How much about WWII did you learn in high school classes?

[elperromagico]

It occurred to me a few days ago that I learned next-to-nothing about WWII in high school. I've talked to other people and they had the same experience.

In fact, I've taken all my required college history classes and I still haven't learned much about WWII. The same applies to the Great Depression, WWI, Vietnam, and Korea. Whatever I know, I learned on my own.

Did you have the same experience? Why is it like that? Why are so many of the most defining events of the 20th century given such short shrift in school?

[happyslug]

1. I always joked our History Classes ended with the Civil War

That way their could avoid the whole raise of the Labor Movement in the late 1800s.

[elperromagico]

2. Ignoring the recent past is a mistake.

Perhaps if more people knew about Vietnam, they wouldn't have been so eager to roll on Iraq.

[jdj]

7. I know I sure as hell didn't learn much american history, re: the labor

movement. At 36 I heard the term "wobblies" for the first time in my life this year, and saw a doc about them and what happened to them.

Thank God for my high school civics teacher Toby Friedman. She taught us the real deal about the holocaust, so that year we had a brief interlude with reality before indulging in jingoism from there on out til graduation.

[imenja]

25. You needed to take the second half of the US survey

Schools always divide American history surveys in two parts. The dividing line is either the Civil War or Reconstruction. You just didn't take the second half.

[imenja]

26. self delete

delete, dupe

[happyslug]

30. I did, but it still ended in the Civil War

I was in an old coal mining area and the local Schools just wanted to avoid the whole issue of Labor, so they made sure the two parts where run by the same teacher who discussed the 13 colonies, the Settlement of the West and the Civil War and by the time we had covered all of that the last couple of week covered everything from the Civil War to Vietnam.

Once you enter the Post-Civil War era you have serious disputes as to interpretation of history, interpretation that affects how we view the US and ourselves today. My School just avoided the whole era by concentrating on the earlier non-controversial times (Yes they were controversy in the pre-Civil War era but MOST did not continue into the 1960s like the post Civil War Controversies did).

Most schools do NOT want any problems with any controversies and this is how they handled the problems of America since the Civil War. You and I may not like it but it solved a problem for the School.

[imenja]

41. you are referring to high school?

Very few of us learn history in high school. We learn trivia and national mythology. Your only chance for learning history is college.

The topics you discuss are taught at all, or virtually all, colleges in America, and nothing is seen as especially controversial about them. Historiographical disputes exist in the pre-Civil War era too. They exist for every field of history.

If you are referring to college, I'm sorry to hear that you must attend a very poor one. I'm surprised such a school could pass accreditation. In fact, I imagine it has failed SACs assessments. We've been told we need to hire someone who teaches African history. I can't imagine if no one taught post-Civil War US. We have seven historians teaching such courses. And our university is far from prestigious. Major departments will have twenty or more.

[happyslug]

42. This thread started out as a topic on HIGH SCHOOL TAUGHT HISTORY

And I am staying with that Topic. In College they did divide up history into two parts Pre-Reconstruction and Post Civil War (To leave Reconstructions as the overlap) but that topic is HIGH SCHOOL HISTORY not College taught history.

It is from the Reconstruction era that problems regarding race, labor and industrization comes into being and thus what makes it controversal.

[imenja]

43. I realize that

though the OP also talked about not having learning WWII in college. High school history is a joke, nearly everywhere. I learned post Civil War history. I learned about Hula-hoops and the Ballad of Bridie Murphy. I learned the most absurd sort of mythology about our nation. At a Catholic school I attended, I had one very good history teacher who taught us Native American history and Chinese history. I remember reading Mao tse tung. I used to carry around his little red book, if you can believe if. All of that ended when I transfered to public school. That is where I learned the absurdities I pointed to above. Except for that one teacher,
I hated history in high school. It was only in college that I realized I loved it. High school and college history are not in the same stratosphere.

The pre-Civil war era, of course, encounters the problem of slavery and the causes of the Civil War itself. Lots of Southerners still like to pretend it had nothing to do with slavery. High schools manage to gloss over nearly everything of importance. Their text books have to pass committees. Most of those textbooks are designed and approved in Texas. I could tell stories about friends of mine in grad school who consulted on such books, but it would take to long. Suffice it to say that high school history tends toward the pathetic.

[happyslug]

48. I learned to love History while in Grade School

I had started the Fourth Grade and my sister had started College and she had a beautifully written set of books in World History. The first volume ended with the death of Louis XIV in 1715 and the other began with the end of the 30 Years War in 1648 (Like US history this has become the normal split in world history studies, giving equal weight to post 1648 history as to history before 1689. Thus the study of the Industrial Revolution starts 1/2 of your study of history. On the surface sounds unequal, but like American History's split of Reconstruction, most of the problems of the Modern World can be traced to things that occurred after 1648 and thus have more influence on people living today than what happened in Ancient Greece. Like Pre-Civil War American History, pre-1648 History is important to people living today, but as things recede into time they have less and less affect on people living today.

