[D Letouzey]

First, 2 direct questions :

. What do you think of this seminar which has started last wednesday ?

. What place has French history in your curriculum ?

In this message, I shall develop one aspect which has been debated on the education forum :
Are we teaching nationalist or nationalistic histories ?
Can we teach an unbias european history ?
Is it better to focus on bilateral relationships, let say between France and Britain, or can we reach a common continental (or world) history ?

In a next message, I will develop the WW1 example, from a recent historiography book, written by Jay Winter and Antoine Prost.


In France, the British and british history can be seen from opposite views.

One leading to anglophilia :
At school, most kids are studying English, and may learn elements of english history and culture.
2004 is the anniversary of the Entente cordiale :
http://www.entente-c...org/index1.html
http://www.esri.salf...on_europe.shtml

Some pupils have been to England though it seems sometimes easier to organise school exchanges with Spain, Germany, Sweden.


On the other side, nationalists can find elements for a new anglophobia, or francophobia.
Joan of Arc, Napoleon have been used in this purpose.
In recent months, our countries have had divergent policies about Bush 's war.
The future of Europe is another source of division : French thatcherians use Bruxelles to fight what they see as a decline due to a state ruled society.


In some places, you can have both feelings.

People in Le Havre still think that there was no serious military reason to bomb their city, kill people and destroy a harbour. Some may even see in this bombing a pure economic rivalry.

On the other hand, 2 reverse examples :
in 1942, more than one thousand men and women attended a mass for british pilots that have been shot dead by the Germans. These villagers had no trouble. 2 years later, in 1944, near Bayeux, an equivalent ceremony led some villagers to prison and to german camps.

This morning, at home, there were 2 english couples, coming from the Fens (they live close to Andrew).
One of their uncle, Arthur Papworth, was killed in August 1944 ; he is buried in the village cemetery (not in a war cemetery), and the local authority pay a gardener to "flower" the tomb. At this moment, it is all in yellow, with daffodils, one of the colours of his regiment. The local school is named after him.



In French lycees, what can we teach about British history ?

- Nearly nothing before the Renaissance.
Of course, the Normans may be part of the chapter on medieval history, but only about Sicily, not about England. Roger II or William II ruling Sicily are used to show the interest of mixing different cultures ..
The Norman heritage : http://www.norman-wo...terre/index.htm

So we may find Thomas More in some textbooks. But not Elisabeth 's portraits.
http://expositions.b.../arret/d2/1.htm

-« La nation anglaise est la seule de la terre qui soit parvenue à régler le pouvoir des rois en leur résistant, et qui d'efforts en efforts, ait enfin établi ce gouvernement sage où le prince, tout-puissant pour faire du bien, a les mains liées pour faire du mal ; où les seigneurs sont grands sans insolence et sans vassaux, et où le peuple partage le gouvernement sans confusion ».
- Voltaire, in the Letters on the English (1734), had an active role in this anglomania of the elites.
http://www.voltaire....re_english.html
In college, the Habeas Corpus is used in contrast with Louis XIV and the French monarchy.


But we have to focus mainly on the French revolution.
Not on the Revolution, but on this revolution seen through the « political experiments » on the way to democracy !!!


In the old days, we spent time on the industrial revolution, on its explanations, and on the comparison between France and England. That has changed, and we focus more on the second industrial revolution, where other countries can compete with England
http://aphgcaen.free...que/histeco.htm

No British troops in WW1, in scientific classes : we have to study « The French at war during WW1 »...
http://aphgcaen.free...ences/prost.htm

Churchill is still there, with his fight for freedom. So does the courage of the British people in a war we recently saw in a color documentary.

But Vichy 's propaganda did develop an opposite view, about Mers el Khebir, about bombing on French cities, like Rouen. There was a poster saying « les assassins reviennent toujours sur les lieux de leur crime », with Joan of Arc 'shadow.
http://www.centremic...g/galleriea.htm
(go to the Italy poster, move right to Rouen 's one)

Some teachers may also compare French and British decolonisations : French failed, and made war in Indochina and in Algeria. British left India before the 1947 killing...

I shall let aside the Middle East history, in 1917 or in 1947.


