WWII: What was the big deal?

[Edward]

My students have very little idea what it's like to make personal sacrifices, though given the pervasive violence in their community, they might understand living in constant fear of "attack".

Yes, drawing parallels with their own experiences might help bring it home. I suspect what you're getting with the "so what" has a lot to do wih video games - or what I'd call in the UK the "Vietnam effect." During that whole slew of movies about Vietnam in the 80s, a lot of us growing up back then had some sort of romanticised notion of "Vietnam chic" - not that we'd have thought the war was a great idea, or wanted to be there, but there was a deifnite element of it being treated as some sort of fantasy because it was so remote from our experience, not least with the UK not being involved. Probably a lot of kids nowadays have only ever really processed the idea of WW2 as a video game scenario.

Interesting to hear their reactions to the colour photos of WW2... there was a series on the BBC a few years ago called The Second World War in colour. Colour film footage that had existed at the time, but that had actually been supressed by our ruling elite as they were concerned that it might bring home the 'reality' of war much harder than the black and hite footage everyone saw. If it was too real, too shocking, it was felt, people might turn against the war effort. It was actually very surreal to see things that I had only ever processed as black and white historical images in living technicolour...

 

[ethanedwards]

WW2 in colour

The documentary film 'Night Bombers' is a stunning contemporary film showing a typical bombing raid, all in colour. The details are all there, it's essential viewing for anyone interested in this particular part of our history.
Great that someone had the presence of mind to record it, even better that it has survived! E.E.

 

[Alan Eardley]

There were, of course, excellent colour photographs in World War One. The BBC has recently screened a series based on the Albert Kahn Museum collection of colour pictures taken all over the world between 1908 and 1930. The WW1 photos are impressive in a gory way, but I find the 1920s depictions in unlikely settings - the destruction in Armenia and Turkey, for instance, to be very arresting.

Alan

Interesting to hear their reactions to the colour photos of WW2... there was a series on the BBC a few years ago called The Second World War in colour. Colour film footage that had existed at the time, but that had actually been supressed by our ruling elite as they were concerned that it might bring home the 'reality' of war much harder than the black and hite footage everyone saw. If it was too real, too shocking, it was felt, people might turn against the war effort. It was actually very surreal to see things that I had only ever processed as black and white historical images in living technicolour...

 

[Smithy]

On a similar note about 6 years ago, I found some stunning colour photos of the RAF in India in the interwar period (mostly 11 Sqn with Harts IIRC) on a forum site. They were truly stunning. Stupidly I didn't save them and sadly I have never been able to find them again. By some slim chance if anyone here knows these or has copies please PM me.

 

[Corto]

or what I'd call in the UK the "Vietnam effect." During that whole slew of movies about Vietnam in the 80s, a lot of us growing up back then had some sort of romanticised notion of "Vietnam chic" -

Interesting to hear their reactions to the colour photos of WW2... there was a series on the BBC a few years ago called The Second World War in colour. ...

I actually suffer from "Vietnam Chic". I was an adolescent when the Vietnam "pop-culture renaissance" occurred, and those men became my heroes. I can cite the battles, phases of the war, tactics and units, chapter and verse. I'm actually more interested in teaching these kids about Vietnam than WWII, to tell you the truth.

I'm also intending on showing them that WWII color documentary. It's currently en route from Netflix central...I've shown them some color photos, but it doesn't register with them...I think you need to have grown up with all of that stuff in B&W for the color footage to have an impact.

 

[Corto]

I just found this website:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/

Tons of color photos from WWII...

 

[Corto]

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.

Twitch, I'm sorry I didn't get around to it earlier, but thanks for this post- I've been dropping little tidbits from your post for the last few days- the kids pay attention to this kind of information- so, thank you.

 

[Spitfire]

Just to try to get back to the original question asked.
There has been a lot of very good and interesting subjects mentioned allready.
But imo you should just talk about all the different theaters of war, where US was NOT involved. (Eastern front, Battle of britain, Battle of the Atlantic, the convoys to Murmansk, El Alamein etc. etc.)
A lot of young people - all over the world - tends to get their knowledge about WWII from Hollywood and PC games.
Which - naturally - gives them the false impression, that Easy Company 101 AB won the whole damn war.

Now do not get me wrong here - all countries tend to look at their own effort and losses first. It' s only natural. But the world war was fought on many fronts - and many battles and sacrificies made the outcome.

