Kent Academic Repository
Bode, Ingvild and Heo, Seunghoon Emilia (2015) The dynamics of narratives:
What German and Japanese university students tell us about World War
II today. Korea Forum, 24 (3). pp. 16-20.

Downloaded fromhttps://kar.kent.ac.uk/53530/ The University of Kent's Academic Repository KAR

The version of record is available from
This document version
UNSPECIFIED

DOI for this version
Licence for this version
UNSPECIFIED

Additional information

Versions of research works
Versions of Record
If this version is the version of record, it is the same as the published version available on the publisher's web site.
Cite as the published version.

Author Accepted Manuscripts
If this document is identified as the Author Accepted Manuscript it is the version after peer review but before typesetting, copy editing or publisher branding. Cite as Surname, Initial. (Year) 'Title of article'. To be published in Title
of Journal , Volume and issue numbers [peer-reviewed accepted version]. Available at: DOI or URL (Accessed: date).

Enquiries
If you have questions about this document contact ResearchSupport@kent.ac.uk. Please include the URL of the recordin KAR. If you believe that your, or a third party's rights have been compromised through this document please see
our Take Down policy (available from https://www.kent.ac.uk/guides/kar-the-kent-academic-repository#policies).

HISTORICAL EDUCATION

THE DYNAMICS OF NARRATIVES:
WHAT GERMAN AND JAPANESE UNIVERSITY STUDENTSTELL US ABOUT WORLD WAR II TODAY
Ingvild BODE & HEO Emilia Seunghoon

As of 2015, 70 years have passed since World War II came to an
end across Europe and Asia. How the war’s two main aggressors,
Germany and Japan, have faced their past has been a constant sourceof comparison in reconciliation studies.1 While much research has
analyzed school curricula and textbooks, little is known about
how these official versions of history are retained or challenged byuniversity students. Our project explores what kind of narratives
students in Germany and Japan tell about World War II and how
these characterize their home countries.

In this contribution, we present initial findings focusing on three
aspects: first, depth and sources of students’ World War II knowledge;
second, whether their narratives include reflective or non-reflective
characterizations of their home countries; and third, whether andhow students would change their history education.2

Focusing on narratives underlines the nature of historical knowledge
as the outcome of social construction. Moreover, our engagementwith that knowledge is also part of an interpretative process. To get
access to student narratives, we devised an online survey with 19
open or multiple choice questions, sub-divided into three thematic
parts: World War II knowledge, World War II narratives, andinternational reconciliation issues. We shared this survey among our
professional networks from May to August 2015, which led to 133
and 155 responses from German and Japanese students, respectively.

60%

80%
70%

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
very poor/poor

German respondents

averagedeep/very deep

Japanese respondents

Figure 1: Student self-assessment of their World War II knowledge

1See, for instance, Berger, Thomas. 2012. War, Guilt, and World Politics after World War II. Cambridge: CUP; Feldman, Lily Gardner. 2012. Germany’s
Foreign Policy of Reconciliation: From Enmity to Amity. Lanham, MD: Rowman& Littlefield; He, Yinan. 2009. The Search for Reconciliation: Sino-Japaneseand German-Polish Relations since World War II. Cambridge: CUP; Heo,
Seunghoon Emilia. 2012. Reconciling Enemy States in Europe and Asia.
Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

18

2
We aim to publish a detailed examination of our findings in a longer article:
Ingvild Bode and Seunghoon Emilia Heo (forthcoming) Choosing Waysof Remembering: Comparing Student Narratives about World War II in
Germany and Japan.

KOREAFORUM Special - EPRIE 2015

Q1: HOW WOULD YOU RATE YOUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WORLD WAR II?
(On a scale from 1 – very poor to 5 – very deep.)

Student assessment regarding how much they know about WorldWar II differs greatly across the two survey groups (c. figure 1). A
clear majority of German respondents (75%) rate their knowledge
as either “deep”/“very deep”. The “poor”/”very poor” ratings ofknowledge are statistically insignificant (5%), while 20% rate theirknowledge as average. Half of the Japanese respondents (53%) rate

their knowledge as “average”, while another 37% rate their knowledge
as “poor” or “very poor”. In other words, 90% of Japanese respondents
do not think that they have developed sufficient knowledge about
World War II. These responses illustrate a gap between German andJapanese students when it comes to their self-assessment of WorldWar II knowledge.