In fact, the positive side is that we try to avoid nationalist POV :
Michel Foucher, a geographer, writes that until 1949, we had a Westphalian Europe where several nations or countries did fight to rule the continent, or the world (via the Oceans).
That after WW2, most of them have become middle-size powers, and that they have understood that they must built a united Europe, both to avoid the return of WW, and to be able to compete with the USA.
http://www.bibliomon...3?id_auteur=693


One difficulty, to conclude : we no longer teach history alone, but we are asked to built a European identity, as our predecessors did about national identities. Sometimes, we put together history and memory. That can be dangerous.

So Remy Brague, a French philosopher, may suggest one answer.
The European inheritage is not only what we have got from our ancestors, but what we choose in our genealogy : greek culture and democracy, roman law, renaissance, industrial revolution, The rights of man...
http://aphgcaen.free.../europe2000.htm
http://odur.let.rug..../ROM/rofm04.htm
Daniel

This post has been edited by D Letouzey: 26 March 2004 - 02:14 PM

[Dan Moorhouse]

D Letouzey, on Mar 21 2004, 07:10 PM, said:

What place has French history in your curriculum ?

There are a number of opportunities to incorporate French history into the teaching of History in England.

In my own department:

Years 7-9 (Aged 11-14)

The Normans, obviously. Building on that we look at the way that Medieval Kings tried to maintain and expand the frontier. Not particularly in depth as we also include relations with Wales and Scotland in a few hours teaching but there are plenty of references to the French lands that formed the Angevin Empire - I tie this in with the Hundred years war if I get time.

The French Revolution - this is an optional part of our curriculum. I spend 4 or 5 hours covering the revolution in Year 9 (13 years old). We then move on to look at revolutionariy activity and uprisings in the UK.

The First World War - we look at Verdun alongside the Somme and with more able groups begin to analyse the reasons for Verdun being so significant to the French.

Second World War - I spend a lot of time on D Day and the Battle of Normandy as its a personal favourite of mine.

France, as with other major powers, is covered in lessons on the role of the UN and EU.

Years 10/11 (Aged 14-16)

We study Medicine through Time so we study anywhere that there has been a major development in medical practice. Fairly high on the list are the likes of Pasteur and Pare. There's an element of evaluation of French society involved, particularly looking at the level of support French scientists get when compared to competitors.

The study of Weimar Germany looks at French policy towards Germany in the aftermath of the First World War.

The nature of the National Curriculum in England (which covers pupils up to the age of 14) is such that its hard to include many detailed studies of other nations. We have 6 major areas to teach in 3 years, one of which has to be a European event / civilisation (pre 1914). The most popular choices for this are The Romans and the French Revolution. One unit is a non European unit and the remaining 4 are basically 1066-today split into quarters: with British history being the focus.

This is probably one of the weaknesses of our system at the moment. Pupils can stop studying History at 14 in England having never learnt about the culture, heritage or beliefs that underpin the societies of some of our closest neighbours.

NB: having just written that little list of things, I've realised that I actually cover French history MORE than I do German history at Key Stage 3 (years 7-9). That came as quite a surprise...

[JP Raud Dugal]

Dan Moorhouse, on Mar 21 2004, 09:58 PM, said:

The French Revolution - this is an optional part of our curriculum. I spend 4 or 5 hours covering the revolution in Year 9 (13 years old).

How do you teach the French Revolution? In a chronological way?

We are asked not to do so. In fact, the most important issue in the French's new curriculum is to show that the French Revolution did not finished untill 1879... France during this period is being considered as a 'melting' of autoritarism and democracy.
In fact, for me, as a 'young teacher', it's making sense. I recalled myself that period when I was a student as a total mess. Quite difficult to understand in a chronolical way.

Heritages are numerous: every political regime improved more or less these heritages.
Napoleon is just an event and not seen anymore as a period in itself. We don't have to talk about the battles but Code Civil, etc etc.

Even the Restauration era (1814-1830) did not mean back to absolutism. Louis XVIII and Charles X were obliged to recognise some of the heritages of the first revoltuion and when the former tried to forget that he faced the 1830 revolution (les trois glorieuses)
The role of the revolutions (1830, 1848, 1871 [la Commune]) can be considered as a quest to a new sort of political organisation and are deeply studied in our lessons in Quatrième (14-15 YO) as well as in Seconde (15-16) and in Première.