 

[Edward]

You know, this is obviously something you've faced already, but it's just struck me what a big part of the difficulty in getting it across must be: among the generation of kids going through school right now there must be some of the first to be young enough that in the normal course of things they will have grown up without knowing living relatives old enough to have lived through the war years.

 

[John in Covina]

An entire world at war. Atlantic, Pacific, Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
It was a hot war in progress around the globe and where there wasn't fighting espianage and spying was rampant. It set the basis for the Cold War and the levying for power we have today.

One thing is to line up all of the countries engaged and all that were excluded to show the enormity of the war.

Another thing is to show how WWI and the Great Depression laid the groundwork for WWII.

 

[Feng_Li]

Back to the original question...As a fellow schoolteacher, I think the most obvious question is:

"What are your learning objectives?"

For those who have not studied pedagogy, a learning objective is both demonstrable and measurable. "Know that the war began in 1939" is not a learning objective, nor is "Learn about the Holocaust." Neither of these contain any provision for measurement or demonstration.

If I say "Explain why the war began in 1939," I'm partway there, but how is my pupil explaining this, and on what basis am I measuring his explanation?

If I say, "The pupils will match three key events of the war to their dates: Invasion of Poland and beginning of WWII - 1939, German Surrender - Spring 1945, Japanese Surrender - Autumn 1945," Now I have a learning objective! The pupils are supposed to know when each of these events took place, demonstrate it on a matching test, and I measure their learning by the score on that test.

Alternately, if I say "Identify three pivotal events of WWII, recall their dates, and explain their significance," I have most of a learning objective. Again, how are they doing this? If I have them do it in an oral presentation, that's a different objective than if I have them write a five-paragraph essay.

Having specific learning objectives helps keep you from throwing lots and lots of information at them without tying it together. It also helps you know how how you are going to assess the pupil's learning.

So, what are your learning objectives?

 

[Corto]

So, what are your learning objectives?

I'm just kind of winging it...

But I am following my federally mandated state benchmarks and standards.
I know it's not great pedagogy, but I'm just trying to cover my bases...

I plead inexperience (I'm a student teacher) as my excuse...

 

[Feng_Li]

No need to excuse yourself; you're still learning, and so am I, and so is every other teacher out there.

Your state benchmarks are a great place to start. Looking at the Ohio benchmarks (and I assume you're teaching ninth grade), I see 20th century conflict: 10.a: Analyze the causes of WWII, including appeasement. Think about how you want your pupils to demonstrate this analysis. What product or performance do you want them to use? An essay? A multiple choice test? An oral presentation? An interpretive dance? Beginning with the end in mind makes your lesson planning loads easier. It also tells you what other content areas you need to integrate into your lessons. For example, if want them to write an essay, you'll want to spend some time talking about what makes a good essay, and maybe even practicing a few times.

How do you know you're following the state benchmarks if you don't know your learning objectives?

Always start with a plan. Invariably you will end up winging it sometimes because a plan didn't work, but you should never plan to wing it!

 

[Corto]

No need to excuse yourself; you're still learning, and so am I, and so is every other teacher out there.

Your state benchmarks are a great place to start. Looking at the Ohio benchmarks (and I assume you're teaching ninth grade), I see 20th century conflict: 10.a: Analyze the causes of WWII, including appeasement. Think about how you want your pupils to demonstrate this analysis. What product or performance do you want them to use? An essay? A multiple choice test? An oral presentation? An interpretive dance? Beginning with the end in mind makes your lesson planning loads easier. It also tells you what other content areas you need to integrate into your lessons. For example, if want them to write an essay, you'll want to spend some time talking about what makes a good essay, and maybe even practicing a few times.

How do you know you're following the state benchmarks if you don't know your learning objectives?

Always start with a plan. Invariably you will end up winging it sometimes because a plan didn't work, but you should never plan to wing it!

Actually after having taken time to think about it, I have been teaching the unit with an overarching purpose beyond the state standards.

My goal was two-fold. First, to teach them about the conflict prior to the U.S. entry into the war. (Which was strongly emphasized by the participants in this thread) and second to get them to understand the importance of industrial capacity to the warfighting capabilities of all sides.

You are right of course, my weaknesses have been in my assessments.

I did assign a paper with multiple choices, differentiated by skill level (those with lower functioning intellectual processes could chose a less analytical problem to write about). (I'll send it to you privately).

