• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadians losing knowledge of military history

ClaytonD said:
The other day in history class my teacher asked something about WWI. And when I mentioned the Schlieffen Plan. She said, "I'm not interested in the military tactic stuff. I'm more interested in the Political aspect."
Not something I would say in my classroom. A bit on the "unprofessional" side, but who I am I?

Certainly the von Schlieffen plan was instrumental in the beginning of the war as it was Germany's only strategy for a two front war. I think not covering it (you don't need to get super detailed into the nuts and bolts) is a HUGE omission in the teaching of WWI. My $0.02 anyway.
 
I figured as much, ex-Sup.  I was in England last year and worked at a private school this past year.  I'm way out of touch with the new guidelines.

But I'm probably heading toward tertiary education anyway.  Thanks for the heads up re: Laurier. (my friend would love to see me there, so I can join their rugby program  :) )  I also found UNB has a sizeable amount of military history courses.  You can also get a good assortment at Carleton, where the History Dept is good, but can also add courses that deal with the origins and politics of war in the poli sci department.  I'm looking into finishing up 4th year at CU, and applying for MA at UNB.

I took a great War in Africa course when I went to Carleton that didn't cover so much the battles, etc, but really gave you a great perspective of why such things happen.  It was especially enriching as many of my classmates were from Africa, including some with conflicting perspectives - like the Ethiopian youngsters and the old Eritrean war vet.  Debates were often passionate, but never vicious though, and it was probably the course that most opened my eyes to the world.
 
I have read that some universities have not been filling their military history chairs and not many people are getting the chance to get a higher education in this field. Yet when they do run the course, subscription is high as they are popular, guess mil history does not fit well with PC crowd unless you are dissing the military.
 
Colin P said:
I have read that some universities have not been filling their military history chairs and not many people are getting the chance to get a higher education in this field. Yet when they do run the course, subscription is high as they are popular,
When I attended LU from '92-'96 there was nothing. They just started running the Canadian military history course this past year? due in part to Capt Ratz. I took the only two offered online from Laurier (WWII and Cdn Army NW Eur). I can't remember how many people were in the courses, but they seemed popular. I had a colleague's daughter in the class at LU; she was okay with the content, but didn't like the format (online...quiz every week). I would think that as more courses are available online, there will be more interest. There are probably many people out there like me that have issues with geography or time and this suits the bill. I just found the courses to be a lot of work...tons of reading! I commented to someone that I probably did more work taking six classes part-time than I did in four years full-time.  :'(
 
Take anything at Carleton with Y. Aleksandra Bennett.  She's like your delightful old English/Welsh aunt, but knows much more about tanks and battle plans than any grey haired lady.  Great prof.  I took a course I didn't need in third year just to be in her class.

(she used to have a website link on the Dept homepage with all her pictures of tanks, monuments, etc ... can't find it, though  :(  )

 
"My daughter is going to learn about Vimy, Ortano, korea, Medak pocket and Panajiwal (sorry if I got the spelling wrong) and how to use a gun safely."

Way to go Colin. I've done the same with my son. Unfortunately it's up to us individuals these days to teach our kids Canada's military history. Schools don't do it. Now and then a history teacher will do it on his own but not often enough.
 
lyned said:
it's up to us individuals these days to teach our kids Canada's military history. Schools don't do it. Now and then a history teacher will do it on his own but not often enough.

Whoa...slow down there a bit! Hopefully you've read all the previous posts. You have to remember that military history is only part of the curriculum. Here in Ontario, our compulsory high school history course is Gr. 10 Canadian History since 1914, not Cdn military history. As teachers we only have >90 days to cover almost 100 years of history. I'd love the spend the whole semester talking about Ypres, Verrieres, Kapyong and all the others. The 1920's & 30's don't really excite me, but the gov't REQUIRES me to teach it. As I've mentioned before, not all teachers have the background or the comfort level to be able to tackle these topics to their fullest extent. I'm not great with economics or some other topics, but I do my best. Most teachers try...this is a good opportunity for parents to get involved and fill in the gaps. We're teachers, not miracle workers...there's only so much we can do. :)
 
Yesterday I mentioned to my supervisor (at 1 Cdn Air Div HQ) that in WWII the allies put one model of aircraft into poduction from design in only 30 days.

