WWII: What was the big deal?

[KL15]

Hello All.

Sorry about that provocative title, but I'm looking for some ideas.
I'm currently a student-teacher at an urban Midwestern high school, and I'm about to start teaching a unit on WWII.

I've already got my unit plan mapped out, but I was curious as to your opinions (as WWII experts) regarding the most important things American teenagers should know about WWII beyond what they see in Saving Private Ryan and the Call of Duty video game franchise.

So, in your opinion, what were the most pivotal moments? The most under-appreciated moments? The most pivotal technologies, innovations and advancements? Unfortunate ramifications?

I'm want to get beyond their textbook if possible (because there aren't enough for all the students to take home anyways). I've already got my own answers to these questions, but I'm curious to see what you all think.

Thanks,
Corto

You had a European Civil War that began in 1914. There was a long armistace called in that war. It finally comes to an end in 1945. In the process of coming to an end, you have seeping in from the outside the Russians and the Americans. The result being that on central European country won the central European civil war. The winners were the Russians and the Americans. Most of all the Americans. The most pivotal moment is, without a doubt, the opening of the second (western) front. Stalin had been screaming for the second front for about 2 or 3 years before it actually began, because he wasn't sure how much longer the Soviet Union could sustain the fight alone. Hitler and the Germans were going to have major problems fighting a war on two fronts. Which was exactly what he didn't want. The most under-appreciated moment....that's tough. At the time of the war I would agree with an earlier post about the battle for Stalingrad. That was actually the first time Hitler had to stomach serious defeat. Today, I might say the finding of the death camps. When General Eisenhower found one of the death camps he told the press to come with their cameras and take pictures. Because, I believe these are his words "I want to be able to testify and I want you to be able to testify 20, 30, or 40 years from now that yes by God this did happen. I did see it. Because someone years from now will say we're making it all up." And he seems to be right. The Holocaust is being denied by more and more today. Pivotal technologies to me would be the vast American manufacturing. And the fact that no one rested on what they had. Someone was always trying to make something better. And the most unfortunate ramification of WWII is the Cold War.

 

[Corto]

Most of all, you have to capture the attention of the class and get them interested/engaged, otherwise you'll just be trying to fill empty heads with lots of facts that will never stick.

You've just hit on the prime dilemma of the secondary school educator.
There's a lot of content to cover and not a lot of time.
The temptation to recite laundry lists of facts is something that I unfortunately find myself doing quite a bit.

 

[Mike K.]

You've just hit on the prime dilemma of the secondary school educator.

I've taught secondary school and several years of college courses too...sadly it's all the same no matter how young/old the students.

 

[Corto]

I've taught secondary school and several years of college courses too...sadly it's all the same no matter how young/old the students.

As long as we're getting into pedagogy- I'm incredibly curious to know any advice you'd have on making engaging lesson plans...

I've done "conflict simulations", creative historical "journaling", given them primary source documents to read with higher order probing questions to answer, and of course...shown the "occasional" documentary -which is the only thing they enjoy doing during history class when they aren't text messaging, being disruptive, fighting with each other or having extraneous conversations.

As a history geek I often forget that just because I'm interested in something, doesn't mean they are.

Anyways. I'm a greenhorn, and I'm open to any advice.

 

[Corto]

-The war was won on the Eastern Front by our ally, Soviet Russia. Stalingrad is just as important (perhaps more so) than D-Day.

-We didn't liberate Europe from the Nazis. We liberated half of Europe, and then gave the other half to the communists for them to oppress for the next 45 years.

These are a couple of things I'll definitely be including.
Thanks.

 

[Corto]

1. the stories coming from American citizens interned in the Philippines, and 2. the interview with Quentin Aanenson that reflects his horrific experiences as a fighter pilot and his depression. Also if you can swing it, try to get a vet or some living history people in to chat with the students.

I've only seen some of "The War". I'll definitely check it out.
Thanks.

 

[Corto]

There are so many ways and angles WW II can be taught and looked at. I wish you the best Corto. I'm a bit envious of you're ability and opportunity to teach a subject like this one to young students.

http://www.teach12.com/teach12.asp

Don't be envious! You can have my students anytime! lol

 

[Corto]

'Stop! Stop! You can't say this - its all wrong! The French were on our side in World War Two!' My boy received an 'F' for 'being incorrect', even though he had been given the facts by someone who was there, and I had checked his presentation for accuracy.

Don't worry. I'm going to show them the second scene from Samuel Fuller's "The Big Red One". (Which shows the American 1stID storming a beachhead held by the Vichy French)

 

[Corto]

Another cool "history experiment" would be to "re-enact" the homefront.

BRILLIANT. Thank you!

 

[NoirDame]

As long as we're getting into pedagogy- I'm incredibly curious to know any advice you'd have on making engaging lesson plans...

I've done "conflict simulations", creative historical "journaling", given them primary source documents to read with higher order probing questions to answer, and of course...shown the "occasional" documentary -which is the only thing they enjoy doing during history class when they aren't text messaging, being disruptive, fighting with each other or having extraneous conversations.