Jean Philippe

[JP Raud Dugal]

Dan Moorhouse, on Mar 21 2004, 09:58 PM, said:

We then move on to look at revolutionariy activity and uprisings in the UK.

What are the uprisings in the UK at that time? Sorry I don't know much about this period in the UK.

[Dan Moorhouse]

JP Raud Dugal, on Mar 21 2004, 11:33 PM, said:

Dan Moorhouse, on Mar 21 2004, 09:58 PM, said:

We then move on to look at revolutionariy activity and uprisings in the UK.

What are the uprisings in the UK at that time? Sorry I don't know much about this period in the UK.

There were a number of political movements at the time that could have turned revolutionary: in the eyes of some leaders at the time. The 18th/19th centuries saw the Chartist Movement, The Luddites, The Rebecca Riots , The Swing Riots and The Cato Street Consipracy. One of the things I ask my students to consider is what the similarities and differences between France and the UK were at the time, leading into an evaluation of the liklihood of revolution in the Uk and an assessment of the reasons why it didn't happen.

In answer to the question about how I teach the French Revolution:

I've gone for a group based research project approach to it in the past based on the critical skills approach. Pupils work in groups and have a range of areas that they have to explore. Last year students created extensive booklets on the causes, cause and consequences of the revolution. The better ones included references to historical interpretations of events etc.

This post has been edited by Dan Moorhouse: 22 March 2004 - 12:32 PM

[JP Raud Dugal]

Thank you for this precisions. I will have a look to this periods.


In France, we study the English Revolution (Habeas Corpus and Bill of Rights of the 18°C).

Then, we pay attention to the enlightement era with mainly french thinkers but some can be german or english (Europe into our curriculum everywhere!) and we move on finally with the american revolution.

We explain that these revolutions are the very basis of the French one. In Quatrième (13-14yo) we can explain that the society wanted some changes but in Seconde it's quite impossible.

Jean Philippe

[UlrikeSchuhFricke]

So far the seminar has concentrated on the Anglo-French relationship and how or if it is a vital subject in history lessons in France.
I read through the curriculum you teach in the different grades and have found out that in Germany we nearly follow the same: Greek, the Romans, the Middle Ages in our year 7 (kids are 12/13) in year 8 we teach Renaissance, the Reformation in Europe (but focus is on Germany and Martin Luther; the specific German way into a federal system with a weak centre(Emperor) and strong dukes and princes which eventually lead to Germany still being a fedral system), followed by abolutism - the French role model - and then of course the French Revolution as the example of a bourgeois revoltuion, then we move back to Germany and the early 19th century and the failed German revolution of 1848. In the years 7 and 8 we have two lessons per week, in year 9 we only have one lesson. The main topics here are the Industrial Revolution - here the British way serves as a role model - German unity and the Kaiserreich (1871-1918). imperialism - all European countries and the USA are dealt with here - and finally the causes of World War I and its result; in year 10 we once again have two lessons per week and expected to cover the rest of history from the Weimar Republic till today. That's a rough survey of the curriculum in the year 7 to 10.
France and Franco-German relations understandably play an important role in our history lessons as we share quite a lot of history and both countries were at each other's throat fairly often.
The way France is portayed in our history books is ambivalent. As I said before we analyse the absolute system by having a closer look at Louis XIV and the system he established and which was imitated by many European princes and kings. We pay special attention to the French Revolution which is seen as the perfect example of a successful revolution and which is used to develop certain models of describing why and how revolutions begin, why or when they can be successful and also if a very radical phase (Terreur) is necessary to bring about and consolidate the changes. Still today our attitude towards Napoleon and his policy is ambivalent: on the one hand he is seen as someone who brought some progress to the still fairly backward German countries and who brought some of the French liberties and rights to the territories he occupied or which joined him (mainly the German countries along the Rhine which benefited from his influence); on the other hand he is seen and decribed as someone who occupied and exploited German territory who suppressed any opposition against him and who tried to force the ideals of the French Revolution on Germany. But reluctantly even those who are anti-Napoleon have to accept that without him important changes e.g. in Prussia would not have been possible due to the intransigence of the Prussian King.
The next focus then is Bismarck and German unity which was achieved in the course of three wars, the last one the war of 1870/71 which ended with the defeat and humiliation of France and the German Emperor being crowned/proclaimed in Versailles - in 1918/1919 history comes full circle you could say by signing the peace treaty ending World War I in Versailles and making the German delegates tasting their own historic medicine. The history books now are rather critical of the Bismarck area, they show how Bismarck's foreign policy aimed at isolating France at all costs and that it definitey was no policy aiming at everlasting peace. War was never far away. With the benefit of the hindsight the history books clearly show that the harsh French attitude towards Germany after World War I has its origin in the way Germany treated France before and the French fear of a strong and hostile Germany is understandable. When dealing with the Weimar Republic France is never far away: 1923 France occupies the Ruhr area and then Locarno and the attempt to reconcile the two nations and the end of this process when the Nazis came to power.
Dealing with Nazi Germany we concentrate on our national history very much and do not say much about the development in other European countries. Talking about foreign policy in the 30's our history books are more concerned with Britain and Appeasement policy.
After 1945 France is once again seen as the occupying power which is the most reluctant to hand back at least some political power to the Germans in her zone; once again the textbooks try to make the students see and understand the reasons for the French attitude.
In Politics, Geography and History we then move on to the history of uniting Europe with the German-French partnership at the core of this process.
The general message I think our history books want to convey is that countries which have been enemies for centuries can find a way to build a lasting partnership and from an alliance. The further west you move in Germany the more the influence of France is felt and accepted.
We also have bilingual schools in which subjects like History, Geography, Politics etc. are taught in English. I teach at one of these schools. In Lower Saxony the language of choice always is English; the language of coice in bilingual educations in the areas along the Rhine, Saar etc. very often is English and the bilingual program as such began with schools teaching subjects like the ones mentioned in French.
It is difficult to decribe what we do in our Sixth Form as we are in the middel of a major shake-up of our curriculum and it is fairly late and I am tired (might explain the spelling and grammar mistakes).
If you are interested I can tall you something about how to become a Grammar school teacher in Germany tomorrow.
Good night
Ulrike

