At last, it's here.
The day all teachers live for- the end of summer term and the start of the holidays.
We were given our timetables for next year last week. The first thing most teachers do upon getting their timetables is to look who they've got on the last lesson on Friday. (As it turns out I've got one of my Upper Sixth classes - a mixed blessing).
Then when we get out teacher planners, we usually spend hours meticulously writing out the term dates, each day's lessons from September to Christmas, January to Easter and then from June to that day in July when term ends. A frisson of joy and sheer ecstasy shivers down the spine at the very thought of walking out of school and not coming back for the best part of six weeks.
That feeling will be experienced by thousands of teachers at some point tomorrow lunchtime. It is not that the weather will be brilliant. Recent Augusts have been painfully disappointing. Autumn has usually started by the end of August and if you're really unlucky, even before the August Bank Holiday. In addition it seems this year that summer 2013 was July 2013.
It's just the knowledge that you can stop worrying about 8G, can relax that no parents will be e mailing you demanding to know why little Jimmy has gone down from a 7b to a 7c and what you are going to do about it when his target is 7a!
Only a teacher understands why teachers need six weeks off in the summer to recharge their batteries.
Not that I will stop working between now and September. I have already planned the new Year 10 lessons for the Interwar Years 1919-1939 course for the first half term. During the holidays I will be rewriting the lesson plans for the new Year 11 Cold War 1945-1990 course. I should also be rewriting the Schemes of Work for the AS courses on Stalin's Rusia and Mao's China, let alone the A2 Superpower Relations 1944-1990 course. Then of course there's A level results on August 15 th and GCSE results a week later. Those will require a detailed, written analysis for the Headmaster for early September.
Nevertheless school finishes on Wednesday and I won't have to teach another lesson until the month after next. That's a great feeling.
HAPPY HOLS!!
Tuesday 23 July 2013
Monday 1 July 2013
An Emm in the Somme
However my little vignette about why it's important to remember the Somme is in this photo. I found F.T Emm a few years ago at Louvencourt Cemetery north of Albert. I was visiting with my parents who wanted to see and know all about 'The Somme'. I took to them all the obvious places and some not so obvious. We had to make a special journey to Louvencourt as it is well off the beaten track.
One of my reasons to remember the Somme is simply to find out who F T Emm was. I know he was a Private who died on August 27th 1916. He was serving with the 1st/3rd South Midland Field Ambulance as part of the Royal Army Medical Corps. He may be a relative or he may just be another Emm! Ultimately that is not important. What matters to me (and I hope him) is that I discover more about F Emm's story and tell other people; my students, his/our family, my parents, my sister, my young children and one day they can pass the story on themselves.
JHGS students visit the Somme every October, but we never go to Louvencourt. Indeed it is about time I went back, this time with my young children. So I will promise you, myself and him that next time I pay him a visit, I will have found out some more about him and keep his story alive. Maybe August 27th 2016 would be a good time!
Oh, I forgot to say, he was just 22 when he died!
Thursday 27 June 2013
The History National Curriculum Rewrite
History is very much in the news at the moment, which is great. Plus it's in the news because so many people are debating what should be taught in history lessons, which is even greater. What's taught in history classes is very important. Many people think Gove has got it wrong. It's true that the pace of change on his watch is far too ambitious. A new GCSE, new A levels and a new National Curriculum to boot is just far too much too quickly. Thankfully this has been acknowledged in Whitehall and we should be grateful for small mercies!
In all honesty whenever any Education Secretary says "Here's what we think should be taught in history lessons", they're just asking for trouble. History is so emotive, so subjective, so political. Every time a politician tells us what schools' history should be, we all jump up and yell "Well you would say that wouldn't you, you're biased".
That's the problem with history. Or rather, that's the beauty of history. It is not a narrow subject with a set syllabus that is extremely difficult to vary. There are a million and one topics that children could (and should) learn about in schools. However our ideas on the history curriculum tell people much more about us than history. Our choices depend on what we learnt at school (good and bad), our upbringing, where we live, where we would like to live and which history topics we hated and the ones we loved.
Personally I found and still find the Industrial Revolution as dull as dish water. However even though JHGS is an academy, we decided to keep it in our KS3 curriculum because it is an essential part of Britain's story, or should that be Britain's history? We teach the Cold War after 1945 and this involves a discussion about Britain's post war decline as a great power. Yet as part of this they need to appreciate how Britain became a great power, and how great a power she was.
Also there are so few history lessons in the timetable. Our year 7 and 9 boys get two lessons per fortnight whereas our year 8s get three hours a fortnight. With the best will in the world, there are only so many topics you can fit in the schedule. Also if you want your students to study a topic in any meaningful depth, we end up doing a topic per term. That's just nine topics between years 7 to 9 out of one million and one! African parents have complained to me there's not enough African history in the curriculum, Polish parents may well say the same.
