Franco-German textbook launched

[BlackRain]

Franco-German textbook launched


The first joint French-German history textbook is to be unveiled in France.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41217000/jpg/_41217417_chirac_afp_203.jpg


The book, by French and German authors, covers recent history since 1945 - the year when World War II ended.

It is the world's first joint manual on the sensitive subject that is often viewed differently by neighbouring states in some parts of the worlds.

In 2005, China was hit by anti-Japanese rallies following Tokyo's approval of schoolbooks which critics said whitewashed its wartime past.

Thursday's launch of the French-language history book is due to take place at the World War I museum in the northern town of Peronne, near the site of one of the bloodiest battles of that war.

The idea of the manual was born after French President Jacques Chirac and the then German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, met a group of high school students from both countries, said Bernard Kampmann, spokesman for the German embassy in Paris.

"It was not easy because of the complexity of the German and French school systems, but both leaders really threw their weight behind the project," the spokesman said.

'Heated discussions'

The 10 authors did not encounter major difficulties, according to France's Figaro newspaper.

Paradoxically it was not World War II which provided the main topic of debate, but the US role in the world since 1945, the newspaper said.

It quoted Guillaume Le Quintrec, co-director of the project, who said "the French found the Germans to be pro-American and the Germans found our viewpoint anti-American".

Heated discussions, in which each word was carefully considered, resulted in a text which both sides judged to be "balanced".

Another stumbling block was the German historians' desire for a more critical approach than the French one towards the former people's democracies in Central Europe.

The book will be on the curriculum in French and German schools.

The German version is expected to be unveiled in July in the city of Saarbrucken.

The next textbook - covering the 18th Century to 1945 - is planned to be published next year.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4972922.stm

--------

I can't wait to see what 'history' is in this book.

[ElHombre]

Another stumbling block was the German historians' desire for a more critical approach than the French one towards the former people's democracies in Central Europe.

can't you germans ever be happy? ;-)

[Macs.]

can't you germans ever be happy? ;-)

No. ........

[Vandervahn]

...

I can't wait to see what 'history' is in this book.

The one that happened, as far as it fits children education?

[roland]

Very good.

1945 to today is the easy part though.

I think they'll try to make comon history book for other periods.

The most difficult might be
- the Napoleonic area: France it's said that we were agressed, allied with most of German states and bring Liberty while the "official" Prussian propaganda says we were the agressor, enemy and bring oppression,
- reason for WWI: in France it's said Germany was responsible while Germany says its not that simple,
- end WWI: The Germans say they were victimes while many other, specialy in France, say that it was a big mistake for the allies not to have crushed Germany in 1918 and make the German people realize there defeat,
- Charlemagne: the French say he was a French king while the Germans say he was a German king,
- other ?

[Well that's how I see it may be wrong. Looking at the current history book and courses of my children it's probable the young french have no idea at all since the books and courses are more Socialist propaganda than anything else imo]

[Vandervahn]

...
- reason for WWI: in France it's said Germany was responsible while Germany says its not that simple,

Do the French still insist on Germany´s general guilt? Have you ever heard of the Austro-Hungarian offensive? ;)

- Charlemagne: the French say he was a French king while the Germans say he was a German king, ...

No, the Germans (correctly) say he was a FRANKISH king. Only 30 years after his death the frankish empire was parted in three parts under the Treaty of Verdun, and these three parts were the earliest definitions of what what would later become the French and German nations. Because of that, both countries can trace their ancestry back to the Franks, but noone could say Charlemagne would be "French" or " German". These national concepts didnt even exist until centuries later.

Anyway, I was told by a few teachers I know that modern school history books often make use of special "Controversy" boxes, pages set apart from the others on which disputed facts of history are discussed more in-depth. I think by this you could easily portray multiple sides to a story (like "ALEXANDER THE GREAT: Tyrant or the Great Unifier?").

[Count Lippe]

I love you Blackrain! If the Article lacks anti-French/German rhetoric, your closing statement has plenty of it...rofl

[toki]

It quoted Guillaume Le Quintrec, co-director of the project, who said "the French found the Germans to be pro-American and the Germans found our viewpoint anti-American".

Heated discussions, in which each word was carefully considered, resulted in a text which both sides judged to be "balanced".

(...)

I can't wait to see what 'history' is in this book.

It contains history of different nations then your own. And that's even common here. Wonder if american high school kids have history books other then american history.