As a history geek I often forget that just because I'm interested in something, doesn't mean they are.

Anyways. I'm a greenhorn, and I'm open to any advice.

As someone who is planning to teach history, I have a few ideas that can be 'engaging' (at least they were for me!) Some of them might be targeted a bit younger, but you can use them as starting points. Feel free to PM me.

Also, one of my favorite history teachers has some great ideas she has been sharing with me (I just got in touch with her after about fifteen years!). Might be helpful for other topics you will cover.

As a history geek I often forget that just because I'm interested in something, doesn't mean they are.

The most tragic thing to me is when people say history is boring. Of course, I'm preaching to the choir here, but I think that is a failing in their education somewhere. It's all in the presentation. I can pick up a book on any historical subject that is fascinating to me, and if it is dryly presented, I can't take it. I imagine it is the same for those students...but, it doesn't have to be. Good for you for striving to keep it compelling.

 

[Naphtali]

I'm working on some individual responses, but I just wanted to tell everyone THANK YOU.

You've recommended some brilliant stuff- some of which I've forgotten or hadn't thought of.

This has been a big help to me, so just know I appreciate it.

You may want to request reading list(s) via PM or E-mail. If you created your lesson plans from school district materials and text books, . . .

 

[carebear]

Oh! (Keep in mind that I'm Canadian...) What about POW camps? I lived near one for many, many years and didn't know it. I don't know if Americans had POW camps on American territory, but it might be interesting to find out what the military did with their POW's...

Yes, there were several POW camps on the mainland US, one near Neosho, MO. I patrolled through the remnants of it buildings in NCO school.

 

[carebear]

-We didn't liberate Europe from the Nazis. We liberated half of Europe, and then gave the other half to the communists for them to oppress for the next 45 years.

That's neither just nor particularly accurate.

What would you have had the US and Britain do?

Inform troops (and a homefront) that for 4+ years had been told the Sovs were their ally and the war would be over when Germany was defeated that, so sorry boys, can't go home, we have to now attack our former friends?

Whose evils, which the govt. was aware of, were explicitly downplayed by our govt's propaganda machine?

Aside from the political and morale issues, there were logistical hurdles that prevented the Western Allies from getting much further into Germany than they did. Even acceding to the offered German conditional surrender would have involved a betrayal of earlier allied agreements.

Much as I agree that Roosevelt shouldn't have bowed so quickly to Stalin's wartime conference demands, that's 20/20 hindsight. Stalin didn't have to attack, he had no homefront politics to deal with and had enough combat power to just stabilize his lines, temporarily go on the strategic defensive and freed all those Germans to drive us back into the ocean.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

That's neither just nor particularly accurate.

What would you have had the US and Britain do?

I have an answer, but this probably isn't the best thread for the topic.

 

[carebear]

I have an answer, but this probably isn't the best thread for the topic.

Sent you a PM with my email. I'd be really interested to hear it. The morale and reversal of propaganda issues were just raised to me recently.

 

[AmateisGal]

I just spoke with two "well-educated" college students today. Neither of them knew of Robert E. Lee, Winston Churchill, or several other prominent figures in U.S. & World history. One even commented that she never knew that Virginia and West Virginia were two separate States. The Alamo...what is that? Pearl Harbor is located where? We fought in Korea? After hearing this and what Alan had to say earlier, I seriously wonder what today's youth are learning (if anything). At least give 'em the basics so people know who's who, what happened, etc. and won't turn out to be dummies. Most of all, you have to capture the attention of the class and get them interested/engaged, otherwise you'll just be trying to fill empty heads with lots of facts that will never stick.

The other evening, I asked my 14-year-old stepson who won the Civil War. His answer? "Uh...we did."

"Who is 'we'"? I asked.

"America."

When I grilled him a bit further, I asked him, "Who did 'we' fight?"

"Germany?"

And the conversation rapidly went downhill from there. I proceeded to lecture him on the importance of knowing the history of the country that you live in, not to mention the rest of the world.

 

[AmateisGal]

Yes, there were several POW camps on the mainland US, one near Neosho, MO. I patrolled through the remnants of it buildings in NCO school.

Re: POW camps...I did my thesis on the German POW camp at Fort Robinson, Nebraska, specifically the Intellectual Diversion Program (or more commonly known as 'reeducation') where the U.S. Government attempted to teach the Germans about American democracy.

This is probably a little known fact, as well, but Nazism was alive and well in these camps and it propelled the War Department to develop the re-education program.

 

[carebear]

I remember reading a few years back about the horrific conditions in Allied POW camps post-war on the Continent.

Can't remember the title, but it was quite an indictment. It was referring to camps run, mostly by the French, that recalled Andersonville.

I also believe there was some controversy over the author's research.




This vague remembrance proudly sponsored by Tanqueray.

 

[AmateisGal]

Yes - there were definitely horror stories from the French-based POW camps that held Germans. After the war, when Germans were being sent home, some were assigned to the French camps instead of going back to Germany - and the conditions were still horrific.