I had the classic adolescent male fascination with Military History but during High School (and again NOT from School) drifted into technology and political history. i.e. why did things change AND how do people work together. How people do and did things AND how people learn to live, do live and did live together have more influence on people today than who took what country in what century.

[imenja]

49. that's great

I'm sure that knowledge helps you a great deal. I believe that learning history is invaluable to evaluating current political developments. I understand nearly everything in terms of its historical context. When I explain a position in a post, I often point to historical parallels. People sometimes accuse me of being off topic when I do so. I strongly disagree. History is entirely relevant to contemporary political and cultural problems.

[happyslug]

51. Comment on WWII

My problem with most studies of WWII is that it ignores WWI. WWII is easy to show, Hitler Mussolini and Tojo were "bad" men and had to be defeated. You may have some mention of HOW these people obtained power in their Countries and you may hear how the problems of the 1920s lead to the raise of Hitler, Stalin and Tojo in the late 1920s and early 1930s (Mussolini is a Product of the early 1920s). There may be some connection with the problems of the 1920s with WWI. There may be some connection with how WWI ended and you will see some talk of HOW WWI was fought but almost no talk of what caused WWI. You will read of the Arms Race, but now why an Arms Race, Why did France fear Germany? Germany had defeated France in 1870 but than withdrew and afterward Germany had no Territorial demands on France, thus why did France Fear Germany? Even if Germany did attack France what would Germany Gain? IT is not mentioned.

Britain's Arms Race with Germany is always referred to as Britain's need to keep the largest Navy in the World. The Kaiser built his fleet, but it was short range Battleships unlike the longer range British Ships. Such a Fleet was restricted to the North Sea so how did it really threaten British control of the Seas? Furthermore why did the Kaiser build his Fleet? It is generally written off as a play toy for the Kaiser but why was it funded given the traditional Prussian value of the Army First?

One of the reason for this is that Marx's observation was the affect of the decrease in the margin of productivity increase (i.e. as any industry expands, at first you have tremendous increases in Productivity, but sooner or later that huge increase in Productivity drops, you thus have increase productivity but at smaller and smaller increases of productivity). With the Decline is the increase in Productivity you have a drop in profits. With this drop in profits the Middle Class starts to demand the same profit margins they are use to and people start to cheat to obtain these profit margins (Sound s like today doesn't it???). With the cheating comes militarization as you try to steal other people's wealth (and you also suppress your own workers to squeeze more money out of them for the Middle Class).

I have studied other reasons for WWI (Including general insanity which has a ring of truth to it) but Marx's observation is the most feasible. You have to many people in the Middle Class who did NOT want to take a cut in profits and wanted to maintain those profits even if it meant war. Once you read Marx's comment on militarization of Middle Class dominated Society because of the above WWI makes sense. From a history teacher's point of view than you have to address the rest of Marx's dogma i.e. Communisms (a topic history Teacher know is the Kiss of Death).

No I am NOT a Communist, I strongly believe failing companies must be permitted to fail. I thus can not support what became Marxism/Leninism's/Stalinism (And Marxism to take power has to become Leninism which evolves naturally into Stalinism and than rule of bureaucrats and than the Kleptocracy of the 1990 Russia). Marx was not much at setting up what will replace modern Capitalism but he was an observant historian to see HOW societies evolve over time and where a decrease in the production of wealth would lead to war by the Middle Class (i.e. the 10-20% of the population with real money as opposed to the 70% woe are working class stiffs). I believe we are in a similar situation with that of Europe in 1900-1914 but it is the US who is trying to avoid a reduction in its increase of wealth.

My point here is WWI is not studied for if the above if you study the above you are exposing young kids to Marx and showing him to be right in one aspect of his writings. Many people fear this for if Marx is right as to what happens as the increase in Productivity drops than people can also see that his proposed solution to the problem (Communism) may also be the only solution. To school districts this is unacceptable and thus to avoid it both WWII and WWI are avoided.

People tend to forget how contention was the times between 1890s and 1920. Things became worse and worse till 1914 when war broke out in Europe. This was terrible for Europe, Europe never recovered from WWI till the 1950s, while the US boomed during WWI and the 1920s that followed WWI. It was only in the late 1920s did the US join Europe in the Depression and in WWII the US again GAINED at the expense of Europe. By 1945 1/2 of the world's wealth was in the US, something that had NEVER happened to any country before. Now Europe and Japan made up a lot of this by 1970 but it is only with the 1970 do you see a decline in the US in real terms as we see decline in the increase in productivity of both automobiles and now Computers. We are in the same boat we were in in 1900. In 1914 it lead to war and depression till the 1950s when the "new" invention of improved roads and Computers saw a tremendous increase in productivity. Like 1900, we are over the biggest increase in Productivity do to these two inventions and you are seeing the same economic pressures that were building up in 1890-1914.

[Lisa]

59. depends on the country, too ...