As a HoD at an academy this is largely irrelevant as we are not obliged to follow the National Curriculum. However as a Head of History, the dilemma is still the same - "What DO you teach"? To help answer this question as we applied for academy status, we carried out a survey of all our students on history at JHGS, but the main question was "what do YOU want to learn about"? The results were very interesting. Having dropped the GCSE Depth Study on Interwar Germany, a majority of boys told us they wanted to learn about Hitler. It also informed our decision to teach
Stalin's Russia and Mao's China at A level.
I have some sympathy with the NUT when it says teaching hours should be limited to four per day and that there should be a set amount of hours for planning, marking etc. But how is this viable in the present financial situation? However I do have some sympathy with Gove and his plans to rewrite the History National Curriculum. He 's damned if he does X, he's damned if he does Y, either way he's just damned!
Tuesday 18 June 2013
2015 The Waterloo Bicentenary
So today is Waterloo Day. Or rather it is is the 198th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo, a key event and turning point in European history. I went there in 1982 and it looked a little plain, but I'm sure it looks much different now. Until last weekend I was unaware that there are no official plans by the British government to commemorate the bicentenary in two years time. There are certainly no plans by the government to spend any money on any commemoration.
Clearly this is in stark contrast to the much-publicized (and rightly so!) £50m plus that is being spent on the centenary of the Great War 1914-1918. So why is Britain's participation in one European war being commemorated, but not another?
Certainly more men died in the First World War as fewer than 350,000 men died fighting France compared to roughly 750,000 men killed fighting the Kaiser. However about 5.6 of Britain's casualties in the Napoleonic Wars died from disease, so the conditions for most of the men must have been comparable to life in the trenches. In addition if after 1914 the BEF was fighting to stop one country's domination of Europe, then what on earth was the cause a hundred years previously?
I can't believe the British government, let alone the people, don't mind upsetting today's Germans by commemorating WW1, but are wary of upsetting the French about a European war a hundred years before that. What would the Pub Landlord say?
Whether this is popular or not, the British people are - by definition - European. This was one of the major reasons why war was fought against Napoleon because he threatened the balance of power in the European continent, not least when he escaped from exile in March 1815. So because in 1815, as in 1915 and - dare I say it? - in 2015, Great Britain was and is a European power, with a keen eye and a firm interest in the political, economic and military development of Europe, the events at Waterloo on 18th June 1815 are a significant part of the story of Britain, the story of our nearest continental neighbour France as well as a major part of the European story. Ahead of 2014 European elections news of a government-sponsored commemoration of the history of the Napoleonic Wars and Britain's role in its iconic land battle may just jog a few Eurosceptic memories and maybe help burst the UKIP bubble!
We are European and we should embrace this, not pretend otherwise.
So we can do our bit to help people become more aware of the importance today of June 18th 1815 by following @Waterloo200org on Twitter or going to waterloo200.org.
Oh and sshhhh, whisper it softly to some people (!), but if it wasn't for Blucher and the German-speaking Prussians arriving in the nick of time on that fateful day, it might well be the French celebrating their greatest victory's bicentenary in 2015!!!
Clearly this is in stark contrast to the much-publicized (and rightly so!) £50m plus that is being spent on the centenary of the Great War 1914-1918. So why is Britain's participation in one European war being commemorated, but not another?
Certainly more men died in the First World War as fewer than 350,000 men died fighting France compared to roughly 750,000 men killed fighting the Kaiser. However about 5.6 of Britain's casualties in the Napoleonic Wars died from disease, so the conditions for most of the men must have been comparable to life in the trenches. In addition if after 1914 the BEF was fighting to stop one country's domination of Europe, then what on earth was the cause a hundred years previously?
I can't believe the British government, let alone the people, don't mind upsetting today's Germans by commemorating WW1, but are wary of upsetting the French about a European war a hundred years before that. What would the Pub Landlord say?
Whether this is popular or not, the British people are - by definition - European. This was one of the major reasons why war was fought against Napoleon because he threatened the balance of power in the European continent, not least when he escaped from exile in March 1815. So because in 1815, as in 1915 and - dare I say it? - in 2015, Great Britain was and is a European power, with a keen eye and a firm interest in the political, economic and military development of Europe, the events at Waterloo on 18th June 1815 are a significant part of the story of Britain, the story of our nearest continental neighbour France as well as a major part of the European story. Ahead of 2014 European elections news of a government-sponsored commemoration of the history of the Napoleonic Wars and Britain's role in its iconic land battle may just jog a few Eurosceptic memories and maybe help burst the UKIP bubble!
We are European and we should embrace this, not pretend otherwise.
So we can do our bit to help people become more aware of the importance today of June 18th 1815 by following @Waterloo200org on Twitter or going to waterloo200.org.