Q2: WHAT HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT SOURCES OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WORLD WAR II?
(This was a multiple choice question with eight possible answers as depicted in figure 2. Students were also asked to provide examples
for each source they ticked).

Both German and Japanese students chose high school education
as the most important source of their knowledge (93.2% to 88.3%
respectively), while there were major differences between the groups
with regard to two aspects: First, how much time students actuallyspent learning about World War II at school, and second, how thisrelates to other sources of knowledge students have (c. figure 2).
Teaching about World War II figured prominently in most of theGerman students’ school careers: 31.7% spent more than 100 hours
learning about World War II and another 19% stated that they find
it difficult to estimate the exact number of hours as there were somany. Another 18.2% answered having spent 50-100 hours learning
about World War II. A further 14% also highlighted that aspectsof World War II are not only covered in history classes but in othersubjects such as literature and religion as well. In comparison, 34.2%
of Japanese respondents said they spent about eleven to twenty hours
learning about World War II, while about half (52.5%) answered lessthan ten hours. Among those who answered “less than ten hours”,
more than half noted that they spent around three to four hours
during their entire high school careers. Further, 98% of Japanese
students stated that they learned about World War II in history class
only, either Japanese history class or world history class, a course that
often remains optional in the Japanese high school system. Student
knowledge in Germany and Japan also differs remarkably when it
comes to the variety of knowledge sources. More than 2/3 of theGerman respondents checked various knowledge sources such as“visits to memorials” (85%), “media” (82.7%), “books” (64.7%), and“oral stories” (63.9%), while 10% of German students came up withother sources beyond the list, e.g. student exchange. Less than halfof the Japanese students checked sources such as “media” (48.3%),“oral stories” (43.3%), or “visits to memorials” (42.5%) and only afew (3.8%) provided sources beyond the options given, e.g. anime.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

sc

ho

ol

u
ed

ca

un

ti o

e
iv

n

rs

it y

u
ed

ca

tio

n
m

ed

ia

r
te

in

t

ne

bo

ok

s
or

s
al

r
to

ie

s
vi
German survey

s

it

to

m

em

or

ia

ls

ot

he

rs

Japanese survey

Figure 2: Sources of German and Japanese student knowledge about World War II

KOREAFORUM Special - EPRIE 201519

Q3: HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE JAPAN’S/GERMANY’S ROLE IN WORLD WAR II?

Answers to this question provide the most substantive assessment of
how German and Japanese students perceive of their country’s role in
World War II. We have come up with labels referring to various kindsof reflection in terms of how Germany and Japan are characterized.
Labels attached to German student narratives range from “highlyreflective, including substantive value judgments” to “non-reflective/
positive elements” (see table 1). There are three main results: first,
a clear majority of German student narratives include some formof reflective characterization of Germany (107 out of 120). Second,looking at the different types of reflection within this group, many
narratives can be found in the “reflective” category. Most of these(48) were one-word responses, such as “perpetrator”. 33 narratives
were labeled as “highly reflective” because of explicit references toGerman war crimes and/or value judgments. Third, only few narratives included some relativization of Germany’s role (5), or blended
reflective assessments with relativizing (3) or positive references (4).
These three labels account for twelve out of 120 narratives, which

LABEL RANGENUMBER OF NARRATIVES

EXAMPLES

Highly reflective, including substantive
value judgements

33 (27%)“Started the war, imperialist campaign, totalitarian
methods, racist deluded ideals and unbelievable war
crimes, as well as crimes against humanity.”“Germany is the cause of World War II and responsiblefor indescribable suffering.”

Reflective

48 (39.9%)“aggressor”; “war monger”; “responsible”; “guilty”

Reflective with attempts towards abalanced portrayal

9 (7.4%)“Aggressor. Responsible for unbelievable sufferingbrought upon those that NS ideology characterized as
inferior, the European countries that Germany invaded,
and the Germans themselves.”

Low level reflective

10 (8.2%)“I consider Germany as the main initiator of World War
II and a role model for other aggressors.”

Neutral3

8 (6.5%)“leading”; “at first offensive, then defensive”

Mixed reflective/relativizing

3 (2.4%)“Aggressor, victim of World War I”

Relativizing

5 (4.1%)“Not only Germany is guilty of having caused WorldWar II. The events of World War I almost automatically led to World War II. This country›s racism that
continues until today is, however, insufferable.”

Mixed reflective/positive

4 (3.3%)“Initially very superior. The main cause, in hit-and-run
style, overreached itself.”