 

[Twitch]

Naphtali
1- Since GB was the main colonialist at the time and previously, well yeah, recovering from the war kept any new colonial assets from being gained but in places like the Middle East and India the Brits were quite capable of keeping a lid on things.

2- Look at the ethnic make up of the US in the 1930s. There were many German immigrants previously and 2-3 generations later people still realized their ancestors came from Germany. The Japanese were a minority and the mainstream had no way to connect to them culturally. It is a a fallacy to imagine that manpower and materiel were lessened in the Pacific. What you may imagine is that in any given island scenario that just a few thousand dug in Japanese took on probably double their numbers of Americans. Due to geography it wasn't prudent to land a whole army anywhere except the mainland of Asia or Europe where vast numbers of men and machines could have near unlimited space to maneuver.

3- This is why Admiral Yamamoto said he would be successful for 6 months or a year because he knew the industrial capabilities of the US would eclipse the remainder of the world once it got rolling.

4- This is an example of woulda/coulda/shoulda to look back in hindsight and make battle plans. What there was between Japan and Germany was a continuous trade in sciene and technology as U-boats traveled laden to Japan throughout the war. Until December 1941 Japan was not even officially part of the Axis and had no impetus to attack the Eastern USSR. There was little or nothing to gain since any prizes were far to the west. Soon after Pearl Harbor Japan realized it had stepped in serious crap and would have a fight for her life without sidetracking forces and supplies to the USSR. Japan had been in Asia since 1932 when it invaded Manchuria and was well occupied there and over S.E. Asia in it debauchery.

5- As mentioned it wasn't till the 109E-7 were drop tanbks viable on the type. You must realize that the Bf 110s were thought to have been able to provide acceptable long range escort for Ju 88 and He 111 bombers. When its shortcomimngs were found apparent 109s were thrown in to escort the escorts as it were. Bf 109s were never seen as the primary fighter in the Battle of Britain. The few months that the Battle of Britain lasted precluded quickly retrofitting Bf 109E-3s-4s with drop tanks. In 1943-44 this kind of immediate adaptation would have been well geared up for but in 1940 it was still thought to be a matter of victory being around the corner.

Planners knew the significance of radar but the pinpoint bombing of the thin, skeketal towers was no easy task. for any plane considering defenses. Goring was well on his way to the deliberate bombing of the RAF on the ground. Destroy the airfields and hit the planes when they sit there, especially at night, and ultimately you'd win. The Brits were incapable of mounting a similar offensive against Luftwafe fields across France due to much the same restrictions the Germans had. The RAF didn't have long range fighteres either.

And it was Hitler who personally changed the bombing directives when a bomber accidently bombed civilians around Coventry. He realized the tragedy factor he could project. and when the RAF night bombed a German city the idea was pretty well set. If the Luftwaffe had continued targeting RAF airfields they could have won.

The whole idea of Blitzkreig (Lighning war) was the fact that Hitler saw the actual conflict as being short. It worked in Eastern Europe well enough as lesser armed countries capitulated easily. The BoB was obviously going to be of short duration acknowledged by both sides. Hitler's initial scenario was that Britain would sue for peace and he would be able to turn his attention to Russia. He never planned to invade GB. Then even when this didn't happen the drive into Russia was so fast it appeared that the end was in sight many times. From Hitler's point of view relative to the times he was right in not delving into new programs. When the US became involved a good many projects meriting further study were revived and some implimented. By 1943 there was no moritorium on longer term programs. All projects were accelerated to some degree.

6- You must realize the Japanese thinking in 1939 when the Zero 1st flew. In the late 1930s most every plane was light, manueverable and lightly, but adequately armed for the time. So important was maneuverability in the tactical plans of the Japanese that even aircraft radios were taken out to achieve more performance. These guys were Samauri in the air- an extention of the blade weilding warrior. Death in battle was not an alien concept and not feared. Sacrificing all else for maneuverability was the pilots choice. This ultimately changed. Later aircraft like the Shiden and Raiden had armor and heavier armament. All planes in all countries evolved in larger, heavier craft with heavier armament and more mechanical features to increase speed, rate of climb and high altitude performance.

7- All I can say is that a state of war existed in 1932 when Japan invaded China and commenced their perverted onslaught with bio-chem weapons and perverse medical experiments performed on Chinese civilians. The history of aggression against Asian countries by Japan is well known and 1932 is when they openly invaded Asia.

8- No one of the WW II generation ever mentioned anything as sinister as "enhancement of central governmental control in USA, accompanied by changes in civil liberties for all citizens." That sounds like some revisionist tripe. The proof is to the accuser- show what laws or constitutional ammendments were introduced to accomplish this or show which ones were superceeded to make this happen. The post WW II era before Korea was more open and offered more liberties and freedom to every citizen. The only thing the government did was clean some background records for some Germans deemed vital in aerospace and military technology under Operation Paperclip. They came and worked in US industries and none was ever a troublemaker.