Oh and sshhhh, whisper it softly to some people (!), but if it wasn't for Blucher and the German-speaking Prussians arriving in the nick of time on that fateful day, it might well be the French celebrating their greatest victory's bicentenary in 2015!!!
Friday 14 June 2013
My Love Affair with Belgium
Can anyone explain to me why Belgium has this reputation of being bland and uninteresting? I just don't get it. I'm happy to say that it is my favourite European country? For me the people, the countryside, the history, the food and town squares are a home from home. I don't think I am ever more relaxed than when I'm in West Vlanderen, be it Ostend, Tournai, or Bruges, but especially Ieper.
I first went to Belgium at Easter 1982 on a school trip. We stayed at a Hotel Melbourne in Konigstraat in Ostend. It was only a long weekend, but we also managed to fit in a visit to Brussels and the site of the Battle of Waterloo. We were also taken to a shop on the Dutch border that took FOUR different currencies - Dutch Gilder, Belgian francs, French francs and British sterling. ( How times have changed!). Sadly we never visited any WW1 cemeteries or battlefields.
However since co-leading my first school trip as a teacher in February 1997, I have been coming back to Ieper with school at the wonderful Poppies youth hostel and on family holidays at the even more luxurious Ariane hotel. (Ypres is in the Flemish-speaking part of Belgium and so I always refer to it in its Flemish form Ieper). Thus I must have been back to this part of Belgium on about twenty five to thirty times. Luckily my family have also fallen in love with this area and for non-WW1 reasons too.
The people are incredibly friendly and laid back (whilst working very hard). They speak impeccable English, although I am trying to use more Flemish each time I return. In fact most Belgians are trilingual at least. They enjoy a pace of life that is so far removed from the 'rat race', relaxing in their company is a breath of fresh air.
Clearly it was WW1 that drew me to Belgium and, with apologies to my family, there hasn't been a single family visit without at least one visit to an old cemetery or a search for a new one. However there is so much more to Belgium and I have so many places on the 'to do' list. The countryside although flat is beautiful and litter-free. It also has a great coastline and a visit to Ostend and the fish markets have become de rigour for the family. It also has some of the finest architecture in Northern Europe, particularly the Flemish-roofed buildings and the majestic cobbled squares in Bruges and Tournai.
The lure of the history of Belgium, particularly but not exclusively WW1 will need a seperate post by itself. So I will finish with the food of Belgium. Ironically I'm not that keen on the moules (mussels) but the seafood is hours fresh and totally delicious, apart from the grey shrimp salad! The steaks in Belgium are amongst the world's best. ( I once took a friend who had travelled in South America and his steak in the Den Anker restaurant in Ieper was the best he'd ever eaten). The frites are crispy and light, and really tasty with mayonnaise. The local beers are very thirst quenching without being too gassy and of course there is the chocolate. Many a fine afternoon has been spent wining and dining in Den Anker, Ieper before making my way to Leonidas chocolaterie across the square.
Maybe I need to write a post on 'Why I love Ieper' but for now, let me just say that Belgium is a wonderfully understated country, calm, relaxing, full of surprises and well worth visiting......again and again. In the words of another friend, "If Belgium had mountains I'd move here!"
I first went to Belgium at Easter 1982 on a school trip. We stayed at a Hotel Melbourne in Konigstraat in Ostend. It was only a long weekend, but we also managed to fit in a visit to Brussels and the site of the Battle of Waterloo. We were also taken to a shop on the Dutch border that took FOUR different currencies - Dutch Gilder, Belgian francs, French francs and British sterling. ( How times have changed!). Sadly we never visited any WW1 cemeteries or battlefields.
However since co-leading my first school trip as a teacher in February 1997, I have been coming back to Ieper with school at the wonderful Poppies youth hostel and on family holidays at the even more luxurious Ariane hotel. (Ypres is in the Flemish-speaking part of Belgium and so I always refer to it in its Flemish form Ieper). Thus I must have been back to this part of Belgium on about twenty five to thirty times. Luckily my family have also fallen in love with this area and for non-WW1 reasons too.
The people are incredibly friendly and laid back (whilst working very hard). They speak impeccable English, although I am trying to use more Flemish each time I return. In fact most Belgians are trilingual at least. They enjoy a pace of life that is so far removed from the 'rat race', relaxing in their company is a breath of fresh air.
Clearly it was WW1 that drew me to Belgium and, with apologies to my family, there hasn't been a single family visit without at least one visit to an old cemetery or a search for a new one. However there is so much more to Belgium and I have so many places on the 'to do' list. The countryside although flat is beautiful and litter-free. It also has a great coastline and a visit to Ostend and the fish markets have become de rigour for the family. It also has some of the finest architecture in Northern Europe, particularly the Flemish-roofed buildings and the majestic cobbled squares in Bruges and Tournai.