I think that Canada tends to focus more on WWI more than the US does, because we were in it for longer, and it's presented as "the war that shaped our nation" (the US has the Revolutionary War, and even the Civil War, for that -- we didn't have anything of equivalent size or complexity, aside from the Plains of Abraham!). I believe Canada and Britain suffered more casualties per capita in WWI than in WWII, so it casts a long shadow. The thought of a single battle claiming more than a million lives!

I remember that in elementary school and in high school, whenever November approached, the students would be learning about the Armistice -- making poppies, memorizing WWI poems, being sent to pester elderly relatives for reminiscences. My friends' kids tell me that they still decorate the place with poppies and have school assemblies that mention it, even though there are hardly any WWI vets left for school visits so they read books and watch videos instead.

[happyslug]

66. That is about right for Canada

I have read vast amount of history, not just American history. As to Canada, Canada has had a problem since the American Revolution. As the only part of British North America that England held onto in 1783 it had a troubled history of being separate from the US. this is complicated by the fact that while Montreal was under US occupation in 1775-1776 the US raised three regiments out of Canada, and these units continued to fight with the US Army till Yorktown (Through by that date the units had been combined into one regiment).

Now these were French Canadians serving in the US Army during the revolution. The French Canadians of the time period preferred to be ruled from Philadelphia than London but also had accepted that fact that North America was one country the geography (the great Lakes and the Mississippi river Valley) all prevents real natural borders. The Appalachians are to low to be a real border and the while the Rockies could be a border, the passes through those mountains have NOT been something the could act alone a border (unlike the Deserts of the American Southwest that tends to separate Mexico from the US).

As to "Canadian nationalism" the French Speaking Canada had the whole history of New France Era to fall back but English Speaking Canada had a problem. After the Revolution American Tories ended up in Canada but these tended to be the ruling class and large land owners not the run of the mill farmers. After the Revolution America went into its worse depression till the Great Depression of the 1930s. People lost homes and property. The Poor were told to go to the Frontier to get a new start. New England (Which the British concede at the Time of the Revolution was 90% for the Revolution) tended to head straight west. The British looking for Settlers in right is now Ontario offered free or low cost lands to anyone who wanted to Settle in Ontario no questions asked. A lot of new Englanders who had fought at Bunker Hill settled in Ontario and than keep quiet of which side they fought on in the Revolution (Remember while the farmers were New Englanders and thus opposed the king in 1775, the leadership of right in now Ontario had supported the King in 1775).

Thus the American Revolution can not be used to "unite" these two historical fractions in Canada. In the War of 1812 the US ended up invading Ontario. People forget the reason for the War of 1812 was NOT the seizures of American Seamen by British Warship (That was the excuse, New England OPPOSED the war of 1812 and it was providing the vast majority of American Seamen of the time period). The reason for the War, and the reason every Congressmen west of the Appalachians voted for the War was to kill Tecumseh. He had rallied the American Indians of right is now Ohio, Indians, Michigan and Illinois into a fairly strong Indians Confederacy. The Whites west of the Appalachians feared this Confederacy and demanded war to destroy it (and that meant killing Tecumseh).

The war did NOT start out right for the US, some attack on Canada was done but failed and worse the British forced the US out of Fort Detroit. This did not last long for while the Canadian Militia (made up of sons of people who fought at bunker Hill but lead by people who supported the Crown) could be used to impress the Americans as to the numbers on the Side of the British, in any actual fighting the Militia could not decide to fight for their king or their Country (and their viewed their Country as America not Canada). Thus when the US did invade Canada the US troops learned to ignored the Canadian Militia and concentrate on the Indians under Tecumseh and the British Regulars.

After the battle of Moravian-town (or the battle of the Thames both names are used) Tecumseh was dead and the reason for the War was over. Now the problem was Tecumseh was killed in the middle of an invasion that continued after his death. The tactical target had been right is now Toronto Canada but that had been the Tactical target not the strategic target of the war. i.e. invading Ontario and Toronto was a means to force Tecumseh to battle NOT a target in itself. The problem was the means was still going forward when the purpose of the means was gone.

They is some debate in American circles (and British war gamers who do this campaign) did an American Army reach Toronto? An American Army had defeated Tecumseh but with his death the purpose of that Army ended. The Commanders continued the Campaign but more and more of the American Militia left (Some left to visit relatives who were living in Ontario for New Englanders had also settled along the American side of the Great lakes in addition to Ontario. Other Militia just went home, they viewed their job as being done (This was the problem with Militia, once the main problem is no more they tend to break up back into the individuals the militia tended to be made up from).

Anyway the American Commanders did reach Toronto with what they called "Troops". The US invasion force had had very few Regulars in it in the first place and with the death of Tecumseh discipline over the Militia that made up most of the Invasion force had broken down completely (Thus the debate was it an army or an armed drunken mob). Anyway Toronto was burned (Probably in a drunken stupor of the troops) and than the Army went back home (With no records of the Army ever really crossing the border. The Few Regulars in the invasion force did cross back to the US but we have almost no records of how most of the Militiamen crossed back over.

