according to one legend with the Troyans- though that is just a legend. One thing is for shure. Their culture was influenced by the Greece.
Though the Romans also developed it further.
American culture isn´t the same as European culture. But it would not have been possible without the basis of European culture.
But we go to much off topic here.
At the end - after all - the Romans (new) also conquored Greece(old).

From talking to East Germans (ie. those educated in the East German schools pre-1990) it seemed that there was quite a distinction made between East Germany and the German state that existed at the time of WWII - with the implication that West Germany carried most of the responsibility.
If you ever get a chance to look at old East German hsitory texts, take a look - they are very interesting (even if you can't read German, or can only get the vague sense of sentences like me) in the way they portray the capitalist western world - the Vietnam war and the civil rights movement in the US were given massive prominence, if only because they gave the chance to show unhappy American citizens being clubbed/shot/teargassed by the oppressive state machinery of the USA..
That was what I was trying to say. They presented the Holocaust and national socialism as an extreme version of capitalism. In that sense West Germany and the US were the arch-enemies of "peaceful" communists East Germany. In respect to West Germany that propaganda didn´t work that much do. Nations are stronger than ideologies. I assume the same is the case in North Korea. When the South Korean president visited he was welcomed in the streets with applause. I think there is a genuine element in this case - not in the case of other state visits though. The same happened at the first state visit of a west german chancellor in East Germany in 1970.




This assumes that the way the Holocaust is addressed in the west is correct (or at least better) than it was in East.
I think so. It is not portrayed as a result of communism at least - which would be the opposite propaganda.
And it is presented as the result of nationalism, racism and anti-semitism which was fostered and pushed by a totalitarian dictatorship.

That was what I was trying to say. They presented the Holocaust and national socialism as an extreme version of capitalism. In that sense West Germany and the US were the arch-enemies of "peaceful" communists East Germany.

But it should be borne in mind that East Germany didn't teach its children 'you are living in a totalitarian regime' - I think it did note that the Holocaust was a result of totalitarianism. Beyond that I would just be moving off into ill-informed speculation.




I think so. It is not portrayed as a result of communism at least - which would be the opposite propaganda.

Not quite, it may have been taught that it was the result of a state-capitalist system*, which Germany was, while it clearly wasn't communist at the time.

And it is presented as the result of nationalism, racism and anti-semitism which was fostered an pushed by a totalitarian dictatorship.

Here I can actually relate some information: the way history was taught in East Germany did seek to emphasise the solidarity of the working class around the world, thus racism and to I believe to a lesser extent (due to the problems Marxism has with the Jewish community as a kind of state within a state) anti-semitism were challenged. Once again, beyond that I would just be speculating.





____________
* as was East Germany to a certain extent, but I assume that was glossed over.

But it should be born in mind that East Germany didn't teach its children 'you are living in a totalitarian regime' - I think it did note that the Holocaust was a result of totalitarianism. Beyond that I would just be moving off into ill-informed speculation.
I was speaking about West Germany (Federal Republic of Germany), you about East Germany (GDR - which is a part of the Federal Republic since 1990).
Of course the the communists didn´t present it as a result of a dictatorship. They were a dictatorship themself. That is indeed a problem up until today. West Germany was under a dictatorship from 1933-1945. That is long over.
East Germany was under a dictatorship from 1933-1989.
That is not so long ago.
One reason why there are more problems in the east. 20% of the people still vote the communists parties. Though you see the same phenomenon in Eastern Europe. And right-wing populists are successfull over there as well and sometimes also in East Germany.
There was a simular development in West Germany in the end of the 1960s. Though at the end things worked out and the extreme parties became irrelevant again.
We´ll see how things in East Germany play out. I think they´ll work out in the long-run.
Education is a key factor in that respect.

I was speaking about West Germany (Federal Republic of Germany), you about East Germany (GDR - which is a part of the Federal Republic since 1990).

Ah right, that wasn't immediately clear to me there.

