Peter Moore: My grandson’s take on my father’s Dunkirk experience

My grandson has recently written a history project on the Second World War, focusing on Dunkirk. 

What made me proud was his primary source. He used my father’s detailed diary, which starts when he was on leave in Newton Abbot. 

On hearing that the Germans had invaded he travelled to Southampton and across France to join his men. 

He then journeyed back across France to Dunkirk and back to Britain on a Weymouth paddle steamer. 

For our grandson this was an incredible resource. My only surprise was reading about my Dad as a great grandfather, which was accurate. He also brought in his great grandmother, my Mum, who was working at Bletchley Park at the time. 

I may be out of touch but whenever I hear about history teaching in schools it seems to concentrate on the Second World War. Occasionally they look at the First World War which can get more complicated.

I am not a historian but am interested in history. As someone who studied science I am also used to looking for evidence and analysing the data, an important skill in both science and history. 

My worry about only studying the Second World War is that it is not as nuanced as other periods of history. 

Of course, there are aspects of the war where we can discuss the Allies' ethics. Should we have indiscriminately bombed Dresden? Did we really allow thousands of people to starve in Bengal?  Should we have supported Stalin who was also murdering his people?

Overall it is clear which side had the most justification. My father, who hated the whole idea of war having seen it at first hand in both France and Burma, believed that there is no alternative when threatened by an evil regime. 

Although he died in 1969 he would support Ukraine after the Russian invasion today. This idea of “goodies” and “baddies” is much harder in other periods of history.

The Second World War is also easier as there is so much documentation, both written and on film.  It has to be read in context and interpreted, but it is widely available. Trying to understand the lives of ordinary people in medieval times is difficult when most people could not read or write. How accurate are the illustrated manuscripts from the church? Understanding this period relies as much on archaeology as documentation. 

Other periods in history are far harder to interpret. Oliver Cromwell was involved in overthrowing a dictatorial king. 

The civil war split the country. Even families were split into Royalists and Parliamentarians. It was the forerunner of Brexit with more bloodshed. The regime set up after the execution of the king, the commonwealth, was as dictatorial as the old royalist regime but without Cromwell would we have evolved into the constitutional monarchy we have today? His statue is outside parliament but his role in history is far more complex than Winston Churchill's.

We see the same pattern throughout history. The French Revolution overthrew a dictatorial king but led to the reign of terror followed by the dictator, Napoleon. Even here there is controversy. When I was on holiday in La Rochelle I bought an English translation of the history of the town. One paragraph started “after the disaster of Waterloo”. I had never seen Waterloo as a disaster.

The Russian revolution in the spring of 1917 overthrew a dictatorial Tsar and set up a democracy but this was overthrown by the Bolsheviks in October, leading to the Soviet Union. 

I recently met an American history teacher. He was fascinating and discussed the nuances of the American Civil War and the fact that many colonists did not support the American Revolution or independence. He did ask me how we teach history in England. 

“The problem is that you have history going back thousands of years. You can’t teach it all. We can cover all American history.”

They do not see the centuries of Native Americans before the Europeans arrived as American history. 

Perhaps my great grandchildren will study my life. I hope not. It would make a very boring history project.