Some Canadians have tried to used this invasion for some Canadian Nationalism but it tends to fail given the terrible showing of the Canadian militia (With the American Militia outdoing them only when it come sot Toronto).

Given the terrible record of the Canadian Militia during the War of 1812 London decided it needed to keep tight control over Canada. This policy continued (Even during the problems Canada had in the 1830s during the next bad depression in the US which spread to Canada). The next step in Canadian Independence is the American Civil War.

During the US Civil War England backed the American South. England not only provided Guns to the South, England provided ships and even some Volunteers for the South. On the other hand Canada seems to have backed the North in the Fight. Now once fighting started England decided it had to reform the Canadian Defense system in case England did join the South in the Civil War and the North would than invade Canada. Given the history of 1814 and the 1830s London did NOT trust the old fashioned universal militia Canada had used since 1814. London did two reforms, one in 1862 another in 1864, the purpose of both reforms was to convert the old fashion Militia into a modes Reserved Army system. The excuse given was to improve the training of the Militia (and to provide them pay) but the reason was to convert the Militia from a universal Militia that would reflect the attitude of the people of Canada to a Reserve System whose members are more loyal to their paymasters in London than Canada (Remember we are talking about 1860s).

Now American records report one set of numbers of Canadians that served in the US Army during the Civil war. Canadian historians tend to site much lower numbers (To keep the Numbers of Canadians in the US Army below the Number of Canadians in the Canadian Militia). this debate has raged on since the US Civil War, but the best arguments have been made by the British war gamers. British War Gamers tend to want very realistic situation in their War games. They do not want to hear what an Army might have been, or could have been, or even legally was, but what was the Army. These guys are fanatics on the subject of the armies their are war gaming. When the British War gamers look at the numbers they tend to accept the Canadians argument that the America's numbers are to precise for the time period to be accurate but than reject the Canadians numbers as to low. The British war gamers tend to the American Numbers, not always as high as the Americans claim but much higher than what Canadians tend to what to accept. Basically the British War Gamers after they look over the records and reports (Including British Army reports of the Time period on the Canadian Militia) believe more Canadians were serving with the Union Army between 1861 and 1865 than were active in the Canadian Militia during the same time period.

Thus Canada has found it uncomfortable to talk about the 1860s. Furthermore while Canada was given Dominion Status in 1867 that appears more to be London's acknowledgment that with the end of the US Civil War the US could take Canada anytime the US wanted it. London was looking for any method to tie Canada to London AND give the US NO reason to invade Canada. This was finalized in 1905 when Canada adopted the Dollar as its currency drooping the Pound sterling system (Prior to 1971 American and Canadian Dollars were interchangeable but kept on each side of the border, since 1971 the value has fluctuate).

My point of this long paper is to show that until WWI, Canada had a problem distinguishing itself from the America. It was a separate political entity, but not a separate Country. A Country is more than its government (Look at the Cold War East and West Germany, people on both sides of the Berlin war viewed themselves as one country but with two different Government, the same with Korea to this day). Thus Canada is America and has been since at least 1763 when Wolfe took Quebec.

On the other hand Canada has been an Independent Political entity for that entire period. Till WWI Canada was tied in with Britain but even London conceded the US could take Canada any time the US wanted to after 1865. Canada has to much shared history with the US to be a truly independent nation from the US, at the same time it is an independent political entity and as such entitled to all the respect an independent Country deserves.

WWI is the first time Canada fought alongside America in a War (As stated above Canadian have served in the US Army in every war since the Revolution). The same occurred in WWII and Korea (and 50,000 Canadians volunteer to Vietnam, about the same numbers of Americans who escaped the draft by going to Canada). Canadians have served in the US Military since Vietnam (My sister knew a Canadian who had served in the US Navy and only revealed he was a Canadian when he applied for the illegal alien amnesty of the 1970s). This pattern has continued to this day.

Please note the American South is a different animal than the rest of America and has been since Colonial Days. The Differences between Canada and the US excluding the South are almost impossible to find. The high Crime rate of the US is from the American South, The US crime rate Excluding the South, is almost the same as Canada or Europe. It is the South that you have the largest number of Religious fundamentalist. It is the south that under funds its Schools and Courts but back up the use of Military force (and it is the South that is most extreme on opposing Gun Control). What most liberals hate about America is mostly concentrated in the the American South and has been since colonial times. Why this is so has not been truly explored but seems to be tied in with Slavery (In Colonial and pre-Civil war Days) and race relations since the Civil war (Till WWII the vast majority of blacks still lived in the American South, in the same areas where their ancestors had been slaves). I bring up the American South in case you decide to reject what I wrote about Canada based on what I said in this Paragraph. The South is FAR more different from the rest of American, than the rest of America is different from Canada. The rest of America has to tolerate the South for the Mississippi River flows through the South connecting the American Mid-west with the rest of the World. Thus America has to include the South, with all of its faults.

