Should Children be taught about the Holocaust?

More psychological damage might be done by the Drag Queen who was reading the history book to them !

It should be up to the parents. If you'd rather your kids went to a school that put more emphasis on Stalin and the gulags and a bit less on the Holocaust, then that's the place to send Janet & John. The problem is with the State getting its tentacles into education and imposing a one size fits all history lesson on the nations kids. 

Home schooling is the only alternative to Leftist indoctrination that pervades the whole school day. Year after year of the Socialist narrative ..... no wonder Starmer and the Scottish and Welsh Leftists all want votes for 16 year olds. If for the rest of your life you're going to be yelling 'Nazi' at everyone who doesn't use your preferred pronouns, then a little basic Holocaust understanding is surely an essential ?  

I think most pupils get their information from alternative sources. We were never taught about the holocaust to my recall at school. It was discussed at playground level as one or two got hold of books and passed on the info. I shudder to think what is discussed at playground level these days.

When I was at school we were not specifically taught about the Holocaust and it was barely mentioned. We were taught about WW2 but from a very anglo-centric perspective. It was all about Britain did this and Britain did that. The eastern front was barely mentioned at all. None of this was taught until our last year when we were aged 15-16

I think it is right that the holocaust be taught in schools, but age 15-16 would be a better age for it as kids would be better able to grasp the enormity of it then.

My recollection from being at school from 1941-1953, is that I never even heard the word "holocaust" and that was even covering a history period 1900-1945 for GCE.

I left school in 1981 and the holocaust was definitely not on the curriculum back then. Though to be fair even amongst children knowledge of it was much more widespread in those days because it was often seen in film, documentary and drama.

The way history was taught back then in the five years of my secondary education from 1976 to 1981 was chronological and highly Anglocentric once we got beyond the ancient world. We started out by learning about prehistoric man, then progressed to ancient Sumer and ancient Egypt. Then ancient Greece, then Rome, after which it became almost entirely Anglocentric. It became all about England. Even Scotland and Wales went entirely unmentioned unless England was involved, let alone the rest of the world. The great civilisations of ancient China, ancient India, or Central America we learned nothing about. Such historically important matters as the rise of Islamic empires, the Mongol invasions, the fall of Byzantium - nothing.

India was for example never mentioned until the English started to arrive there. Then it was all about what England and later the UK did to India and in India, and anything the Indians did to us. And even in modern history, because the direct involvement of Britain was fairly peripheral, we were taught nothing about such an historically important phenomenon as the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. The nearest we ever came to learning about that didn't take place in history lessons at all, but in English literature via the metaphor of Animal Farm by George Orwell.

By the end of the first year we had learned about the coming of the Anglo-Saxons, Anglo-Saxon England, the Viking Invasions, King Alfred and King Canute. The second and third years  I recall dealt with 1066 and the middle ages up to the end of the Wars of the Roses in 1485. By then we were allowed via so called "options" to opt into continuing to study certain subjects and opt out of others. I opted in to history. Anyone who didnt would have been taught nothing about modern history at all.

The fourth year began with King Henry VII's victory at Bosworth Field and the beginning of the Tudor dynasty and took us up to the late 1700s. Wales never got a mention at all. Scotland only when it mattered to English history, as when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, or Scottish involvement in the English Civil War. We were taught a highly propagandised version of the Act of Union of 1707 and about the Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1745. 

The last year began with the French Revolution - curiously considering how Anglocentric the rest of our history lessons were - and ended with WW2, the last subject we studied, immediately preceded by World War I, and before that the Boer War. Before that most of our last year, once we got beyond the French Revolution and the American war of independence, focussed on the 19th century. Even then what we were taught was highly selective. For example, we were taught about the so-called Indian "mutiny", but nothing about the Opium Wars. We were taught about the Chartists but nothing at all about the Irish potato famine. And of course nothing about the later holocaust. Not Anglocentric enough I suppose.

Whatever the reasons for the holocaust being on the curriculum, it is right that it should be so. All matters of world historical importance should be, including the coming into existence of Israel, the Bolshevik Revolution, the fall of Byzantium, The Islamic conquests, the Mongol invasions, the empire of Charlemagne, the rise of China, the Spanish Civil War,  the colonial empires of other states and not just the British,  and so on.

I have a remarkable ability to remember things I was taught up to 80 years ago, that ability also covers things I wasn't taught.