Even though i hardly approve any of your rants, I've seen more intelligent posts of you. "Breaking news: French-german propaganda book introduced" :cantbeli:

Tell us what you wonder about? What do you think it would contain? History maybe?

[roland]

Do the French still insist on Germany´s general guilt? Have you ever heard of the Austro-Hungarian offensive? ;)


well, I repeat, I can be wrong, since we are speaking of history book at school and I try to remember how I learnt it in my time, 25-30 years ago.
So, yes, the impression I remind is that I was taught Germany was mostly responsible of WWI ... while France was heavily revanchist and wanted to take back our dear Alsace and Lorraine. I know there's a contradiction here..

about Charlemagne:

No, the Germans (correctly) say he was a FRANKISH king. Only 30 years after his death the frankish empire was parted in three parts under the Treaty of Verdun, and these three parts were the earliest definitions of what what would later become the French and German nations.

No, I think in France it's taught and I think it's correct, that Gaule became France with the Franck Clovis, so before Charlemagne. So France existed already I think.
The Frankish Carolingian monarchy of Charlemagne that followed the Frankish Merovingian monarchy of Clovis was founded by Charles Martel that is considered as French in France. Is he a heroe too in Germany ? anyway the fact that Charlemagne is a descent of Charles Martel make the French claim that Charlemagne is French not completely unfounded.


Because of that, both countries can trace their ancestry back to the Franks, but noone could say Charlemagne would be "French" or " German". These national concepts didnt even exist until centuries later.


it's also quite certain that some national concept existed in France/Gaule from immemorial time. It remain true that France and Germany separated at the treaty of Verdun.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/Western_empire_verdun_843.png

Then started the race to swallow Lotharingia p-)
The Germany of Louis the German is the real Germany: western and civilized. Not like those Prussian savages p-) ;)


Anyway, I was told by a few teachers I know that modern school history books often make use of special "Controversy" boxes, pages set apart from the others on which disputed facts of history are discussed more in-depth. I think by this you could easily portray multiple sides to a story (like "ALEXANDER THE GREAT: Tyrant or the Great Unifier?").

that's a way to go but not abuse: after all the goal is to find the maximum of truth both countries agree.

[Count Lippe]

There's always been a controversity about Charlemagne in Germany, he was the father of modern Europe, but on the other hand he wasnt really diplomatic as a ruler, slaughtered thousands of Saxons and forced them into Christianity...
Many of those who try to uphold the ancient Germanic pagan culture and turn from christianity to the old gods and traditions even consider him a war criminal...

[BlackRain]

Tell us what you wonder about? What do you think it would contain? History maybe?

Well, from an American standpoint. It will be interesting to see if certain events will be covered accurately or be continued to be ignored/suppressed/glossed over.

Hence my statement.

I guess we will have to wait till the book comes out to see what it contains.

It is also true the US history books have much to be desired.

Political correctness and sensitivity to 'alternate' cultures has reduced content about our founding fathers and significant events.

Sections on a certain peanut oil inventor receive multiple pages of coverage while George Washington gets one page.

[Vandervahn]

Well, from an American standpoint. It will be interesting to see if certain events will be covered accurately or be continued to be ignored/suppressed/glossed over.

Hence my statement. ...

You evade the question. If you have some points to argue about, certain events that you think that arent covered "correctly", then name them. But this kind of kind of mysterious accusations doesnt strengthen your point.

Nevertheless, dont forget we are speaking of a general history book here, and that this can only give a limitied insight into the most common viewpoints.

[toki]

Well, from an American standpoint. It will be interesting to see if certain events will be covered accurately or be continued to be ignored/suppressed/glossed over.
Would you name an event? I hardly get your point. You sound you know alot about european school books, but you certainly do not.

[tsuri]

Nevertheless, dont forget we are speaking of a general history book here, and that this can only give a limitied insight into the most common viewpoints.

Very limited. It does not cover the Nuclear Protests for instance, as a taz Journalist remarked.
But it is only a school book, if there was everything in there, you´d probably fill a room with the books ;)

I think it will be interesting to see the next issue indeed. The French-Prussian War will be covered, among other things.

[BlackRain]

You evade the question. If you have some points to argue about, certain events that you think that arent covered "correctly", then name them. But this kind of kind of mysterious accusations doesnt strengthen your point.

Nevertheless, dont forget we are speaking of a general history book here, and that this can only give a limitied insight into the most common viewpoints.

This is called building suspense.

How can I work up you lefty-socialists if I just blurt out which 'certain events' I am referring to.