She said "Why would they need to do that?"!!

Let alone the vacant stares when I mention Agincourt or Trafalgar.  Let's face it folks, we're in the business.  Most people don't have a clue.
 
I guess the discouraging side is that even when you do teach it, many of the kids will forget it anyway.  When one circles back to the original topic, unless people have an interest in it you're not going to find many who can name five important battles in our nation's history.  Sad, but true.

Don't the Yanks push this stuff more in elementary school and then repeat in secondary?  The Brits seem to cover it a little better from my experience.  History is a thicker subject than it is here.
 
If you want more military history taught in the schools, write your Minister of Education and have it increased in the curriculums. Teacher resources are based on curriculums. If I want to teach about ancient civilizations or the Solar System, which is in the curriculum, I can get charts, posters, books, slide shows, all the background info I need from teacher stores and Scholars Choice so that I can 'ramp up' and get the knowledge for my lesson plans. Not so for Canadian military history, WW1, WW2, etc.

And kids do remember things. I remember clear as day my grade 5 teacher telling us about the Battle of Seven Oaks in Winnipeg 30 years ago. And kids can share their Canadian Military History through projects and other ventures. For example, I am teaching a grade 5 class about Power Point and how to make a presentation. One girl is using this to make a presentation on World War 2, and it is amazing! She is using animations and visuals that would put even a Nortel manager's presentation to shame.

As they say in the leadership courses, use your initiative! If you are a parent, write to the ministry, bug your teacher, suggest to your child military history topics for their projects if they want ideas. I would rub my hands in glee at a chance to teach even 1 week of just WW2!! To show a movie like "Great Escape" or "The Devil's Brigade", "Battle of Britain" ...
 
As they say in the leadership courses, use your initiative!

Some of us try. When I teach WWII, I do a section on the Battle of Verrieres Ridge (just watched an great program on History TV about it). I find it interesting because there is little mention of it outside military and historical circles and it isn't something the kids will find in the textbook. I actually use the battle as the basis for part of my WWII culminating activity. They have to write a letter home (gotta promote that literacy!) on the day following the battle and describe the events they witnessed. As part of the assignment, I have put together part of WWII battledress; steel pot w/scrim, webbing and blouse...complete with BW flashes and corporal chevrons (still missing 2nd div patch...if anyone has some!). I take their picture in the uniform and make copies for the student and myself. The kids love it!

bug your teacher
Let's work on the "bug" the ministry part first!

To show a movie like "Great Escape" or "The Devil's Brigade", "Battle of Britain" ...
Hate to burst the bubble, but most would probably sleep through these movies. "Too old!"...especially if you're teaching applied level. I show a bit from SPR, Band of Brothers and surprisingly Memphis Belle (don't know why the kids love this movie?). I know that these are all on American themes, but there isn't anything recent, non-US that is worth showing (my opinion anyway).
*edited for grammar
 
ex-Sup said:
Hate to burst the bubble, but most would probably sleep through these movies. "Too old!"...especially if you're teaching applied level. I show a bit from SPR, Band of Brothers and surprisingly Memphis Belle (don't know why the kids love this movie?). I know that these are all on American themes, but there isn't anything recent, non-US that is worth showing (my opinion anyway).

Yeah, bet you're right, tried to think of movies with Canadian Military History content. I think if I showed segments it would be better. The BoB air sequences are still really good, especially the scenes with the air combat and background classical music. I bet the kids would still love the scene in the Devil's Brigade with the Canadians marching to camp with all the Americans fighting (though that part isn't really accurate).



 
I try to supplement the Hollywood movies with Canadian programs. As I mentioned I just saw a great program about the BW and Verrieres Ridge on History TV. Also, they had a 3 part series on Korea with Norm Christie. I really enjoyed his series on WWI (King & Empire) and use it in my classes. It was good to see as there are very few videos out there about Korea, especially from the Cdn perspective. The only problem I have sometimes with teaching history is there are actually TOO MANY videos around; if I showed all the videos I wanted, I wouldn't have any time to teach.  ;D
 
Why is it important to learn military history? There are many more things that make us Canadians and proud citizens, arent there? A general knowledge of it is not bad. Universalized health care also makes us proud Canadians. I had no idea who created that untill I watched the Greatest Canadian tv show. I am equally ignorant. I am sure you can all think of a few other reasons why we are proud citizens, and what makes Canada, Canada. I bet just as many Canadians would be ignorant to the facts behind them as they are to military history.

I challenge those here in this thread that are giving examples of teaching specific battles like Verriers Ridge, or the Somme. What goal is accomplished by teaching someone about a single battle? I have read the books, seen the movies, seen the documentaries, taken the courses including the HIE208 and I see nothing anywhere that sets our military histories importance above certain other accomplishments of Canada and Canadians. (I have a strong, strong interest in our military history, and my family is military to way back when) We have a long proud history that has many different aspects to it, all of which make us what we are today.

I seen the polls online and in the papers and TV during Remembrance Week. Why would anyone care what Douglas McCarthur looks like, why should anyone be able to pick his picture out from others? (CTV Poll)  Is his picture important.. nope.

What is important about our military history? Not the battles, not the countless Generals and Majors, Privates and.... Germans. Whats important is why we fought, why the men and women before us volunteered to put thier life on the line for Canada and quite literally, strangers. What makes us pick up arms against our foe? And why we should tailor a world to avoid war. A battle may teach someone that the casualties suffered is bad - war is bad, but I dont think thats the point of telling someone how Verriers Ridge went down. I think the point of teaching battles are generally to glorify them, and the people involved. Glory ends on the battlefield. Respect and understanding of how and why the big picture happened is whats important to know.
 
Well, where to start? Lots of things to tackle.

Why is it important to learn military history? There are many more things that make us Canadians and proud citizens, arent there?
Agreed. However, the topic of this post was that many Canadians lack a general knowledge of events and/or people in our military history. It seems at times that these things are overlooked. Is it the end of the world if they don't know these things? Not really. I think the general point was that we often don't regard ourselves as a militaristic people and tend to forget the sacrifice that was made by many thousands of Canadians.

I challenge those here in this thread that are giving examples of teaching specific battles like Verriers Ridge, or the Somme. What goal is accomplished by teaching someone about a single battle? I have read the books, seen the movies, seen the documentaries, taken the courses including the HIE208 and I see nothing anywhere that sets our military histories importance above certain other accomplishments of Canada and Canadians. (I have a strong, strong interest in our military history, and my family is military to way back when) We have a long proud history that has many different aspects to it, all of which make us what we are today.
I don't want to get snippy here, but you seem to have hit a nerve. I'm assuming that this comment was directed at me. As is often said on this site, "stay in your lane!" Nowhere in your profile does it indicate that you are a teacher. Does taking some history classes and watching some programs on TV suddenly make you a history teacher? Your comments reflect your own opinion. As teachers we don't decide what we want to teach. There is a curriculum that we must follow...check it out:
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/canworld910curr.pdf
What goal is accomplished? To begin with, it's our job. "...describe Canada’s and Canadians’ contributions to the war effort overseas during World War I and World War II (e.g.,Ypres,Vimy Ridge, Passchendaele, Hong Kong, Battle of the Atlantic, Dieppe, Sicily, D-Day)." Secondly, these battles add context to the war. You cannot teach the significance of a war without examples of the conflict. Does it not make sense when teaching students about the costs of war, to state how mistakes lead to massive loss of life ie. Somme, Dieppe? Why Verrieres? I choose to add this topic because it is a tragic event in the larger battles for Tilly-la-Campagne that is never mentioned. How better to illustrate how destructive a war can be when an entire battalion is annihilated. Examining events without grasping the larger picture is fragmentation and a disservice.

What is important about our military history? Not the battles, not the countless Generals and Majors, Privates and.... Germans. Whats important is why we fought, why the men and women before us volunteered to put thier life on the line for Canada and quite literally, strangers. What makes us pick up arms against our foe? And why we should tailor a world to avoid war. A battle may teach someone that the casualties suffered is bad - war is bad, but I dont think thats the point of telling someone how Verriers Ridge went down. I think the point of teaching battles are generally to glorify them, and the people involved. Glory ends on the battlefield. Respect and understanding of how and why the big picture happened is whats important to know.
No, the battles are not the most important part, yet an examination of the war cannot be done without them. Students today are so far removed from the war that the battles are a way to make your point. For them, war is something they see in a movie or in a video game. No one attempts to glorify war. I spend a lot of time before we even start into the events of WWI talking about why we study war. It is a constant in human history...in the nearly 10,000 years that civilization has been around conflict has always been present. It is important to understand why it happened, what happened and what we learned from it. I tell them that it isn't exciting or cool. Watching our friends die and taking other people's lives is not something we do or take lightly. We are lucky that we don't have such conflicts and we should be thankful for those that give them the opportunity to live where they do with the life that they have. Telling them that the British suffered 57,000 casualties in one day at the Somme or that only 15 members of the Watch were unscathed after Verrieres drives the point home.

I hope that every student who leaves my classroom has a greater appreciation for history, including the conflict. That includes all parts of conflict; the causes, the events, the impact and the results. This is how we approach history. You speak of the big picture; you cannot get a sense of the big picture by omitting parts of its foundation. Yes, there are many other things that Canadians can be proud of. We have been able to accomplish many important things outside the realm of conflict. However, we cannot and should not dismiss the impact the wars have had on our history. They are part of our collective history and shape the Canada that we live in today.
 
My point is this...

The posters in this thread have generally made the point that Canadians should learn about our battles. Nobody says why or what purpose that would serve. Some only wish to compel other people to show respect to our veterans for what they did by learning 50 men died to take this house. But why is that important to understanding our military history? You say you need to teach battles because they build context. I suppose you are part right but it sounds as if thats the focus on our military history. From what I understand from you, all the reasoning as to why war is bad comes after learning about battles. Do you teach why Canadians volunteered to fight? I feel thats most important. The school boards obviously have a different opinion.

Why should you respect a veteran?  I do because I try to understand the frame of mind and culture during the teens and 40s that compelled these people to join and fight, to take up the cause. Others think battles justify respect, I think thats respecting for the wrong reason. That kind of respect is only properly shown among those who were present during the act, and should be reserved for them only. Ever heard the saying that goes something like, "You dont know man!! You werent there!"

You cannot teach the significance of a war without examples of the conflict.

I believe its possible. For example.... WW2 was significant because 50 million plus people died. The entire world was affected in every way you can think of. Economically and emotionally just for 2 examples. The after effects were devastating. The hatred that people showed for each other was horrid. NATO and the UN were formed not long after WW2. These example make WW2 significant. How does what happened in Dieppe add significance to the war? It only adds context IMO. For example, "During WW2 50 million people died, in Dieppe, a few thousand of those died." Thats just context, Dieppe was not a very significant battle if you look at the entire war. You can use "other than conflict" examples to portray the significance of war.

How better to illustrate how destructive a war can be when an entire battalion is annihilated.

For one you can talk about how certain religious groups and ethnic minorities were almost wiped out and secondly you can talk about how cities were flattened.

My example of Verriers Ridge was just as example for a battle. I know about V.Ridge so the name stuck in my mind when reading this thread.
 
" "Too old!"...especially if you're teaching applied level. I show a bit from SPR, Band of Brothers and surprisingly Memphis Belle "

- Memphis Belle has good effects for air combat.  Show Wyler's wartime 'Memphis Belle' right after it.

;)

Tom

 
Undoubtedly, the teachers here provide a full balance to the lessons they teach.  You can't properly teach about Canada's involvement in WWII by battles alone, but you can't ignore the battles.  If you exclude all of us who are passionate about history, particularily military history, many people have little to no concept of what warfare is like aside from saying 'It's bad.'  And yet they still happen, and with certain films and video games, some people even still, like the boys who headed to South Africa and France, think there's fun and adventure involved.

I think aside from honouring the efforts and sacrifice, it serves the purpose of reminding the next generation how awful war really is.  I don't think the facts and figures sink in until you see how brutal combat can be.  It's then hoped that not only will we remember what happened, but have a clearer view of what it's like so we can avoid it in years to come.  When you tell the story of Dieppe or V Ridge, and show something like the first big scene in SRP or Enemy at the Gates (not films I use, mind, but ones with vivid pictures of the horrors of war), you don't find many of the 'Call of Duty' playing boys still talking about how 'cool' it'd be to be there.

 
Mooxe,

I understand where you are coming from, but you need to understand where I'm coming from.

You say you need to teach battles because they build context. I suppose you are part right but it sounds as if thats the focus on our military history. From what I understand from you, all the reasoning as to why war is bad comes after learning about battles.
No that's not what I'm saying. We need to focus on all aspects of war; including the battles. The course is Canadian history, so we need to address what Canada did in the war, including the battles. The curriculum (dictated by the ON gov't, not by school boards) is a bit of a compromise. In a previous post I mentioned the fact that we only have 90 days to cover 100 years of Cdn history. We can't possibly cover every aspect of the wars, including battles. We do our best to cover all areas; military, political, economic and social.

I believe its possible. For example.... WW2 was significant because 50 million plus people died. The entire world was affected in every way you can think of. Economically and emotionally just for 2 examples. The after effects were devastating. The hatred that people showed for each other was horrid. NATO and the UN were formed not long after WW2. These example make WW2 significant.
For one you can talk about how certain religious groups and ethnic minorities were almost wiped out and secondly you can talk about how cities were flattened.
We do cover all of these things...or at least as many of them in the limited time we have available. I'm not suggesting that the only important thing are the battles and that is the only thing that we focus on. My point is that we need to cover all aspects of the war, battles included. Why? A) because I feel that they are part and parcel of the conflict and they are significant to the overall picture. B) because the powers that be tell me I need to.

How does what happened in Dieppe add significance to the war? It only adds context IMO. For example, "During WW2 50 million people died, in Dieppe, a few thousand of those died." Thats just context, Dieppe was not a very significant battle if you look at the entire war.
Well, if you're looking at the war from a world perspective, maybe not (although the impact on D-Day can not be understated). However, this is a Canadian history class. Dieppe WAS a significant event in Canada's participation in the war.

The thing that you need to keep in mind is that you are speaking from your own perspective and background. You are obviously a well educated adult; I'm talking about 14 and 15 yo teenagers. They lack the experience and background to grasp some of the ideas you speak of. Remember, these students are there because the gov't says they need a Cdn history credit to graduate. You can expect that at least 50% of your class has no interest in history, and many don't give a rat's a**! We hope that at least something will make an impression on them, whether it be 1000 dead at Dieppe, 6 million Jews or tens of millions people worldwide. The end goal is to have students with some understanding and appreciation of what happened during the various wars of the 20th century...whatever helps them do this is great.
 
Nieghorn said:
Undoubtedly, the teachers here provide a full balance to the lessons they teach.  You can't properly teach about Canada's involvement in WWII by battles alone, but you can't ignore the battles.I think aside from honouring the efforts and sacrifice, it serves the purpose of reminding the next generation how awful war really is.  I don't think the facts and figures sink in until you see how brutal combat can be.  It's then hoped that not only will we remember what happened, but have a clearer view of what it's like so we can avoid it in years to come.  When you tell the story of Dieppe or V Ridge, and show something like the first big scene in SRP or Enemy at the Gates (not films I use, mind, but ones with vivid pictures of the horrors of war), you don't find many of the 'Call of Duty' playing boys still talking about how 'cool' it'd be to be there.
Well said!
 
Back
Top