The lure of the history of Belgium, particularly but not exclusively WW1 will need a seperate post by itself. So I will finish with the food of Belgium. Ironically I'm not that keen on the moules (mussels) but the seafood is hours fresh and totally delicious, apart from the grey shrimp salad! The steaks in Belgium are amongst the world's best. ( I once took a friend who had travelled in South America and his steak in the Den Anker restaurant in Ieper was the best he'd ever eaten). The frites are crispy and light, and really tasty with mayonnaise. The local beers are very thirst quenching without being too gassy and of course there is the chocolate. Many a fine afternoon has been spent wining and dining in Den Anker, Ieper before making my way to Leonidas chocolaterie across the square.
Maybe I need to write a post on 'Why I love Ieper' but for now, let me just say that Belgium is a wonderfully understated country, calm, relaxing, full of surprises and well worth visiting......again and again. In the words of another friend, "If Belgium had mountains I'd move here!"
Wednesday 12 June 2013
Letter to Max Hastings
Dear Mr Hastings
It was with genuine horror that I read your comments in the press via Twitter. One piece was entitled 'Germany and Austria started WW1 because they wanted European domination' and the other was called 'Sucking up to the Germans is no way to remember our Great War heroes, Mr Cameron'. It is so embarrassing in 2013 that such old fashioned and biased opinions are being given such media coverage albeit in the right wing press.
Whilst I acknowledge that you have read and written books on the Great War (and indeed were a researcher on the groundbreaking 1964 BBC documentary 'The Great War', this anti-German stance is so old hat. Have your views not changed since fifty years ago when Europe was still recovering from the wreckage of the Nazis' conquest? Yet this is my point there is such a fundamental difference between 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. Hitler is rightly blamed for starting WW2 and I cannot see a time when that view is controversial. However to tar 1914 Germany with the same brush is a gross disservice to history and Germany, then and now.
Austria wanted war with Serbia to crush the largest Balkan power, whose government and army were partly complicit in the assassination of its heir to the throne. Germany went to war to protect her Austrian ally against attack from Russia, should Serbia 's ally decide to protect her Balkan little brother, which she did. Indeed having given Austria his assurance that Germany would stand by her Dual Alliance partner, the Kaiser left for his annual summer cruise to Norway. This is hardly the actions of a country's leader who is embarking on a war to take over Europe!
It is true that once the war had started, some people in Bethmann-Hollweg's administration drafted the September Programme which had expansionist intentions after a German victory. However this was never formally adopted by the German government and although it was discovered by Fritz Fischer at about the time you were researching 'The Great War', this was not Germany's stated war aims, but some ideas dreamt up by some in the civil service and the Prussian military.
Has British historiography regressed so much that as we approach the centenary commemorations, we feel a knee jerk reaction to try and tell the world that it was Germany's fault, just like the second one? I despair that as a teacher, such old-fashioned Anglo-centric and anti-German views might be read by today's school children when if we all take a step back, we might just see that ALL countries involved in the war's fighting were involved in the war's starting! France, Russia and Britain all had their own reasons to go to war. Some of these reasons were to do with Germany and others had nothing to do with Germany. The Central Powers were not blameless for the catastrophe which began in August 1914, but instead they must take their share of the blame alongside all belligerents from BOTH sides. So we must remember this war's victims ON BOTH SIDES and we need to remember how the war ended. But we must also remember that it was the sloppy peace treaty that followed that went a long way to starting an even bigger, even worse catastrophe twenty years later.
Kind regards
From someone who wants to see an open minded, objective and European commemoration of a war that created no winners, only losers.
It was with genuine horror that I read your comments in the press via Twitter. One piece was entitled 'Germany and Austria started WW1 because they wanted European domination' and the other was called 'Sucking up to the Germans is no way to remember our Great War heroes, Mr Cameron'. It is so embarrassing in 2013 that such old fashioned and biased opinions are being given such media coverage albeit in the right wing press.
Whilst I acknowledge that you have read and written books on the Great War (and indeed were a researcher on the groundbreaking 1964 BBC documentary 'The Great War', this anti-German stance is so old hat. Have your views not changed since fifty years ago when Europe was still recovering from the wreckage of the Nazis' conquest? Yet this is my point there is such a fundamental difference between 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. Hitler is rightly blamed for starting WW2 and I cannot see a time when that view is controversial. However to tar 1914 Germany with the same brush is a gross disservice to history and Germany, then and now.
Austria wanted war with Serbia to crush the largest Balkan power, whose government and army were partly complicit in the assassination of its heir to the throne. Germany went to war to protect her Austrian ally against attack from Russia, should Serbia 's ally decide to protect her Balkan little brother, which she did. Indeed having given Austria his assurance that Germany would stand by her Dual Alliance partner, the Kaiser left for his annual summer cruise to Norway. This is hardly the actions of a country's leader who is embarking on a war to take over Europe!