This post has been edited by UlrikeSchuhFricke: 23 March 2004 - 01:08 PM

[Andrew Field]

Just a quick word to say how marvellously interesting this is - thank you to all those involved. There are lots of people reading this and gaining a new pespective on how topics are taught. I certainly am.

[JP Raud Dugal]

Sorry Ulrike. We did not mention the special links we have in our curriculum with Germany. It's a very interesting pov as far as I'm concerned.

We have a lot in common in our curriculum with yours.
Germany is quite present in most of our courses.

It's quite late then I take just one thought if my brain can work (and I will come back tomorrow if you don't mind...)

I think that we faced the same orientations in our curriculums that is to say that the European Unity is present everywhere in them.

You talked about German Unity and the way Bismark era today is being considered in a more negative way than previously. It shows that our will is to built a very strong core within the EU.
Even if I'm slow, I understood that Bismark is, in a way responsible for the Versailles treaty because of the Francfurt's one in 1871.
By this way, Germany is saying that they are to shame for the first world war. We must not forget that France was humiliated not only by the 1871's treaty but also because its will to enlight the world, its feeling of being much more civilised than all the countries have been interupted by this war.

But, one thing is sure. Birsmark tried to isolate France and one of its main consequences is the 'Cordiale Entente' between France and the UK one century ago!

I will try tomorrow to throw some bridges between all our curriculums on some issues if you want to.

If I make some misinterpretation please tell (nobody is perfect )

Jean Philippe

[D Letouzey]

Enormous thanks to Ulrike for his message and the multiple issues we shall have to discuss : what links between the history we teach and history as a social science ? what relations between national identities and a more global history...

I am busy correcting a mock exam : I have already read that Petain and Hitler did shake hand at Rethondes , and that european trade was flourishing in 1943, in a Europe dominated by a "Grande Allemagne"

I shall try to follow Ulrike and Jean-Philippe 's threads this evening.

