If I've understood American high school and undergraduate mythology about European history correctly, there were two main causes of WWII:

1. The harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

2. Appeasement of Nazi Germany by Britain and France (in an attempt to rectify German grievances).

Have I missed something?

We were also taught that the rise of Communism had a place there - Fascism was seen for far too long as the saviour of Europe.

However, I am neither American nor all that young, so you might not want to hear what was taught in Canadian schools thirty five years ago....

Actually, if I recall my high school history from about 12 years ago, we mostly glossed over the "causes" of WWII, and focused on why America got involved. Despite the fact that much ado was made about Pearl Harbor, I don't recall learning very much about Japan's initial involvement in WWII, and most of the underlying cause of WWII was simply put at the feet of Hitler. What caused WWII? Hitler was a bad man. Why did the US fight in WWII? The Japanese attacked us. After that, there was a fairly significant portion of the class devoted to US military engagements, and a bit of a glaring gloss over of the Enola Gay and Bocks Car, usually involving "American bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in early August, using two B-29 Superfortresses, and Japan surrendered just a week later." This is a bit of an improvement, actually, over the "We whupped 'em good" mentality of just a generation earlier. I didn't take much history in my short-lived college career, but that's what history was like in my high school classes.

It seems to me that if one takes the American 'college' version at face value and blames Versailles and appeasement for WWII, then the inescapalbe logic is to hold Britain and France responsible for WWII, even if somehow one also finds a small role for a funny little man with a moustache somewhere along the road. Of course, one of that funny little man's most ardent admirers said that "history is bunk". So, what the heck?

Something that always intrigues me is that people cling like desperadoes to their ignorance. The moment anyone suggests, however politely, that they may be mistaken, panic erupts, as they fear that their tiny little world is about to come crashing down about them. With relish they become slaves of their authoritarian personalities, unable to tolerate uncertainty or ambiguity. It's an amazing spectacle, and not entirely without entertainment value.

Bloomsby could you please provide a link that illustrates the American college version of World War Two? I`m not at all informed about their education system regarding that time in history and would be pleased if I could learn about it.

I'll do what I can. What I said above is based on what I gave seen as an FT editor for History and on correspondence with some quiz authors. I'll see what I can do to find out more, but it will take time.

I know only one American professor of modern history well enough to ask him personally, but I've imposed on him twice recently and he's very busy, and I'm not sure that he teaches at undergraduate level.

No worries at all thanks. It sounds pretty interesting.

I get some quite amazing things as an FT History editor. Some examples: I've had people saying that WWII lasted from 1941-45, and there was nothing to suggest that they were citizens of the former Soviet Union. I've been told at least twice that Britain's main role in WWII was 'to act as the launch-pad for the D-Day landings'. One QM added thoughtfully, 'It was kind of the English [sic] to let us [!] use their country for this'. But one of the best was having to deal with several angry correction notices to a quiz on WWI saying that Britain had entered the war becauss of Poland, not Belgium!

I hope these people weren't at Senior High School or college.

I'd actually never thought about this before but, in the first 12 years of my personal education here in the states, we were given history courses but always in the category of American History (and I was in college prep courses so I got the upper echelon of academic stuff that was available). World History was touched on, of course, but only as it applied to its affect on U.S. History. That stinks, doesn't it ? Is there really some undercurrent of thought over here that the only history worthy of our interest is just our own? Granted, there was a lot of fascinating American History but (at least in my school) it would seem we were robbed of the history beyond those boundaries for the most part. I'd never thought about that before. In college I was required to take only one history course and it was much more inclusive but it was only one quarter's worth of it. The educational system over here, while exceptional in many ways, is pretty flawed in some other significant ways, too, I reckon. It still flatly amazes me that there are still a frighteningly large sector of young people who are 100% convinced that The Holocaust is fiction here in America. Given that, I suppose it falls into place that so many other global facts are completely balled up in misdirections.
*And I won't say, not even in part, that the small rural school system I used is representative of all U.S. schools across the board...*

Being a Canadian we got tons and tons of American History.
I don't ever remember talking about the Holocaust or much European history.My History teacher in Hight School was drop dead Gorgeous so all the girls didnt learn much I am afraid.LOL LOL

These days kids in lower grades get little or no Canadian or American or European History.

They have things like Current events where they have to read the paper and bring in a article to discuss that day.

I feel so sorry for kids today as they know barely anything about the Country they live in.