Also, I've been teaching the campaign portion of the unit with the aid of the "9 Principles of Warfare"- the US Army's paradigm for conventional combined-arms maneuver warfare. (I've got a different paradigm for Vietnam). I went over the principles with them- which stretched my analogy-making abilities to the fullest- and told them they would have to apply events to each principle.

I agree with you 100% that it's a bad idea to start my lesson plans with "Wing It". I actually had an extensive lesson plan which went out the window on the first day. To be honest, the whole experience of teaching has been overwhelming. But I feel more able to handle things every day.

Maybe in a couple of years this unit will be a little smoother.

 

[carebear]

This brings back memories of setting up classes in my recon unit.

Figure out what you want the student to learn - terminal learning objectives.

Figure out what they need to understand on the way there - enabling learning objectives.

Figure out the amount of time each step should take and the materials required. Also the format, 'monkey-see, monkey-do' or lecture.

Write the actual lesson plan and rehearse it.

Works for everything from "how to wear a uniform" to "how to assault a fortified position"...

...of course the materials needed are different for those two.

 

[Alan Eardley]

I teach in a University. Have done for 25 years. The more I do it, the more I am convinced that teaching is a waste of time.

What matters is learning. I recommend two ways to learn about what happened in WW2. The best is to talk to people who were there. Lots of them, who did lots of things in lots of places. That's how I grew up and how I learned. I had the advantage of being able to talk to people 'who were there' while the experience was fresh in their minds. I doubt that many young people can do that now. So the next best thing is to read the actual accounts of people who were there. If I want my students to learn about WW2 (or any period of history) I stick to guiding their reading and let the voices of the past - real experience, not academic researchers - speak for themselves.

Some books by 'historians' are worth reading, however. I've just finished 'The Wildest Province: SOE in the Land of the Eagle' by Roderick Bailey. This recounts The experiences of David Smiley and Billy Maclean and their SOE unit in Albania. It covers everything from subversion to cannibalism and is one of the most extraordinary books on WW2 I have ever read.

I recommend it to any student of WW2 history.

Alan

 

[Corto]

Works for everything from "how to wear a uniform" to "how to assault a fortified position"...

...of course the materials needed are different for those two.

I wish I could use the "materials" from the latter. It might help with classroom "management".

 

[Corto]

I teach in a University. Have done for 25 years. The more I do it, the more I am convinced that teaching is a waste of time.

What matters is learning. I recommend two ways to learn about what happened in WW2. The best is to talk to people who were there. Lots of them, who did lots of things in lots of places. That's how I grew up and how I learned. I had the advantage of being able to talk to people 'who were there' while the experience was fresh in their minds. I doubt that many young people can do that now. So the next best thing is to read the actual accounts of people who were there. If I want my students to learn about WW2 (or any period of history) I stick to guiding their reading and let the voices of the past - real experience, not academic researchers - speak for themselves.

Some books by 'historians' are worth reading, however. I've just finished 'The Wildest Province: SOE in the Land of the Eagle' by Roderick Bailey. This recounts The experiences of David Smiley and Billy Maclean and their SOE unit in Albania. It covers everything from subversion to cannibalism and is one of the most extraordinary books on WW2 I have ever read.

I recommend it to any student of WW2 history.

Alan

Both of your suggestions have definitely been a weakness in this unit. I was unable to find a vet, and I haven't been on the ball about providing them with many first person accounts. I will endeavor to try and do both of those things in the future.

 

[dhermann1]

Catch them when you can

I was just on the B63 bus in Brooklyn Saturday, when an elderly (but still fit!) African American gentleman got on the bus, sporting a WW II Veteran ball cap. I wasted no time in asking him where he served. He said he was a gunner's mate on destroyer escorts in both the Atlantic and Pacific. I said "Ah, destroyers, the real Navy!" He agreed wholeheartedly. My stop came up almost immediately. He said it was too bad I had to get off, because he'd like to show me some things. Bummer. I'll bet he had some good stories to share, and he obviously would have loved the chance. Next time you see someone with one of those caps TALK TO HIM!!! Don't be shy or embarrassed!

 

[TM]

dhermann1,

You are so right! Catch them when you can, for they may not be around for all that much longer. I have many regrets for the questions I never got around to asking, and now it's too late.

Don't be afraid to talk to people. Most will enjoy the attention. And you never know where a conversation might lead.

Tony