Table 1: German student narratives per label

3
The label “neutral” was attached to narratives if they do not contain substantial
value judgements pertaining to the characterisation of Germany and Japanbut simply stated “facts”. To note that Germany played a “leading role” inWorld War II or that Japan had a “huge influence” on World War II cannot be
contested but does not include reflective characterisation.

20

KOREAFORUM Special - EPRIE 2015

all still contain some reflective characterization of Germany’s role.
While German students’ answers displayed various ways of understanding their past, Japanese students’ responses were strongly
homogeneous (c. table 2). There are three key results: first, many
narratives included a highly positive/non-reflective characterization of Japan’s role during World War II (47 out of 119), often
Japan is portrayed as the “savior” of Southeast Asian countries
through assisting in liberating themselves from Western colonialism.

Second, a victimized view of Japan was also prevalent in student
narratives, most often connected to the atomic bombings. Overall,these narratives clearly show that many students’ understanding in
the context of World War II focuses on how Japan was bombed, lost
the war and lost lives rather than on the harm inflicted by Japanon others. Third, only few (9) responses clearly mentioned Japanas an aggressor, while more characterized Japan in a “neutral” way,i.e. with one-word answers such as “big role”.

LABEL RANGENUMBER OF NARRATIVES

EXAMPLES

positive / non-reflective

47 (39.4%)“Japan helped Asian countries to become independent
from European countries…”“Asian countries hope because Japan tried to fightagain big countries such as the US.”

victimized / focus on victimhood

29 (24.3%)“Japan was instrumental in WWII. We were attacked
and we are the only victim of atomic bombs. We are asymbol for peace, I guess.”“Atomic bombs dropped on Japan was the reason
why the war ended. So Japan had a very sad but
important role in the war.”

mixed reflective / positive

11 (9.2%)“Japan wanted to be the strongest country by invading
other East Asian countries but eventually failed andthe atomic bombs were dropped. I think Japan’s role
was to show you must not think it is good to invade
others to become the center of the world.”

reflective

9 (7.5%)“Japan was aggressor just like Italy and Germany”“Japan started the Second World War because ofoverconfidence in its own power.”

neutral16 (13.4%)“Japan was one of the most important countries
during World War II”; “World War II leading country”

Table 2: Japanese student narratives per label in response to question 5

KOREAFORUM Special - EPRIE 2015

21

HISTORICAL EDUCATION

Q4: SHOULD WORLD WAR II HISTORY BE TAUGHT DIFFERENTLY? IF YES, HOW?
Answers to this question across both groups indicate critical engagement with how World War II history is taught at school(compare figure 3).

More than half of the German respondents (58.7%) came up withvarious suggestions regarding different approaches that education
about World War II history could take. Although most students inthis group supported the current reflective treatment of German

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
different
approachlessintensive

German respondents

more
intensivenounsureJapanese respondents

Figure 3: German and Japanese student answers to question 4

history, about half (48.4%) encourage the usage of different materials
to enable more emphatic understanding, such as autobiographicalaccounts of Holocaust survivors, more interactive engagement throughvisiting memorials or a greater emphasis on World War II’s historical relevance for understanding today’s Germany and combating
racism. Another sub-group (26.6%) criticized content-related choices,e.g. advocating a less German and Eurocentric approach to learning
about World War II. 10.9% discussed how early teaching of traumatic
topics such as the Holocaust should start at school and noted thepsychological challenges of coming to terms with German historicalguilt. Moreover, 22% of German students are satisfied with theway World War II history is being taught, while 12% suggest a lessintensive treatment. Most students in this group do not dispute its
general importance but criticize how the sheer volume of WWII-related topics covered may lead to oversaturation and boredom or leave
less time for covering other historical epochs. These answers showa high level of support for current German history teaching, but
include a substantial number of critical suggestions for improving it.
Half of the Japanese students (54.3%) think that World War II
should be taught differently in Japanese schools. Many students