[democracyindanger]

3. Nothing

But I learned a helluva lot about Vietnam. Cheers, Mr. Sweeney, wherever you are.

[xmas74]

4. My grandfather taught me more about WWII

than I ever could have learned in a classroom.
And then his few stories that he would tell inspired me to read more.

[Borgnine]

5. That's what the History Channel is for.

According to them, nothing happened outside of roughly 1935-1945.

[elperromagico]

10. The History Channel also teaches that a lot of weapons have been invented.

It's a valuable lesson.

If I ever get mugged, I'll be able to identify the make and model of gun and give a brief history of its use before the mugger takes my wallet.

[tjwash]

20. Yeah but they also have "Mail Call"

oo-rah

[JohnKleeb]

12. to be fair they have other stuff too

[Borgnine]

13. True.

I can also learn about the history of bridges and weaponry.

I guess I'm just an ancient history buff.

[JohnKleeb]

17. if you have history international, they have occassional ancient history

I hate history channel's UFO crap myself and Saddam and Osama stuff.

[happyslug]

31. The Channel my niece calls "World War bore"

To much concentration on WWII (I Know there is a lot of documentaries and film on WWII, much more than on earlier conflicts i.e. not much film has come down from the Revolution). And it is boring, even when they go into controversies it tends to be boring even with quite controversy topics.

[amjucsc]

54. It appeals to a certain personality type

And by personality type I probably mean guys...
I'm a military history buff, and even I get tired off WWII 24/7, so I can't imagine what it's like for someone who finds the whole subject dull.

Oh, and out of curiosity, did you go to UC Santa Cruz?

[happyslug]

56. The furthest west I have even been was Texas.

I always joked a spent 2-3 life times in Texas for two years. I lived in Corpus Christi Texas for about two years between Undergraduate School (Robert Morris College) and Pitt Law School. I once went with my sisters to Laredo just to cross the border and see a little (very little) of old Mexico.

So unless I have discover someway to be in two places at once I did not go to UC Santa Cruz.

I should say I did like Austin and its River Walk but I am not a Beach person so the Texas beaches were lost on me. I did get on a boat and went into the channel but I was living with my older sister and she could get sea sick looking at a glass of water (and she served four years in the Navy). On the other hand Corpus Christi was NOT my favorite place to live, I missed my Mountains. I know the Appalachians are "Small" compared to the Western Mountains but my family has been in these Mountains for at least 500 years (I have Native American Blood In me) so I am attached to them.

[amjucsc]

57. The school mascot of UC Santa Cruz is a banana slug, hence my hunch...

(and yes I am an alumnus of that school)

Out of curiosity, what does your screenname refer to?

[happyslug]

60. Many years ago......

Many years ago I was camping with my than pre-teenage sister. She was in the Girl Scouts and since we were camping she was giving "Indian" names to everyone. It was early morning and I was outside the tent in my shinny black sleeping bag, and she pointed out to me "A Slug" (referring to the shinny black sleeping bad I was in). I replied "Good but I am warm and happy" and she replied "Oh a Happyslug".

Every other member of my family received a similar "Indian" name but all forgotten even before the end of the Camping trip but since I continued to use that shinny black sleeping bag not only for that trip but subsequent trips "Happyslug" just took hold.

[Robeson]

6. Everything I learned about WW II, I learned myself...

[Huckebein the Raven]

8. I learned a lot more about WWII in college and on the History Channel

than in high school. I took a class focusing on Nazi Germany a year or 2 ago that was very good. I don't remember if we covered WWII in the World History class I took in High School

:shrug:

[cynatnite]

18. I took

Worthless...I mean World History in high school. It was a worthless class to me and I breezed through it. I barely cracked open a book in that class and got an A.

When I think about high school, it didn't really do that much for me academically. College and my own love of reading is where I did the most learning.

[JohnKleeb]

9. little, I know most of what I know through READING

and I agree with your accessment exactly.

[AndyP]

11. I had just the opposite experience

My sophamore year we had a modern European history class where we learned butt-loads (that's a lot) about WWII. Even in college we learned a lot about WWII, just from the US side. Guess I was lucky.

[elperromagico]

16. I am familiar with the term "butt-load."

:D

[cynatnite]

14. Not much

I remember them spending a lot of time on 18th and 19th centuries, but little was spent on WWII. I didn't really know all that much until I started reading for myself and in college.

This is truly sad. Rather than just regular History classes, they should also offer 20th century History as it's own course.

My daughter is a freshman in high school and since she's been in school here in TN, they have yet to discuss Martin Luther King at all. She only knows of him by what's said on TV and what I've told her.

[lenidog]

15. To put it bluntly

I never learned shit about WWII or anything else in the 20th Century. For that matter history or as they like to call it social studies is the bastard child of school curricula. I went to a supposedly good school and what I learned in history class was pathetic. My girlfriend who is a very intelligent woman told me once that she never realized how little history they taught her in school till she started dating me. (BA and finishing my MA in history.)