It is true that once the war had started, some people in Bethmann-Hollweg's administration drafted the September Programme which had expansionist intentions after a German victory. However this was never formally adopted by the German government and although it was discovered by Fritz Fischer at about the time you were researching 'The Great War', this was not Germany's stated war aims, but some ideas dreamt up by some in the civil service and the Prussian military.
Has British historiography regressed so much that as we approach the centenary commemorations, we feel a knee jerk reaction to try and tell the world that it was Germany's fault, just like the second one? I despair that as a teacher, such old-fashioned Anglo-centric and anti-German views might be read by today's school children when if we all take a step back, we might just see that ALL countries involved in the war's fighting were involved in the war's starting! France, Russia and Britain all had their own reasons to go to war. Some of these reasons were to do with Germany and others had nothing to do with Germany. The Central Powers were not blameless for the catastrophe which began in August 1914, but instead they must take their share of the blame alongside all belligerents from BOTH sides. So we must remember this war's victims ON BOTH SIDES and we need to remember how the war ended. But we must also remember that it was the sloppy peace treaty that followed that went a long way to starting an even bigger, even worse catastrophe twenty years later.
Kind regards
From someone who wants to see an open minded, objective and European commemoration of a war that created no winners, only losers.
Sunday 9 June 2013
OCR A972 British Depth Study
So here are my top tips for the British Depth Study : -
1. Be calm and relaxed, a panicky mind can make bad decisions.
2. As the exam starts it is a good idea to spend the first 5 minutes looking at the exam paper.
3. In these 5 mins you should study the sources carefully, especially the provenance, underlining key words, dates, names etc.
4. It is also important to read through the ALL questions carefully before you start writing. Again you should underline key words such as reliable/trustworthy, useful etc.
5. You know have 85 mins left and you should leave 25 mins to answer the last 12 mark question.
6. So in a 6 question exam you have 12 mins each for Qs 1-5. In a 7 question exam you have only 10 mins each for Qs 1-6.
7. Remember the difference between usefulness and reliability/trustworthiness. Reliable sources tend NOT to be biased, whereas unreliable sources are biased to one particular view. However unreliable and biased sources can be extremely useful to the historian.
8. For each and every answer you need to use both the content of the sources as well as your own knowledge. YOU WILL LOSE MARKS IF YOU DON'T.
9. Before you start you answer for the last question, you should have planned out which sources agree with the statement and which sources don't. You need to use ALL the sources in this answer and the more detail from the sources you use to explain your judgement the better. A good way to show you are using a written source is to quote parts of it in your answer where appropriate. Your answer should be balanced (evaluates both sides of the question) and you need to write a detailed conclusion. This conclusion can include key words/phrases such as "on balance", "minority", "majority", "to a small extent", "to a large extent".
10. You will also be marked out of 3 for spelling, punctuation and grammar on the last 12 mark question. You will also be given up to 2 extra marks for the quality of your use of ALL the sources in the final answer. You should finish WITH ONLY SECONDS TO SPARE.
Good luck
S.J. Emm
11. Oh and remember you have worked really hard and you have performed really well in your other modules. So be confident in your own ability to perform equally well in this exam and achieve NOT your target grade, but your challenge grade.
1. Be calm and relaxed, a panicky mind can make bad decisions.
2. As the exam starts it is a good idea to spend the first 5 minutes looking at the exam paper.
3. In these 5 mins you should study the sources carefully, especially the provenance, underlining key words, dates, names etc.
4. It is also important to read through the ALL questions carefully before you start writing. Again you should underline key words such as reliable/trustworthy, useful etc.
5. You know have 85 mins left and you should leave 25 mins to answer the last 12 mark question.
6. So in a 6 question exam you have 12 mins each for Qs 1-5. In a 7 question exam you have only 10 mins each for Qs 1-6.
7. Remember the difference between usefulness and reliability/trustworthiness. Reliable sources tend NOT to be biased, whereas unreliable sources are biased to one particular view. However unreliable and biased sources can be extremely useful to the historian.
8. For each and every answer you need to use both the content of the sources as well as your own knowledge. YOU WILL LOSE MARKS IF YOU DON'T.
9. Before you start you answer for the last question, you should have planned out which sources agree with the statement and which sources don't. You need to use ALL the sources in this answer and the more detail from the sources you use to explain your judgement the better. A good way to show you are using a written source is to quote parts of it in your answer where appropriate. Your answer should be balanced (evaluates both sides of the question) and you need to write a detailed conclusion. This conclusion can include key words/phrases such as "on balance", "minority", "majority", "to a small extent", "to a large extent".
10. You will also be marked out of 3 for spelling, punctuation and grammar on the last 12 mark question. You will also be given up to 2 extra marks for the quality of your use of ALL the sources in the final answer. You should finish WITH ONLY SECONDS TO SPARE.
Good luck
S.J. Emm
11. Oh and remember you have worked really hard and you have performed really well in your other modules. So be confident in your own ability to perform equally well in this exam and achieve NOT your target grade, but your challenge grade.
Thursday 6 June 2013
Young People and the WW1 Centenary
My year 9 class are presently revising for their end of year exam. They will be asked two iGCSE-style questions on the origins of the First World War. So what should today's generation know about the causes of this war that they will (hopefully) be reading, seeing, hearing and talking about in the next five years? After a recent Twitter spat about this topic with Professor Gary Sheffield, I have been reflecting on my answer to this question.
If there is just one thing I would like to have achieved in the last nineteen years of teaching, it is that the students in my lessons learn that the 1914-1918 conflict was not just caused by the Germans. I am sure that many previous generations of British school children have been taught just this, that WW1 was started by those "nasty old Germans." (This view must have been particularly prevalent after 1945 and a war that is more easy to blame some people from Germany for.)
However the causes of WW1 are not so clear cut for me and this is one of the many things that makes WW1 more fascinating and complex for me. I do not believe that Britain went to war in 1914 to protect liberty, certainly not Britain's liberty. My fundamental view is that ALL countries that took part in this dreadful conflict were, in part, responsible for its start and yes, that includes us, or rather Britain. It also includes Germany who were certainly no angels in the summer crisis and if it were not for the Schlieffen Plan, an Eastern European war might not have spread westwards.
Despite what others think (!), I will always teach that the war started for a variety of different and complex reasons which involved to a lesser or greater extent all the belligerents. So I will teach about Serbian officials' complicity in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, Austria's desire to smash Serbia's growing strength before it was too late, Russia's inability to mobilise purely on just the Austrian border, France's desire for 'une revanche' and yes, the Kaiser's blank cheque to Franz Josef and the Prussian military's desire for war.
However I will also teach that Britain was also partly responsible. Britain was not obliged to fight as part of the Entente Cordiale of 1904 or defend Russia in the 1907 treaty. Britain went to war in 1914 because Britain wanted to go to war. The German invasion of Belgium was a big part of this and we all know about the 1839 treaty. However just as Fritz Fischer's 'Griff nach der Weltmacht' blamed Germany, there is also Dangerfield's 'The Strange Death of Liberal England' which claims Britain decided to involve itself to escape the domestic problems of militant Suffragettes, striking miners, railwaymen and dockers as well as the 'Irish problem'. I also feel Britain went to war because Britain is a European power and wished to prevent a continent economically and industrially dominated by Germany. However I always stress to my students what are facts and what are my opinions.
So good luck in your exam gentlemen and remember, the First World War was not just caused by the Germans. It was caused by them and many other European countries, including the one you are writing your exam in! That's not just my opinion, that's a fact!
If there is just one thing I would like to have achieved in the last nineteen years of teaching, it is that the students in my lessons learn that the 1914-1918 conflict was not just caused by the Germans. I am sure that many previous generations of British school children have been taught just this, that WW1 was started by those "nasty old Germans." (This view must have been particularly prevalent after 1945 and a war that is more easy to blame some people from Germany for.)
However the causes of WW1 are not so clear cut for me and this is one of the many things that makes WW1 more fascinating and complex for me. I do not believe that Britain went to war in 1914 to protect liberty, certainly not Britain's liberty. My fundamental view is that ALL countries that took part in this dreadful conflict were, in part, responsible for its start and yes, that includes us, or rather Britain. It also includes Germany who were certainly no angels in the summer crisis and if it were not for the Schlieffen Plan, an Eastern European war might not have spread westwards.
Despite what others think (!), I will always teach that the war started for a variety of different and complex reasons which involved to a lesser or greater extent all the belligerents. So I will teach about Serbian officials' complicity in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, Austria's desire to smash Serbia's growing strength before it was too late, Russia's inability to mobilise purely on just the Austrian border, France's desire for 'une revanche' and yes, the Kaiser's blank cheque to Franz Josef and the Prussian military's desire for war.
However I will also teach that Britain was also partly responsible. Britain was not obliged to fight as part of the Entente Cordiale of 1904 or defend Russia in the 1907 treaty. Britain went to war in 1914 because Britain wanted to go to war. The German invasion of Belgium was a big part of this and we all know about the 1839 treaty. However just as Fritz Fischer's 'Griff nach der Weltmacht' blamed Germany, there is also Dangerfield's 'The Strange Death of Liberal England' which claims Britain decided to involve itself to escape the domestic problems of militant Suffragettes, striking miners, railwaymen and dockers as well as the 'Irish problem'. I also feel Britain went to war because Britain is a European power and wished to prevent a continent economically and industrially dominated by Germany. However I always stress to my students what are facts and what are my opinions.