For French readers,
Givors sous les bombes (Evelyne Py, Memoire-Net) :
http://www.memoire-n...?id_rubrique=83
http://www.memoire-n...?id_rubrique=83

Le Havre : http://lehavre.1944.free.fr/2bomb.htm


Just one remark : we have a franco-german TV (Arte), since Mitterrand and Kohl,
but, in english, only american telefilms...
http://www.arte-tv.c...me/fr/home.html

Daniel

This post has been edited by D Letouzey: 23 March 2004 - 12:24 PM

[UlrikeSchuhFricke]

I think analysing the way the relationship between France and Germany have been described in our history books and how this description have changed show very clearly that how we teach history and what we teach, which perspective we have and teach is strongly influenced by the political changes, sitaution and atmosphere. When Germany was still dreaming of becoming a superpower once again Bismarck was the hero to turn to.(An aside: I am not quite sure if we have given up this dream completely; I still hear Mr. Schroeder demanding a permanent seat in the Security Council) As I said before today German history between 1864-1914 is seen differently; Bismarck still is praised for uniting Germany but we question the way how this was done.
The question who or what was responsible for World War I is still a highly controversial one among historians ( a book written and published in the 1960's which stated and proved how much Germany was responsible for the beginning of this war and how the German government, army and economy had been preparing themselves and the people for this war raised a huge outcry and triggered a debate which is still going on); the modern German history books follow the British books listing the various factors and causes which led to the beginning of the war. The question of who or what is to blame is left open.
The Versailles Treaty is seen as a "bad" or unsuitable treaty which was inspired more by revenge than creating peace although we stress the point that it is necessary to remember the year 1871 and how Germany humiliated France to understand the French motives in 1919.
Post-War (world War II) relations between the two countries are seen as examples that countries who had been firmly entrenched enemies for centuries can become partners, friends and form the basis of a functioning partnership.
That France and Germany formed a strong alliance against the Iraq war and were both branded "old Europe" by Mr. Rumsfeld once again proved how close both nations are. Despite this German Grammar school students who have to learn a second foreign language tend to avoid learning French and prefer Spanish which is perceived as the easier language. To counter this the education boards of the German Laender decided to make the students start the second language one year earlier: in year 5 kids start learning English; from summer on they will begin the second foreign language (mostly French) in year 6 and will be given the option to start learning a third foreign language in year 8 or 9.

[D Letouzey]

I think WW1 is a good case study after Ulrike 's analysis on history and national identities.

From what I have seen in english textbooks, the teaching of the history of WW1 has a wider place in England than in France. We have no Poppies on November 11th. Nevertheless, this year, future French teachers have to study « Les sociétés, la guerre et la paix, 1911-1946 ». In fact, they study mainly WW1 and its role in the XXth history, and in the XXth horrors. http://hgtice.free.f.../1418biblio.htm

A recent book from Antoine Prost and Jay Winter ,
Penser la Grande Guerre, Un essai d'historiographie is very helpful.
I have published online the French summary :
http://aphgcaen.free...es/penser14.htm

Antoine Prost and Jay Winter see 3 different generations of historians :

- until 1935, many politicians and generals published their memoirs. Pacifism was strong in France and in Britain. In history, the main focus was political, diplomatic, military.
For this first group, WW1 should have closed the wars between nations in Europe.
But the SDN was a failure. The real change came only in 1949, the beginning of the European project.

- Around 1964 (50e anniversary), the need for memory was still strong. In 1959, 3 veterans published « Vie et Mort des Français » during the war. Their book was a big success.
In 1961, Fischer follow a theme studied by Pierre Renouvin in "Les origines immédiates de la guerre (1925) : who was responsible for the outburst of the war ?
All this was summoned in Les Causes de la premiere guerre mondiale : essai d'historiographie (1973).

But after WW2 experience, WW1 seems a more european than world conflict (except for Canadians, Australians, NZ, South Africans...
The Ecole des Annales had a leading role, with the ambition of a « global history », une histoire totale. Economic and social historians studied mainly the rank and file soldiers in the trenches, the mutinies (Guy Pedroncini), the war economy... sometimes from a marxist POV.

- In 1992-1994, new questions aroused.
On one hand, the Cold War was over ; Eastern Europe look westwards, where Maastricht was discussed. But War and violence were back in Sarajevo, 80 years after 1914.
On the other hand, since 1980, the history of the Holocaust has had a greater place.
All this interacted with the need for a more global European history.