[realisticphish]

19. we learned about the Holocaust in TAG

(Talented And Gifted) in 6th grade. We printed out 11 million zeros (to represent all the lives lost) and covered the walls near our classroom with it. It hits you really hard when you see it laid out like that

[babylonsister]

21. I'm going into my 50th year. Anne Frank was my first

experience. I wanted to read it, a neighbor with a lot of books was into lending, but when I picked "The Diary of Ann Frank," she had to consult my mom. My mom was all for reading anything and everything, and I will always appreciate that.

Edit/PS: I got to read that and more, I learned about
'sex', too; less my mom had to elaborate. That is also true. :)

[tjwash]

22. I was always too stoned in high school to pay attention.

That's probably why I joined the Navy four days after I got out.

[babylonsister]

23. You sound like my brother, in a good way!

And he retired from the CG! Now he's a cop; he got over it! But his nickname used to be Smokey, Stoney, ??? Dang, been there done that!

[ashmanonar]

24. i fortunately took a ww1 ww2 class in high school.

part of the history department. it was an excellent class, our teacher was interesting.

and i had other teachers who would often just go off subject and talk about random shit. it was fun!

[imenja]

27. Very few people learn history in high school

They learn trivia that poses for history. Didn't you take a post-Civil War or Reconstruction history class in college? I was a TA for US history throughout graduate school, and we always covered World War II. Depending on the prof, we might not cover much military history, but everyone focuses on the causes and consequences of the war, the war on the home front: women in the workforce, etc....

Books on World War II (Nazis in particular) are the number one selling books in US History. The Civil War is second. People love their wars. I don't do military history myself and I refuse to teach it.

[MrSlayer]

28. Some but nowhere near as much as from my grandfathers and brother.

They give you the most basic synopsis of the war in High School but do not go into great detail. My paternal grandfather fought for Germany and my maternal grandfather fought for America in WWII. So I got a different perspective from each. My brother is a master historian who focuses on World War II so I have all my questions answered at need. Basically, to answer your original question, not much.

[ffm172]

29. I learned a lot about WWII

and the Third Reich. But then, I do live in Germany and of course that is a topic, that is a MUST in schools. I think my history classes throughout my school years were pretty solid. We learned a lot and not only German history. I remember one class where we learned about American history.

[AlCzervik]

32. not a lot, i learned the most from Dad and grandfather and also

pbs used to have a show call "The world at War" back when i was in grammer school, that was a wealth of information, i wish they still showed that program.

[Historic NY]

33. I am mostly self-taught...but it was covered when I was in school

just the basics. We spent more time with European history, which I found more of a bore. While in HS I was one a few select students that got to research history project and write lengthy papers. We were able to choose topics that were later developed into class lessons plans. I was interested in WWI & WWII since I knew many people who took part in them. My father rarely talked of his experiences in the Pacific when we were growing up, as did most Vets of that era. I find those Sunday morning Veteran experiences interviews on the History channel fascinating.

I am a rabid reader of American history and actually have several WWI projects in the hopper. I have primary focus in Revolutionary War history but with my job as a historian I have to cover many facets, some people don't even think of. Locally I'm the go to guy if someone needs a lead or a source, come to think of it with the Internet sometimes I get a bit more than I can handle.

A few years back I discovered that during the CW many states started a Bureau of Statistics. They collected biographical info on soldiers to aid in determining service for pensions purposes. It was designed to avoid confusion & delays in determining who should received them. A local paper at the time would published these little gems about those who served. So far I have collected upwards of 600 or so which I've now indexed and reprinted. It involves reading a lot of newspapers but I also have been blessed to find some were reprinted in the 1902-06 period. Sadly all the original info collected by my state is long gone. I equate them to ones we still see in our local papers on who is in the service, who left boot camp, who is stationed where, etc. Just with the ones I've done so far I've probably received more than 500+ inquiries and most people have been absolutely dumbfounded with the details, they never knew.

For me history is not only fun but interesting.

[BiggJawn]

34. A LOT. and not just in history class.

We had an art teacher who was at the Battle of the Bulge. Shop teacher was in the Pacific on a cruiser.

Almost ALL my teachers were "Children of The Depression".

why don't they teach these topics today?

Because they're not on "The TEST" that the State uses to decide how much they're not going to fund education each year.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

35. BiggJawn, you've hit the nail on the head

about these stupid tests that the states use.

As well, almost all of my teachers were "Children of the Depression" and became adults during WWII, as were my parents and all my aunts and uncles. Nothing like talking to people who lived through those experiences to get a historical perspective.

It's happening to me right now because I grew up during Viet Nam and Watergate and a lot of my friend's children are asking me about my experiences.

It's all about the "dumbing down" of the people of the USA...

[Reverend_Smitty]

40. I agree...

I was in high school fairly recently and I don't really remember learning much about the Vietnam era until my senior year. Not because it was in the curriculum but because my government teacher had two tours as a Marine squad leader. He told us stories he couldn't tell to his family and it was stuff that wasn't in any text book.