How about you guess which ones and I will let you know. p-)

[evanfitz]

It contains history of different nations then your own. And that's even common here. Wonder if american high school kids have history books other then american history.

World History is a requirement for Seniors in Highschool.
;)

[Freibier]

World History is a requirement for Seniors in Highschool.
;)
Yeah, just like geography ;)

[evanfitz]

Yeah, just like geography ;)

now thats going to take a while to heal

[sir-chimp]

Yeah, just like geography ;)


actually that was freshman year - at least at the school I attended.

[toki]

This is called building suspense.

How can I work up you lefty-socialists if I just blurt out which 'certain events' I am referring to.

How about you guess which ones and I will let you know. p-)

:lol: and our school books are socialist propaganda tools. You're not working anybody up, you make yourself look like an idiot, a complete idiot. And even though you more then likely never placed a food on european soil you are now the expert on european school books. :cantbeli:

[Atlantic Friend]

This is called building suspense.

How can I work up you lefty-socialists if I just blurt out which 'certain events' I am referring to.

How about you guess which ones and I will let you know. p-)

Will that be like when you told me France had built "a concentration camp of its own" in Struthof ? ;)

[BlackRain]

Will that be like when you told me France had built "a concentration camp of its own" in Struthof ? ;)

Oh no you didn't.

Are you saying France did not build concentration camps during World War II?

Can't wait to hear your response. Cough....Drancy (http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Camps/DranEngl.html)....Cough

Like many other camps in France, it was created by the government of Philippe PÈtain and was under the control of the French police. In 1941, the first raids against Jews was ordered by the Nazis and conducted by the French police. The victims of these raids were transferred to Drancy.

Struthof (http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/~os0tmc/occupied/struthof1.htm) you say? I guess it did not exist?

Here is the US Army report (http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Natzweiler/History/ArmyReport.html) on Struthof that documents that the French company STADLER & Co of GRENDELBRUCH aided the Germans in building the camp.

[Count Lippe]

Grendelbruch was in Germany at that time...p-)

[BlackRain]

Concentration camp at Natzweiler-Struthof (Camp de concentration de

Natzweiler-Struthof)

This is the only camp on French soil run by the Nazis and it quickly became a death camp through hard labour. 4 buildings still remain today (out of 17 originally built) with the crematorium, cells and the museum. Outside, the National Deportation Necropolis overlooks the camp.

http://tourisme67.free.fr/PDF/download.php?down=brochure_Bas-Rhin_EN.pdf

[tsuri]

It is on French Soil today. Elsass Lothringen was repatriated into the Reich and part of Germany (Baden)
It is the only Camp like this on French Soil today because the French reclaimed the Elsass...

Buuuut! There was no formal handing over by france(we just took it), so the territory can be legally viewed as french. But in reality it was of course 100% under our control.

[Vandervahn]

...
Buuuut! There was no formal handing over by france(we just took it back), so the territory can be legally viewed as french. But in reality it was of course 100% under our control.

Fixed it p-)

[Atlantic Friend]

Concentration camp at Natzweiler-Struthof (Camp de concentration de

Natzweiler-Struthof)

This is the only camp on French soil run by the Nazis and it quickly became a death camp through hard labour. 4 buildings still remain today (out of 17 originally built) with the crematorium, cells and the museum. Outside, the National Deportation Necropolis overlooks the camp.

http://tourisme67.free.fr/PDF/download.php?down=brochure_Bas-Rhin_EN.pdf




What part of "run by the Nazis" do you not understand, BR ?

Once again, Natzweiller-Struthof was built in Alsace-Lorraine, which at that time had been ANNEXED by the German Reich (look it up in history books if you don't believe me). "ANNEXED", as you will remember, basically means "this belongs to us now".

As your own posts says, the Struthof camp was "run by the Nazis". "Running" generally means "we are in charge of this place".

Now, as this camp was built by Nazi Germany, run by Nazi Germany on a territory that Nazi Germany had annexed, tell me exactly how this was a French concentration camp, BR ? According to that same logic, Poland clearly is guilty for having had the Treblinka-Maidanek camp running on its soil, too. I mean, hello ?

As for Drancy, it was a detention camp which IIRC was used as a transit point for prisoners on their way to the REAL concentration camps. It sure was bad that it was built and operated. But if you want to go into detention camps, you shouldn't stop at Drancy, as there were thousands of them all over Occupied Europe - lots and lots of people to hate and despise, from Scandinavia to the Balkans, man ! Enjoy ! :roll: