If you're talking about the individuals who planned and started the war(s), I agree with you. If you're talking about the whole country and everyone in it, I'll heartily disagree!
I based this list in part on the amount of time spent teaching WWII during my middle and high school which was on average about a week, so the brevity. That being said I do believe a single line about the Great War and it's affect might not be amiss in section 5. It is also possible that section 1 and 2 (and possibly 3) could be combined into one section freeing up a section on the nature of Total War and the moral compromises made on both sides, say following the current section six and counter pointing the 'Holocaust' information. The central point would be to not get lost too deep in the weeds.
Should the Holocaust information even be in there? A legitimate question (I don't know the answer to) - From my reading, it wasn't on the public's or fighting man's mind/radar. A side story of a much bigger novel. The significance has been expanded on SINCE the war years...but how much of a important subject was it at the time? Indeed the thinking was if we take Europe we free the Jews...little was done at the time to specifically address the situation.
I think the Holocaust should be separated in text books from WW2, even though they correlate, I think the Holocaust (though understandably and rightfully so) Overshadows the war itself. We have a tendency to focus on the 6-8 million killed in the Holocaust and forget about, the other 60 million killed in the war itself.
"What are we doing about the Jews in Europe? We're winning the war." FDR. The first report of the atrocities in the New York Times was in May, 1940, IIRC.
With respect, I do not think you could separate the Holocaust from either a cause for the war or as a major component in the war. It is simply too intertwined with that period of time. If this was nothing more than a battle history I might agree, but WWII was epochal event in human history and should be taught as such. Without it we are again left with a mind numbing list of dates, battles and commanders.
The Holocaust has become the definitive episode of the Nazi era. Partially because of the sheer horror of singling out a European race for extermination. Partially too for modern political reasons. What I find chilling about the holocaust is that it seems to have been a byproduct of something even more monstrous. One big reason for invading Russia was to secure the agricultural production of the Ukraine for the German public.- the hunger plan. The Germans had faced starvation in WW1. Partially because of the allied blockade, and partially through inefficiency. The economic plan behind Barbarossa was in terms of eliminating a surplus population of 20-30 million. One reasons for the holocaust was a way of eliminating as many "useless mouths" that the Germans had under their control. Less well documented are the people of eastern Europe who simply starved. Japanese policies in South East Asia were as callous. The Burma "death railway" is famous for the ill treatment of 60,000 PW of whom 12,000 died - one in five. Not so well known is that the PW were only a minority of the workforce. 180-250,000 Asian civilians were conscripted of whom 90,000 died - about one third to one half. For all the horror, the Burma railway was a sideshow in the pacific war.
Not to discount what you are saying belasar, but I think WW2 today is this. Hitler, Pearl Harbor, D-Day, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Holocaust. That is all I've ever really heard at school. While each of these people, acts, and battles should be mentioned I think that the Holocaust has become the main takeaway from WW2 for most people. We don't talk about (as much as we should) how Dictators came to power after periods of economic and emotional hardship because they manipulated and sweet talked millions of people into believing they would bring former glory and riches (Which did happen for a time, but ultimately failed). We don't talk about (As you pointed out Sheldrake) The atrocities Japan committed against POW's and more importantly, innocent civilians. We don't talk about in enough detail how Britain and the Soviet Union both managed to win the war, before America even became involved (Battle of Britain, and halting German advance at Moscow), or just the basic suffering of the Slavic and Eastern European people. We don't talk about how millions of refugees after the war, simply wandered around Europe looking for food, shelter, and safety, the essentials needed to survive. This didn't happen 1,000 years ago, it didn't happen 300 years ago, it happened in many of our lives, we have people we love who in some way shape or form participated in one of the darkest world changing period's ever.
A good list. It's the backbone of what should be taught. Unfortunately, with the pressure of time in schools, it is unlikely that WW2 can be addressed properly. Since I was born in 1947 and my father was involved in the war, I was aware of it from an early age. Movies, books, and comics were the media which helped flesh out my interest. It rarely was covered in school, that I can remember.
I read it in 1961. My parents couldn't believe it would hold my interest. I still have a copy today, even though some of it is dated. I also read Montserrat's Cruel Sea. Even though it's fiction, it sparked my interest to know more.
Its the "wee" dram we balk at... Long live the Scots! The backbone of the UK...still some men on that island.
My teacher was stunned that a thirteen year old could plow through that book. I kept a list of names and jobs to help me sort people out.
I respectfully disagree. History is taught in hindsight. If we were to teach the youth of America today, it is paramount to discuss the Holocaust and it's atrocities. After all, the origins of the Second World War are based on the very premise (as the original post sets up perfectly) of eliminating the inferior peoples. The Holocaust and its methods of systematic genocide trump most themes of the war. It is the very foundation, whether in Europe or the Far East,of the conflict and its aftermath.
I hope I didn't make it seem that the Holocaust isn't important to teach, because that is by no means what I was trying to say. I believe that as you said KJ, the general theme of genocide during the war should be separated from other aspects of the conflict. While these atrocities occurred during the war, they weren't, I would argue, part of the actual war itself. The Holocaust was a bi-product of the war, another part of the agenda on Hitlers overall scheme (The other part was make a Germanic empire across Europe). I think it is inaccurate to say that the Holocaust effected the war, or resulted in major combat, if it did, then I would say it was a part of the war. This is not to say the Holocaust wasn't terrible and changed the world, it didn't change the war, and that's what I'm focusing on.
I understand completely. It really depends on what you deem as a product and bi-product of the war. Keep in mind, millions of Jews were used as slave laborers in a myriad of war production facilities. Whether it be forks, knives or shell casings, the Holocaust was perpetrated for many reasons despite the overall elimination of a culture.