Several young historians choose to write a cultural history of WW1. They use George L Mosse 's books as a reference about brutalisation, war culture, mourning... For them, the WW1 soldiers volunteer, and not only in Kitchener 's army between 1914 and 1916.
Annette Becker and Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau thought that it was now necessary to "14-18. Retrouver la guerre" : for them, all the previous books missed the real understanding of WW1.
Part of their work was linked with the opening of Peronne Historial.
http://www.historial.org/us/home_b.htm
(in this addesss, us stands for the entry in english )

Some historians are reluctant with this POV. One of them, General Bach have studied archives about « Fusillés pour l'exemple ». Soldiers were sentenced to death in 1914 and 1915, in the French army. Not only in 1917, after the failure of Nivelle 's offensive, and the outburst of mutinies in the French army.
This book, and a TV documentary meet <span style='color:purple'>Stanley Kubrick 's Paths of Glory, which was undirectly censored in France from 1957 to 1975 : too many veterans,
a diplomatic protest...
This year, I have shown 3 short sequences : the assault, the military tribunal, the last sequence with the young german girl facing the soldiers.</span>
http://www.cndp.fr/t...er_fusilles.htm
http://www.geocities...dwell/Path.html
http://www.cndp.fr/t...er_sentiers.htm

I have invited Antoine Prost in Caen, last january, for a conference on La Grande Guerre : Armées, Combats, Sociétés (France, Allemagne, Royaume-Uni).
He has shown how our three societies went to war with their national cultures.
He seems to be sceptical about the links between WW1 brutalisation and WW2 horrors. Of course, there have been more than 300 political leaders killed in Germany from 1919 to 1924. But it is difficult to find such a political violence in Britain and in France.
http://aphgcaen.free...ences/prost.htm

Antoine Prost is the author of "Tuer sur le front occidental"
a paper published in Vingtième siècle n° 81.
Veterans don't show them as professionnal killers.
But the artillery killed much more is this war.
You can see some extracts : http://clioweb.free....-18/prost20.htm

WW1 can also be seen on another POV : how does a personal and social event become an historical fact ? Last November 11th, there was less than 100 veterans in France. Historians have to replace actors and witnesses.
That a question survivors from WW2 often fear : how can they be sure that the hell they suffered, from the Nazis, will not disappear ?


Last point, How do this scientific history affect our textbooks ?
In a 1988 textbook, WW1 is studied chronologically, with a paragraph on «the total war » : government, war economy, propagandas. With some documents on planes, life in the trenches, women and war...

In 2004, we have to teach « les grandes phases du conflit », then the aspect of a « total war » .
in recent textbook (Hatier, L-ES), the chronological approach is hard to find.
Focus is set on « une guerre acceptée par tous », « peindre la guerre », « soldiers and civilians », « women and war », « war and mourning »... These books give access to war posters, from several countries.
There are only 2 lines about the Somme battle, a trench photo from the IWM, a painting from CRW Nevison, Edith Cavell 's execution. Lawrence is there, between Joffre and Clemenceau. No Haig the butcher...

In a way, the authors seem to anticipate each new intellectual fashion.
But some students may lack a simple chronological knowledge, always necessary to understand what has happened in history.


WW1 and Internet in French:

I have selected some of the main websites about 14-18 :
http://clioweb.free.fr/butinages.htm

Jean-Pierre Husson (Reims) has created a very complete website :
http://crdp.ac-reims...ire/default.htm
Teaching WW1 :
http://crdp.ac-reims...ac/1gm/menu.htm
Memorials and monuments :
http://crdp.ac-reims...2musees.htm#1gm
http://crdp.ac-reims...uvenir/menu.htm
Art and WW1 :
http://www.art-ww1.com/fr/visite.html

an online historical atlas :
http://www.atlas-his...1945/index.html


3 personal remarks to conclude :

Before 1914, european socialists tried to fight for peace. Jean Jaurès was accused of treason by monarchists, and he was killed by a nationalist in july 1914.
After 1919, France was ruled by nationalists, like Poincaré who invaded the Ruhr in 1923. For sure, they saw only Germans, they made no difference between the Weimar Republic and William II 's regime. We know what resulted from this policy.

Students don't work on November 11th, but only a few may attend the official ceremony.
Personnally, my grand-father was a soldier in 14-18 ; he was not wounded, but it got there a bad illness. My uncle was sent to Germany in 1942 ; my father had to hide to escape the STO in 1943.