22

noted that their history lessons lacked the time to think and learn
about the “why” and “how” of the war, e.g.: “At school, history was
generally taught for the purpose of remembering dates and events
for the entrance exam. I believe that the history of World War II
should be taught as a story combining issues that countries are facing
today. In this way, we can learn the connection between the pastand the present.” Some students who studied abroad shared theircomparative perspective, stating that history classes in the US orin European countries provided them with many opportunities tothink critically, which was not the case in Japan. 14 students notedthat they think Japanese history education focuses too much on a
victimized image of Japan and does not really help them to learn the“real story”, the “hidden story”, or “why we were bombed”. Some
said that they would like to hear the voices of comfort women, thevictims of the Nanjing massacre, or any other colonized countries’
stories through primary material. Two students encouraged a new
way of teaching but think it is impossible for a country to teach how“aggressive” or “criminal” they were in the past.
These answers show a high level of support for changing the way
history is currently taught in Japanese high schools. However, there
were also a large number of students answering “no” (34.6%). Whilemost of these did not provide further explanations, 14 students said
they are satisfied with the “neutral” way history is being taught,
focusing only on facts, events, names, and numbers. In sum, Japanese student answers show two contrasting ways of thinking about
history education: some think teaching history as if it concernedfacts is dangerous as it does not allow students to deepen their understanding about the past and connect this with the world they live
in. Others argue that critical thinking or reflection is unnecessary
when it comes to history and only facts, events, and numbers matter.
Based on these findings, we reach three concluding arguments on
Japanese and German student narratives about World War II. First,
there is a knowledge gap when it comes to World War II history
among German and Japanese students, both in terms of depth
and sources of knowledge. Second, exposure to diverse sourcesof knowledge appears to lead to more varying characterizationsof their home country, especially when it comes to reflecting onroles in World War II. Explanations for this finding can go in two
directions: first, when encountering diverse sources of knowledge
and attempting to integrate these, students are more likely to come

KOREAFORUM Special - EPRIE 2015

Dr. Ingvild BODE is lecturer in International Relations at the University of Kent in
Canterbury, focusing on the human element
in international relations. Previously, Ingvild
was a JSPS postdoctoral fellow with joined
affiliation at United Nations University andthe University of Tokyo (2013-2015).

across inconsistencies. This may lead to reflection on this knowledge,
as well as a more reflective narrative characterization of their homecountry. Following this, Japanese students may often share homogeneous and non-reflective characterizations of Japan in WWII, as
their more limited exposure to diverse knowledge sources allows
them less creative space to construct their own narratives. A second
argument would be to interpret the different numbers of reflective
characterizations in student narratives as expressions of the countries’
diverging World War II remembrance discourses and their inclusionin school curricula. This would suggest high retention of official
narratives in student narratives. Our third argument challenges
this unidirectional view: When asked whether they would change
how World War II history is taught at school, respondents acrossGermany and Japan put forward a wide range of suggestions. This
points to highly reflective engagement with World War II history andknowledge, as well as student awareness for its continued relevance.

Dr. HEO Emilia Seunghoon is AssistantProfessor in International Relations at Sophia
University in Tokyo, with a special research
focus on actors in processes of inter-state reconciliation. She has a career background in the
diplomatic service and regularly lectures at
the Korean Parliament.

OVERVIEW AND CASE STUDIES OF PEACE EDUCATIONFOR RECONCILIATION IN NORTHEAST ASIAOAKU Yuko

Northeast Asian countries, particularly Japan, China, and Korea,
have followed a troubled path toward reconciliation in the wake of theregion’s bitter shared history of invasion and colonization by Japan.
In this article, an overview of history education in Japan, China,
and South Korea presents a possible impediment to the advancement of reconciliation between the three countries. Subsequently,
three case studies of peace education programs in Northeast Asia
are introduced and analyzed to offer recommendations for further
development of similar programs to promote mutual understanding
and reconciliation in the region.
OVERVIEW OF HISTORY EDUCATION IN NORTHEAST ASIA

In each region, history textbooks and education initiatives “havebeen fashioned to nurture a sense of national identity” (Duus, in
Sneider, 2012). As a result, the primary function of history education

has been to promote national pride and identity in the Northeast
Asian countries (Ibid). Increasing pressure to demand patriotism,especially through the stories of victimhood during the war times,
remains an obstacle to the advancement of reconciliation throughhistory education in Northeast Asia. This common phenomenon
can be observed in Japan, China, and South Korea.
JAPAN

For Japanese students, Japanese history classes are only mandatory
as part of social studies during elementary and junior high school(MEXT, 2015). During high school years, Japanese history classes
are offered merely as an elective in most public schools (Nikkei,2014). The obvious shortage of time spent on learning about national
history consequently leads to disinterest and a lack of knowledge
amongst Japanese students. Moreover, a rigorous screening process for

KOREAFORUM Special - EPRIE 201523