A Summary

Back in January I amalgamated a variety of sources into a brief paper on the similarities and differences among American, German, and Japanese educational policies as they pertain to World War II (respectively Japanese internment and the atomic bomb, the Holocaust, and Japanese atrocities during the war). Though I look forward to more research, these words reflect my current understanding of the effectiveness of different methods of history education. Please feel free to comment, agree, disagree, or question. As I expand my research and exploration to more sources and situations, I will continue to post any changes or affirmations of these ideas.

A summary of my research thus far:

World War II, a war largely fueled by nationalism and patriotism, left nations around the globe with open wounds in 1946; initially most countries would not—or could not—immediately face the acts of inhumanity they had inflicted or that had been inflicted upon them. Now, after more than sixty years have separated these nations from the raw pain or shame of the past, it is possible to analyze their level of ability to learn from their histories and to apply that knowledge to the present. Ultimately only nations who placed their nationalism behind them were able to truly accept and analyze their pasts.

Germany, by far, has made the most strides with accepting its past. Though von Borries, in hisEast Germany made no progress until reunification and that even West Germany floundered with how to explain the blind faith in Hitler and his regime, historiographers largely agree that Germany is on the right track. In a questionnaire about German Holocaust education on the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research, Germany’s answers emphasize a commitment to teaching students to question the ideology of National Socialism and the dangerous power it gave to Hitler’s regime. Also, in a chart that summarizes each federal states Holocaust education goals and methods compiled by the Learning from History program, it is clear that National Socialism is the antagonist of the Holocaust and thus the focus of the lesson plans. Furthermore Yehuda Bauer, a Holocaust education advocate, has lauded Germany examination of German history textbooks, points out that for its promotion of comprehension education of the World War II era, and he stresses that this is a large step in preventing a similar genocide.

Japan, on the other hand, has not yet let go of its World War II patriotism, and thus its government is criticized for censoring information about the war. Recent articles in both the Japan Times and the New York Times discuss civilian protests towards the government’s policy of textbook certification. French’s article in particular is rich with quotes from Japanese officials promoting nationalism and the non-obligation to apologize for—or even to remember—the inhumane acts of Japanese soldiers. Evidence of such historical whitewashing can be found in an English translation of a new Japanese history textbook in which details of the more horrific events are few and remorse is negligible. Ienaga speaks from his own experience that such disregard along with the actively promoted return of nationalism is cause for worry that Japan may once again slip towards aggressive militarism. (Ienaga also notes a brief relaxation in censorship immediately following Occupation before nationalist fires were rekindled.)

The United States, however, falls somewhere between these two extremes. Following the end of the war and the dropping of the atomic bombs, the United States entered into a Cold War with the Soviet Union in which nationalism appeared as vitally important as it had during World War II. Kyle Ward notices that American textbooks did not adopt tones of regret or reflection over the bombs or Japanese internment until the Cold War was over—yet another indication that nationalism may play a large role in historical blindness. However Gail Desler’s lesson plan for teaching Japanese internment is evidence that America has begun to accept and teach its past from a perspective of cultural empathy and with the goal of conscious analysis.

And so as history marches on, perhaps nationalism should be left behind. The American and especially the German governments have placed their support behind curricula that focus not just on a national concept of the past, but on a broader, multicultural understanding, while the Japanese government still strives for a reactionary vision of imperial power and revenge. These differing perspectives could very well be an indication of the future: humility and regret lead to amiable relations on the playground and in the meeting room, but too much pride always starts another fight.


In my next post, I will list my sources and link to as many of them as are accessible online.

Thanks for reading,

K