By choice, I take more time to teach WW2.
Even when it is at the end of the curriculum, in "classe de premiere".
On April 27th, we have a day on deportation memory. We met in Montchamp, a village where several resistants were denounced by a neighbour in the next village.
They have been killed, on june 6th, 1944, by the nazis.

This post has been edited by D Letouzey: 29 July 2007 - 04:45 PM

[UlrikeSchuhFricke]

If and how much we follow a chronological order when dealing with wwI depends on the age group and year of the stduents; WWI is a topic of our year 9 and the beginning of 10 and then we combine a chronological presentation - e.g. via a timeline- and some indepth studies like life and death in the trenches; the homefront and changes inside Germany under the impact of the war; the experieneces of German artists and authors (e.g. Thomas Mann) and how this influenced their work.
For Sixth form students the syllabus is slightly different and World War I serves as an example for what happens when nations driven by nationalist feelings enhanced by the "we are the best and strongest" attitude no longer are interested in maintaining peace but are leading their people into a war. The main focus is why peace movements (Jean Jaures was mentioned) failed, why the German Social Democrats supported the war.
At the high time of the Cold War and the arms race when once again the idea that the more weapons a country had the less likely it would be attacked rules the political and military thinking of the time the peace movements used the beginning of the 20th century to point out the dangers of increasing the army and designing new weapons. Still today this idea is present in our schoolbooks to show that a policy of military deterence is and was a dangerous path.
And World War I is presented as the first modern war with new weapons with poison gas and a huge loss of lives in senseless battles. Here works of art - paintings, poems, excerpts from novels - are included in our lessons to explain and demonstrate how devastating and frustrating this experience was for the generation many of whom later called themselves "the lost generation" (think of Hemingway).
Last year I used a simulation to make the students feel what life in the trenches must haven been like. I gave them some information based on letters, novels, pictures to prepare them; then they had to crouch behind and below their desks; the desk was a substitute of the shelter and for 10minutes the students had to listen to battle noises - machine guns, grenades etc. As our clasroom was rather small for 30 students they were sitting on the floor very close together and could hardly move a limb. I then asked them to write a diary entry and a letter home to the loved ones. All the texts were very impressive and astonoshingly it was the boys who normally are very "cool" and slightly aloof when it comes to expressing feeling who opened up and showed their emotions. The students were clearly impressed and deeply moved.

[JP Raud Dugal]

For some precisions about WW 1, I will add some weblinks:

La couleur des larmes is about paintings in the first world war: No need to learn french, this website is mainly visual

I used the British Pathe website to find out some films from the first world war.


I may add something on this period. We are intended to study the monuments (that's compulsory in our curiculum), as 'lieux de mémoires'. In the Mosse's book, it is obvious that the British, German and French ones are not the same at all.

After the first WW, we burried the 'unknown soldier' beneath the Arc de Triomphe. As much as I know, in the UK, the tomb of the 'unknwon soldier' contains no body at all (am I right?).

Some monuments were erected as the 'Ossusaire of Douaumont' in which are the bones of the soldiers of Verdun. For 300,000 soldiers, both Germans and French, it was impossible to recognise them. It's such an impressive monument:

http://home.wanadoo....re/Ossuaire.htm

Here you can have some examples of monuments erected to commemorate the soldiers:

http://crdp.ac-reims...munaux/menu.htm


Some works have been done by pupils in my County: Correze

http://perso.wanadoo...stgeo/prem.html
[you can click the spots on the map]

There is only one main pacifist monument in France and it's near here in Creuse: Le monument aux Morts de Gentioux: Quite a surprising one:

http://perso.wanadoo...st/gentioux.htm

Do you study it either in the UK or in Germany such things?

Jean Philippe

[D Letouzey]

Some changes have been made to my previous WW1 message :
http://minilien.com/?AAP6Ze5Cqf


On French textbooks in history, a very short message, to follow the long one on WW1 :

Have a look at this webpage :
http://hgtice.free.f...i.htm#textbooks

I have scanned several pages on Hitler 's Germany.

Of course, since 1971, images are more frequent.
And sometimes the text is now very allusive.
But the structure is still the same : the left page for the text, the right for the documents.

This post has been edited by D Letouzey: 24 March 2004 - 09:53 AM