Here I can actually relate some information: the way history was taught in East Germany did seek to emphasise the solidarity of the working class around the world, thus racism and to I believe to a lesser extent (due to the problems Marxism has with the Jewish community as a kind of state within a state) anti-semitism were challenged. Once again, beyond that I would just be speculating.
Anti-semitism was just called anti-zionism in East Germany. Under that umbrella it was OK. Generally spoken communism says that religion is evil anyway. I´m unaware that jewish communities (in the sense of practising the religion) even existed. Though they were atheist (of jewish decent) who played some role.
Historically the jews were actually affiliated with the communists (jewish bolshewism). It belonged to the propagnada of the 1920s and 1930s and early 1940s.
The communists were actually pointing at the fact that they were the main victims of the Nazis. The Soviets for example claimed in their "media" that most dead in the concentration camps were Soviet citizens. That was simply untrue. The fact that the Jews were the main victims wasn´t even mentioned in the USSR.
That was likely be the same in East Germany up until 1990.
That was however not the case in the west.
In the 1950s the totalitarism theory played a big role though- comparing Stalinism with national socialism.
Though later (1970s onward) the Holocaust became more and more a topic of its own.
So, the totalitarism theory lost importance.
But you can argue that it is gaining strength in the US currently - given the comparison: Saddam=Hitler.

The communists were actually pointing at the fact that they were the main victims of the Nazis.

Which given their bodycount in WWII is true under certain interpretations (ignoring the fact that some of the responsibility for the massive Soviet losses clearly rests on the Soviets themselves).

The Soviets for example claimed in their "media" that most dead in the concentration camps were Soviet citizens. That was simply untrue.

This could possibly be true if no distinction is drawn between POW camps and what we limit the definition of concentration camps to.

The fact that the Jews were the main victims wasn´t even mentioned in the USSR. That was likely be the same in East Germany up until 1990.

I don't believe that to have been the case in the East. Certainly if it was taught it wasn't widely accepted as true by those being taught even at the time, as far as discussions I've had with Easties went in the past.

Which given their bodycount in WWII is true under certain interpretations (ignoring the fact that some of the responsibility for the massive Soviet losses clearly rests on the Soviets themselves)..
Well, we have to distinguish between the war itself and war crimes. War always means bloodshed. That is inevitable.
And since World War II - especially in the East - was fought out the most ruthless way by all sides it is clear that they casualties were heavy - especially on the weaker side of that time.
Though we need to draw a line between victims of combat and victims of war crimes.



This could possibly be true if no distinction is drawn between POW camps and what we limit the definition of concentration camps to...
Even under this definition it is not true.




I don't believe that to have been the case in the East. Certainly if it was taught it wasn't widely accepted as true by those being taught even at the time, as far as discussions I've had with Easties went in the past.
Most people in East Germany know the historic facts. Though they are some uneducated people - little schooling - who have an incredible lack of knowledge of history. A minority? For shure, a minority. The people with little schooling. Well: around 20% probably. And in that field they need to be changes for shure to improve also the "Realschule", espcially those who have currently a bad quality of schooling. Otherwise those groups - also due of a lack of knowledge - may get more easily attracted by extreme right groups of today.

Even under this definition it is not true.

Yeah, the one source I have at hand gives 3 million as the figure for Soviet deaths in POW camps ...checked the net and got a figure of 2.5-4 millon.

Yeah, the one source I have at hand gives 3 million as the figure for Soviet deaths in POW camps ...checked the net and got a figure of 2.5-4 millon.
The number I think I remember was 2-2,5 million.
But regardless of that: That is a less than the six million Jews.
So: this claim by the Soviets can easily be shown as propaganda.

After all: making policy with history is a thing which is done quite often. Even the old Egyptians pharaos misrepresented history a bit. For example they built a monument in commemoration of a victory against the Hittitie (sp?). Though they haven´t won that war actually.

After all: making policy with history is a thing which is done quite often. Even the old Egyptians pharaos misrepresented history a bit. For example they built a monument in commemoration of a victory against the Hittitie (sp?). Though they haven´t won that war actually.

Well, there is no objective view, obviously.

(probably 'Hittite')

Well, there is no objective view, obviously.
(probably 'Hittite')
probably. Though there was a time they actually even controlled parts of Egypt.
But of course: that fact was left out in Egyptian official history. After all: the pharaos are unbeatable. The same is the case for all internal-egyptian conflicts. Most people even today think that ancient Egypt was a homogenous bloc which never had a civil war or major internal conflicts. That shows how efficient the Egyptian propaganda was that this view dominates even today - outside a few historians who researched that history.

I'm sorry, i just love the opening quote, "not all Germans are Nazis". I think the Nazi population in Germany is relatively low and will be approached if not equalled by the number of racist fuckers in other countries.


I dont think the history will vary that much from other European countries, when we studied Nazi Germany we looked at key figures, the rise to power of the Nazis post Weimar and their actions till the outbreak of the war. Personally i think that German students have some of the most potent aids to learning close at hand, i went to Sachsenhausen and i have to say it had a deep effect on me.