I liked some History but always managed to pull 80's in all the exams.

Also I guess we got a lot of American History because you were a Country before anyone knew where Canada was.Lol lol.

PF

Quote:

---

It still flatly amazes me that there are still a frighteningly large sector of young people who are 100% convinced that The Holocaust is fiction here in America.

---

When you say that, I take it you mean that young Americans simply don't believe it - or do you mean that they are in some sense active Holocaust deniers who think that what they hear about it is the product some conspiracy or whatever?

I can't say what the source of this "information" they spew is ~ a certain cult of people just will not accept that such things occurred. BUT they're spot on that slavery/the US Civil War happened? Maybe it's just that, to many, Europe or Africa might just as well be the moon (which reminds me...these are the same folks who think that the moon landings were trumped up television specials and never really occurred either). Needless to say, I don't share a lot of conversation with such people. Not snobbery, mind you, but I'm just not in the business of "un-learning" and cynicism can quickly become very unattractive. In my opinion, anyway.

Thanks for putting that in context. So, if I've understood the situation correctly, it's a childish way of trying to be wordly wise and not usually a form of anti-semitism: people are trying to say that they 'aren't easily fooled' and the like.

Ok Gats and I are in the same year I bet...I'm going to admit that I never had a World History class in all my years of school until I was in college.

Even then, it didn't really touch on much.

I read many novels and accounts of WWII on my own though, so I think I probably assimilated lots of information and viewpoints in this way.

In the small town Canadian school my kids went to, they learned a lot of Canadian history, including (which I really liked) local history -that is, our little town - names, dates, the big fire of 1912, and so on.

In my schooldays most of us were disappointed to be told that History 'stopped' in 1919, with the Treaty of Versailles. We were advised to find out about 'current affairs' for ourselves.

What's more, extending History to include WWI and Versailles was considered a huge concession made purely in the light of the exceptional importance of WWI.

I was very skeptical of our History master's claim that we were too close to WWII to study it objectively. A few weeks later I happened to find an old school textbook, published in the early 1920s that tried to deal with WWI and ranted for page after page about the 'Prussian Spirit' and the unspeakable evils of 'Kultur'.

Quote:

---

Actually, if I recall my high school history from about 12 years ago, we mostly glossed over the "causes" of WWII, and focused on why America got involved.

---

Well I had high school history, let's see...about six years ago now. (We studied WW2 mainly in 10th grade I seem to recall) and our focus was strongly on the Holocaust. We even had our history studies tied in with our English class which was reading Elie Wiesel's "Night"
We didn't go too heavily into WW2's impact on America.

I do recall very strongly though, the explination given to my history class as to the beginning of WW1. We had a student teacher at the time and he staged a dramatic recreation of the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand by that group of terrorists and sp?(Gavronzo Prinzip????).

Ah, so an obsessive dose of 'Gavrilo Princip and all that' and then the Holocaust.

I remember from my own school days that we did a very long 'survey course' of the period c. 1688-1920. It included British and European History and also - much more superficially - the History of the British Empire. Oops, I am beginning to reveal my age. We paused to look in greater depth at the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions and at Parliamentary Reform in 1832.

I found the course and even more, the teaching, served me well.

Here are links to the kind of thing that prompted my orginal question:

http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/FAQ/1822

http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/FAQ/461


In some ways it's a desperately would-be post-modern site. Though it's based on the 'wiki' principle, the editors treat nearly all answers as equally valid 'opinions'.

Hmm...I've just finished college, so it hasn't been that long since I finished high school either--only four years. In my high school we did have world history but we never got enough time to spend on many subjects because we had to start with pre-history.

However, in U.S. History we did talk about WWII, and as our teacher taught it to us...WWII kind of resulted because Hitler came to power and started violating the Treaty of Versailles and no one did anything about it--not just Britain and France, but the U.S. didn't do anything either because they isolated themselves after WWI. At least that is how it was explained to us.

I've always been curious as to how history is taught in other parts of the world. I know that ours has to be very focused on America--so do other countries focus on themselves as much as we do?

I think that almost everywhere there's quite a strong focus on the history of the country where the school is. After all, in the 19th century one of the key functions of historical research and historiography (writing history) in Europe and America (and elsewhere) wasn't just uncovering documents and other evidence from the past: underpinning and inventing patriotic and later nationalistic myths was a key part of the job, too!