The problem is there aren't enough teachers that do this, too many have been caught up/forced to teach to these stupid tests. Which prove nothing other than you can fill in a circle. I've found through experience that history classes suffer most from this trend, because it is not on any state tests...the material is often brushed off to the side

[Stop_the_War]

36. Never taught me anything past the Civil War......

I learned the rest on my own.

[Lisabtrucking]

37. I was only taught to hide under a desk if this certain bell rang.

Thinking about this question, your right it was never discussed. I learned about it 20 years later when I started reading about the Holocaust and reading D-Day by Stephen Ambrose. What a war!

[LisaM]

38. Lots - but then again

my dad was the American history teacher. I do remember once he was grading a multiple choice test for students (after I'd graduated) who were evidently learning NOTHING in his class. He looked up at us and said, "did you realize that Woodrow Wilson was hung upside down by his heels and stoned by an angry mob?" The student had mixed up Mussolini and Wilson on a multiple choice test, though I'm not sure "mixed up" is the right term.

[kick-ass-bob]

39. next to nothing.

we spend so long on the Babylonians (or whoever) that we always had to rush through the recent (and most pertinent) history.

[maveric]

44. We learned more about the Spanish American War than WWII.

Just,US Good, Hitler and Japan bad, We Won!

[jswordy]

45. Um, I think a guy name HITLER was involved... (scratching head

[likesmountains 52]

46. I learned a lot..we were assigned to be either Axis or Allies

and spent the better part of a semester researching battles, moving troops around, dealing with supply shortages...no battles wins were predetermined...we had to win or lose on our own. It was great because we also learned geography and even had spies trying to find out what the other side was doing. That was 35 years ago and I still remember how much we all looked forward to that class. Looks like I was one of the lucky few.

[NewJeffCT]

47. I think with my US history class...

We kind of stopped right after WW2 and did not get into modern era stuff like Korea, Vietnam, the civil rights movement, Watergate, etc (I was in high school from 81-85)

US History was my junior year, but I think we had general history the first 2 years and that teacher was my favorite of all time (Mr. Huffstetler, a good liberal.. I remember him saying that LBJ's War on Poverty was working, but was undone by Vietnam. I still have to research if that was true or not)

[Zuni]

50. good news for you

it was! LBJ's poverty program worked marvelously at first. In four years, he cut the poverty rate in the US from 23% to 12%. Medicaid and Medicare offered better health care to seniors and the poor. Vietnam and Republicans undermined it steadily for years and then said it was a miserable failure.

[amjucsc]

52. I'm not sure we ever got to it in HS

I had very good teachers, but they all tended to start from the beginning, and by the time they got to anything remotely modern the year was over.

[CanuckAmok]

53. I'm pretty sure we won, IIRC. But I graduated in '84, so it's fuzzy. n/t

[UncleSepp]

55. Not a damn thing - they taught it but none of it was news

[Lisa]

58. I'm just old enough to have had teachers who were IN the war ...

One woman used to talk about her experiences living in London, during the Blitz, and nearly being killed by enemy bombs several times. We used to play a game, to see if we could get her to talk about the War instead of covering the set curriculum topics ... the joke was on us though, because we learned a lot of things from her that just weren't in the textbooks.

She told us about what it was like to live under rationing and blackout restrictions -- and have a sweetheart who was in the service, and not know if you'd ever see him again. (I later learned that he was a linguistics expert with the OSS, doing some top-secret things that he wasn't allowed to talk about, even decades after.)

And then there were my neighbours. One woman was in the Hitler Youth as a little girl, and told some pretty graphic stories about what life was like in Austria, in the 1930s and 40s. Watching a country slip into fascism wasn't just a bunch of political essays in a book for her -- she saw it happen.

And my family -- my mom and dad both experienced the Japanese internment camps (although they were born in North America). So I guess I had quite a lot of real-life history to draw on from the period in question! I started to realize that these events affected people all over the world -- people I knew -- and I could learn about terrible things that were done but also see that the "enemy" included real human beings who were frightened and confused. (I know that some of the historical commentators, particularly in earlier years, focused on military leaders etc. and thought that this other way of seeing history was ineffectual or even subversive ... so in retrospect, maybe it's just as well that my school system didn't force history through as either indoctrination or a "guess the right answer" rote quiz show.)

[happyslug]

61. I have some of the letters my father mailed home

He had mailed to them to his aunt (who took him in when he was a teenager) and returned to him upon her death. They were all photos of the actual letters he wrote. What the Army would do is white out things in the letter than take a picture of the letter so you could not see what had been whited out. It was this photo of the letter that arrived back home. We were reading one and the letter had a blank in the middle it read something like "Went up to --------, and was bombed by the Germans". If I remember right it was Bristol but the name was whited out for the US did not want the Germans to know that they were US Infantry that could take a pass and get to Bristol (My Father was 29th Infantry Division, the only US Division in England in 1942, you had Air Corp people but his was the only Army Division in England at that time).