So good luck in your exam gentlemen and remember, the First World War was not just caused by the Germans. It was caused by them and many other European countries, including the one you are writing your exam in! That's not just my opinion, that's a fact!
Sunday 2 June 2013
So why the fascination with WW1?
I never really liked History when I started at my grammar school. I had an elderly, dull teacher and she didn't exactly bring the Middle Ages to life ! Then for my O levels (yes I know) I had a different teacher and even though we were studying essentially the Industrial Revolution (not exactly the sexiest topic), he was a much more engaging teacher and I actually enjoyed History lessons. I did reasonably well in History and went on to take it at A level along with French and German. For History we studied both European History from 1815 to 1964 as well as British History from 1815 to 1964.
A level History was incredibly hard work and naturally within all those topics, some were more interesting than others. The topic that really reached and grabbed my interest was the Causes of the First World War. For some reason the reading just came easy. I was never happy that I had read enough and always wanted to find another book. I spent hours on my homework writing my notes and the file on WW1 would be a lot thicker than the 1848 Austrian Revolution! At primary school I had read a book in the library which was about trench life. I remember a cup of tea being described as tasting of a mixture of "woodbines and condensed milk"! It also spoke of a place called Ypres where a 'Wipers Times' was written. (I really wish I could find out/remember what that book was called).
The next stage was after I became a History teacher. At my first school in Oxford we changed after a few years (for me) from the Schools History Project to a Modern World GCSE. This included teaching the causes and events of the FWW. I was only too happy to write the booklet that the students would use in their lessons. This culminated in my then HoD setting up a residential battlefields trip for February 1997. (I don't know who he was working for then, but our guide was Geoff Garner who is now working for NST in Blackpool).
Blessed with a photographic memory, I can still recall vividly most of the details of that four day trip. For example at our first cemetery ~ Notre Dame de Lorette near Arras - a young year 9 student
( Peter Wright) said to me "I know it says in the book that thousands of men died, but I never really
appreciated what that meant 'till I saw all these graves".WOW
That year I moved to JHGS which ran a 1 day trip to the Somme every July. For the first four years this was really frustrating for me as every time I was there I wanted to visit so many more places that were so close at hand, but we just didn't have time for. I badgered and pestered my then HoD and after 2001 he relented and said he would stop doing the 1 day trip so that I could I could lead a 4 day trip in October half term. In 2005 I replaced my retiring HoD and funnily enough, the causes and events of WW1 found themselves in our GCSE syllabus. We have run a successful trip every October and as History is so popular at KS4 and the trip's reputation has snowballed, for most of the last six /seven years we have had to run another trip in February half term (for some of my colleagues this is an even better time to visit). All in all we must have had at least sixteen residential trips since 2002 with another two going ahead this October and one booked for October 2014.
I keep going back (with school, family and friends) I think because I still haven't worked it out yet. Whenever I am asked "why did so many people (have to) die?", I just don't have the answer. I don't think I ever will. There is just something that keeps taking me back to Arras and the Somme and particularly Ieper. There is a simple beauty, calm and mesmerising allure that I am sure will never go away.
Thanks for reading
From a self-confessed WW1 cemetery junkie.
A level History was incredibly hard work and naturally within all those topics, some were more interesting than others. The topic that really reached and grabbed my interest was the Causes of the First World War. For some reason the reading just came easy. I was never happy that I had read enough and always wanted to find another book. I spent hours on my homework writing my notes and the file on WW1 would be a lot thicker than the 1848 Austrian Revolution! At primary school I had read a book in the library which was about trench life. I remember a cup of tea being described as tasting of a mixture of "woodbines and condensed milk"! It also spoke of a place called Ypres where a 'Wipers Times' was written. (I really wish I could find out/remember what that book was called).
The next stage was after I became a History teacher. At my first school in Oxford we changed after a few years (for me) from the Schools History Project to a Modern World GCSE. This included teaching the causes and events of the FWW. I was only too happy to write the booklet that the students would use in their lessons. This culminated in my then HoD setting up a residential battlefields trip for February 1997. (I don't know who he was working for then, but our guide was Geoff Garner who is now working for NST in Blackpool).
