I found wednesday's lecture very interesting concerning Fascism. What I found particularly interesting was the contrast of what I already understood about the topic of Nazi Germany- majority of this I learnt during social studies at High School.
At high school we were made to do a project (a poster of course) on 'the good, the bad and the ugly' during hitler's reign. What I was taught was Hitler's intentions were actually good at the beginning of his reign hence 'the good'- he did good for the economy in Germany etc etc.
However in the lecture I noticed that what i already knew was very much a VERY BRIEF skimming over of hitler's reign and that i really knew not a whole lot on this very important historical period.
Xavier explained that fascists often compromised to get a lead and then eventually bring through their policies on racism etc later on. What I was lead to believe at high school was that Hitler's intentions were very good at the beginning and he eventually got corrupt along the way and began persecuting those for ruining Germany. This was apparently wrong.
I could rabbit on about other things that were actually left out in high school that proved to be very important to fascism in the lecture however my main point is why is this such huge historical period being skimmed over in New Zealand schools?
I feel that every child in New Zealand should know about this period in depth- and not lead to believe that Hitler had good intentions at the start.
Thank you Xavier for explaining what fascism was actually like in Europe instead of trying to make it be sound like that they had the right intentions.
I'm posting in defence of the many fine history teachers I've had over the years. I went through the NZ secondary school system and I never got the impression that Hitlers or other the facists intentions were ever good. The impression I remember from history of Hitler and the other Axis types were that they were power hungry neo-nationalists with designs on conqeuring Europe and expelling all those who weren't their sort of people. A zenophobic, genocidal manifest destiny. Also that Chamberlain was complete wuss, Churchill was a badass, and the Americans swanned in late in the game and got all the glory. Pretty much the traditional story.
ReplyDeleteAlso we read a few excerpts from Hitlers 'Mein Kamph', which was published in 1925 after his stint in jail for a failed revolution attempt, so it was made pretty clear he was a lunatic. This would have been clear at the time as well, at least to those who spoke German I guess.
You say that you were taught Hitler had good intentions for the German economy, which is one interpretation. After the failing of the Wermacht Republic Hitler and his ilk directed the German economy in a manner that saw it become a European powerhouse, able to churn out the weapons of war that let them set Europe on fire. So pretty 'succesful'. But really not all that 'good'.
I was not attacking teachers- they are just teaching the curriculum. I learnt this in social studies (compulsory until 4th form) not history (optional subject). My point was that there was 'gaps' in what was taught. I'm sure course content is subject to age learning objectives also
ReplyDeleteIsn't social studies taught when your 3rd/4th form? It's not like a teacher is going to go into extreme detail about it...
ReplyDeleteIf you studied it in say 7th form history that would be a different situation...
I don't personally feel studying fascim is really that important a role in our education...I think studying actual current events more, to make students having a more 'cosmopolitan' edge to them.
It is really 6th and 7th form history that things are taught in greater detail...
I agree with John - I have never been told that Hitler started out with good intentions...Maybe it was just your teacher?