I also have the newspaper of his wounding reported in his local newspaper. He was in an National Guard Unit so his wounding was front page news in his local Newspaper (and he was wounded outside St Lo during the Normandy Invasion, a time of high US losses). After he was wounded he was evacuate to England and than shipped back home. Once back home he was sent to a hospital in Florida for further treatment. Do to the newspaper Article everyone in his home town knew he was back home and the parents of his best friend found out he was in Florida so they took the train down to see him. Their son had died a few weeks before my father was wounded and they wanted to know how he died for the War Department only told them he had died. My Father first knew they were coming when their entered the hospital floor he was on (His injury was to his dominate hand, thus he could walk away, he just had to learn to use his non-dominate hand for various actions).

Anyway he saw them enter the Hospital and they went to talk to him. They asked if he was there when their son died and he said yes. They than asked how their son died and my father told them it had been quick. That made them happier (They were still sad about the lost of their son but being told he had died quick with no pain eased their minds).

The sad part was i know how their son died, my father had nightmare about it for at least 30 years later. When he was drunk he was drunk he would mention it. His best friend had had two pins from phosphoresce Grenades gets pulled from him, setting off the phosphoresce and burning him up alive. My father said he smelled burning flesh for a week afterward. A medic told him maybe he could have saved the guy if he had thrown him into the Cesspool pool that was next to them when the grenades went off. He took that to heart, you could see that he thought it was do to his fault that his friend had died. If he had just throw him into the Cesspool pool.

As I said I heard that story when I was growing up (But only when he was just a beer or two from passing out). After I went to collage and went on a camping trip with him he went into one of his black moods that would bring on these stories. He started to say the same old story again, as long trained children we kept saying "yes Dad" while barely listening to him but when he got around to the story of the Medic both my sister (An Engineer) and I told him that phosphoresce burns even under water and thus as soon as those pins were pulled he was dead, and they was nothing he could have done to prevent that death. Afterward he went into these moods less and less. He no longer had to look inward to question was it his fault that person died, he know knew it was NOT. My father had done everything he could have done to save his friend but his friend was dead as soon as those pins were pulled.

This is a problem with a lot of war vets, what they regret more than anything else is they perceived failures when it came to their comrades. They trained together for years and than they die and you think if you did something else you would have saved them. That was my father's problem and until he accepted he did everything he could have to save hid fellow soldiers he had regrets about it. War is rough not only on the people who die but on the people who survive it.

[Lisa]

64. how awful for your Dad ...

I agree with you and your sister about the grenades -- even if he'd been flung into the water, that soldier would have been horribly burned (and probably your Dad would have been burned too). And the wounds would likely have gotten infected, from all the sewage in the water. (My mom trained as a nurse in the 1940s, and they didn't have many of the drugs they have now -- she worked on people coming home from the war, and she saw first-hand how dangerous infections like that were.) So your dad and his friend might both have died, in that situation. I think the fact that he agonized over it for so long after shows what a good person he was -- wanting to believe he could have stopped a random and terrible death like that.

[happyslug]

68. It was worse, My father was right next to him

And was trying to take off his friends web gear that the grenades were still attached to as they burned his friend alive. That is what I believed upset my father, he thought for years he should have just threw my friend into the cesspool instead of trying to take off the web gear. As you pointed out it really did not matter, as soon as those pins were gone he was dead. War is not nice and should be avoided.

I once told someone WWI was an attempt to teach us poor Humans to fear war and to avoid it if possible, WWII was to teach us that there is a greater fear than war it is the fear of War. To go to war on a whim is folly, but so is to avoid war at all costs. Sometime you HAVE to go to war, but if you do make sure it is for a VERY GOOD REASON not just to control a natural resource (i.e. Bush's oil war).

[Nikia]

62. Some in the required history class

At our school, the first half of American history was taught in 8th grade and the second half was taught in 11th grade. I also took an elective class in contemporary history. The teacher showed a lot of war documentaries. It started with WW2 and we were required to write a few research reports, including one on WW2. I wrote about diplomacy before the war and how Western Europeans were fools to not think that Hitler wanted to take over all of Europe.

[dsc]

63. Virtually nothing

Like most schools we simply ran out of time. Now many districts split the course into two years (before the Civil War, Civil War and after). I think that helps immensely.

[solinvictus]

65. Very little..concerning Russia/USSR

It was never even mentioned that the USSR had a part in winning the war, until I was a teenager I always thought the war was us and the UK against Japan, Germany, and Italy. Russia played no part.

[Seabiscuit]

67. Not enough.

I learned a whole lot more about it in college.

[yvr girl]

69. I learned a lot of WWII in high school

But then I'm Canadian, so that might be the difference.

We covered it in grade 10 as a part of Canadian history. Grade 12 was 20th century history, so the war was a large part of it.