Blessed with a photographic memory, I can still recall vividly most of the details of that four day trip. For example at our first cemetery ~ Notre Dame de Lorette near Arras - a young year 9 student
( Peter Wright) said to me "I know it says in the book that thousands of men died, but I never really
appreciated what that meant 'till I saw all these graves".WOW
That year I moved to JHGS which ran a 1 day trip to the Somme every July. For the first four years this was really frustrating for me as every time I was there I wanted to visit so many more places that were so close at hand, but we just didn't have time for. I badgered and pestered my then HoD and after 2001 he relented and said he would stop doing the 1 day trip so that I could I could lead a 4 day trip in October half term. In 2005 I replaced my retiring HoD and funnily enough, the causes and events of WW1 found themselves in our GCSE syllabus. We have run a successful trip every October and as History is so popular at KS4 and the trip's reputation has snowballed, for most of the last six /seven years we have had to run another trip in February half term (for some of my colleagues this is an even better time to visit). All in all we must have had at least sixteen residential trips since 2002 with another two going ahead this October and one booked for October 2014.
I keep going back (with school, family and friends) I think because I still haven't worked it out yet. Whenever I am asked "why did so many people (have to) die?", I just don't have the answer. I don't think I ever will. There is just something that keeps taking me back to Arras and the Somme and particularly Ieper. There is a simple beauty, calm and mesmerising allure that I am sure will never go away.
Thanks for reading
From a self-confessed WW1 cemetery junkie.
Friday 31 May 2013
Exam Tips
So here are my top ten tips for this Monday ;
1. Be calm and relaxed, a panicky mind can make bad decisions.
2. Remember to answer just two of the three questions.
3. It's probably a good idea to sketch out a brief essay plan in the first 5 minutes, BUT DON'T FORGET TO PUT A LINE THROUGH IT AT THE END.
4. 20/60 marks are for quality of evidence used to back up your analysis and evaluative judgements, historical terminology and essay structure/legibility.
5. 40/60 marks are for the quality of your analysis and evaluations.
6. You should compare the relative importance of a wide range of different factors/events not necessarily to each other, BUT TO THE FACTOR/EVENT IN THE QUESTION.
7. Remember the course is not about German history, BUT GERMAN NATIONALISM so this should be the focus of your judgements.
8. The course of German nationalism was not straightforward, i.e. it did not grow gradually, although it was a more popular cause in the latter part of the period.
9. DO NOT WRITE A CHRONOLOGICAl ESSAY, or even an anti-chronological essay (backwards). This could trap you into writing a narrative essay. Where appropriate try and compare different factors to each other when analysing the development of German nationalism (political, military, economic/industrial and social).
10. The A* essays will be synoptic over the whole 130 year period and will NOT necessarily focus too much on any particular sub-period within the syllabus.
S.J.Emm
11. Oh and good luck, be confident in your ability to achieve your challenge grade. You have worked hard and you have all the knowledge, understanding and essay skills you need to perform at the highest level in this exam.
1. Be calm and relaxed, a panicky mind can make bad decisions.
2. Remember to answer just two of the three questions.
3. It's probably a good idea to sketch out a brief essay plan in the first 5 minutes, BUT DON'T FORGET TO PUT A LINE THROUGH IT AT THE END.
4. 20/60 marks are for quality of evidence used to back up your analysis and evaluative judgements, historical terminology and essay structure/legibility.
5. 40/60 marks are for the quality of your analysis and evaluations.
6. You should compare the relative importance of a wide range of different factors/events not necessarily to each other, BUT TO THE FACTOR/EVENT IN THE QUESTION.
7. Remember the course is not about German history, BUT GERMAN NATIONALISM so this should be the focus of your judgements.
8. The course of German nationalism was not straightforward, i.e. it did not grow gradually, although it was a more popular cause in the latter part of the period.
9. DO NOT WRITE A CHRONOLOGICAl ESSAY, or even an anti-chronological essay (backwards). This could trap you into writing a narrative essay. Where appropriate try and compare different factors to each other when analysing the development of German nationalism (political, military, economic/industrial and social).
10. The A* essays will be synoptic over the whole 130 year period and will NOT necessarily focus too much on any particular sub-period within the syllabus.
S.J.Emm
11. Oh and good luck, be confident in your ability to achieve your challenge grade. You have worked hard and you have all the knowledge, understanding and essay skills you need to perform at the highest level in this exam.
Thursday 30 May 2013
The Pool of Peace
The Pool of Peace, one of my favourite places in the Ieper area, taken last summer. Very relaxing...when it's not littered with rubbish!
Every long journey begins with
It's May 2013 and for a variety of reasons - which I hope will become clear in future posts - I have decided to start blogging. I am passionate about history and if I'm honest, I have a preference for modern history. My cause celebre is the causes and events of the First World War. In particular I have led school tours and private tours of the WW1 battlefields and cemeteries since February 1997. In addition I have written a booklet for the pupils studying this topic for iGCSE. I have also written booklets on the Interwar Years 1919-1939, The Challenge of German Nationalism 1789-1919, The Cold War 1945-1990 (for iGCSE), as well as a more advanced version for 6th formers taking the Superpower Relations 1944-1990s course and I am currently working on a booklet for Stalin's Russia 1924-1953 as well as Mao's China 1949-1976.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)