How is British history taught in schools?

[Harleyman 12]

Harleyman. Don't disagree with any of the above. As to Churchill, I have no problem accepting him as a major historical figure, as far as 'liking' him goes I don't see how anyone with any grasp of ethics or morals could like the man.

 

People excuse the likes of Churchill with platitudes such as 'We needed someone like him', 'Where would we be without him?' 'He was a great patriot'.

 

They never seem to consider the other side to the argument, if it wasn't for egotistical,self serving glory hunters like him, the rest of us could live in peace.

Churchill wasn't that much different from his opponents, nor from Uncle Joe, it's just that we were saved from his worst excesses by constraints imposed on him by our political system.

 

---------- Post added 16-05-2013 at 18:41 ----------

 

 

Don't disagree with that. This apology business is getting ridiculous, how can anyone apologize for something which they personally had nothing whatsoever to do with?

Also, it leaves me in a slightly difficult position. As I'm 50% English & 50% Irish what am I supposed to do? Apologize to myself from both directions?

 

The only thing I would say though, is that it should be accepted that a lot of harm was done to innocent people in the past, & that whilst there is no need to feel ashamed, by the same token arrogance is uncalled for as well.

 

 

Cant believe you would place Churchill in the same category as Stalin or Hitler.

Yes he did order the army to ambush the striking Welsh miners from Tonypandy and break up the protest march with water cannon.... a blemish on his record but he didnt send millions to the gulags or declare a genocidal war in a whole race of people. He was born of aristocracy and like all people a product of his upbringing and environment. For a member of an aristocratic British family of that time he wasnt half bad compared to some of the others who believed that "a dose of Hitlerism would be a damned fine thing for the British people as well"

 

Do you think that if Chamberlain had continued in office or Lord Halifax appointed as PM instead of Churchill that either of those two men could have established the trans- Atlantic relationship with Roosevelt that Churchill did?

I tend to believe that if either of those two had been in power instead they would have come to the conclusion that Britain's position was hopeless in 1940 and accepted Hitler's peace feeler which he offered Britain in 1940.

 

Britain may well have become a Vichy like state governed by a bunch of British Nazi puppets with Edward the VIII back on the throne as chief puppet

 

It was Churchilll's charisma and power to rally and inspire the people through his speeches that kept the nation in hope during it's most hopleless time and of course the valiant fight put up by the RAF during the Battle of Britain.

Air Marshall Goering committed the gravest error of all during the course of that battle which also helped

 

Dont ever believe that there's no truth in the saying that "sometimes the pen is mightier than the sword"

 

 

The work of Thomas Paine, an Englishman( Common Sense) was the literary inspiration for the start of the American revolution by the way

Edited May 17, 2013 by Harleyman

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

The problem with history is that it's all in the past.

 

People look back at it (with the [sometimes] clarity of hindsight,

Analyse it [ again, with the clarity of hindsight]

and often re-write it to conform with 'modern' morés and opinions.

 

An example: There has been a lot on TV today about the 70th anniversary of the Dams raid.

 

The Dambusters film was remade recently. The film makers decided to 'change' a few facts.

 

Guy Gibson had a dog - a black Labrador which was called "N------". That was the name of the dog - not a slur against people of the dark-skinned persuasion.

 

The peole who re-made the film refused to use the dog's name - 'because we might offend somebody'.

 

Bloody ridiculous! - If somebody used that word today to describe somebody, it could (very properly) be described as 'racist' but to refuse to quote the name of a dog which was killed 70 years ago 'because it might offend somebody' is simply stupid.

 

So history - as portrayed in the re-make of the film - had to be re-written.

 

I suspect that much of History - British and that of many other countries - has been 're-written' to suit popular opinion.

 

As for how British History is taught in schools? - Probably in a very different manner to the way it was taught when I was a child.

[mjw47 10]

Cant believe you would place Churchill in the same category as Stalin or Hitler.

Yes he did order the army to ambush the striking Welsh miners from Tonypandy and break up the protest march with water cannon.... a blemish on his record but he didnt send millions to the gulags or declare a genocidal war in a whole race of people. He was born of aristocracy and like all people a product of his upbringing and environment. For a member of an aristocratic British family of that time he wasnt half bad compared to some of the others who believed that "a dose of Hitlerism would be a damned fine thing for the British people as well"

 

Do you think that if Chamberlain had continued in office or Lord Halifax appointed as PM instead of Churchill that either of those two men could have established the trans- Atlantic relationship with Roosevelt that Churchill did?

I tend to believe that if either of those two had been in power instead they would have come to the conclusion that Britain's position was hopeless in 1940 and accepted Hitler's peace feeler which he offered Britain in 1940.

 

Britain may well have become a Vichy like state governed by a bunch of British Nazi puppets with Edward the VIII back on the throne as chief puppet

 

It was Churchilll's charisma and power to rally and inspire the people through his speeches that kept the nation in hope during it's most hopleless time and of course the valiant fight put up by the RAF during the Battle of Britain.

Air Marshall Goering committed the gravest error of all during the course of that battle which also helped

 

Dont ever believe that there's no truth in the saying that "sometimes the pen is mightier than the sword"

 

 

The work of Thomas Paine, an Englishman( Common Sense) was the literary inspiration for the start of the American revolution by the way

 

My opinion of Churchill is this, he had the same ego & overweening sense of entitlement & destiny as Stalin & Hitler. Had he been operating in a political situation where Dictatorship was possible he would have, in my opinion, taken full advantage.

 

His moral & ethical values were no different to the other two scumbags. Tonypandy was a minor blemish on his record. He advocated the gassing of 'Inferior Civilizations' & the sterilization of handicapped people. He threatened the use of tanks & aircraft bombers against civilians during the Irish war of Independence. Despite his great regard for his own self importance & 'place in history' he had no problem accepting a 'Back Hander' from the Burmah Oil company.

Churchill was held in check by our system. Allowed full rein like the other two megalomaniacs he would have been no better.

 

As to his contribution to the War effort, yes immense, good old Winnie.

 

Being a scumbag & being 'Great' are not mutually exclusive, in fact quite often the opposite.

 

'Most Great Men are bad men.'

 

Lord Acton.

[Harleyman 12]

The problem with history is that it's all in the past.

 

People look back at it (with the [sometimes] clarity of hindsight,

Analyse it [ again, with the clarity of hindsight]

and often re-write it to conform with 'modern' morés and opinions.

 

An example: There has been a lot on TV today about the 70th anniversary of the Dams raid.

 

The Dambusters film was remade recently. The film makers decided to 'change' a few facts.

 

Guy Gibson had a dog - a black Labrador which was called "N------". That was the name of the dog - not a slur against people of the dark-skinned persuasion.

 

The peole who re-made the film refused to use the dog's name - 'because we might offend somebody'.

 

Bloody ridiculous! - If somebody used that word today to describe somebody, it could (very properly) be described as 'racist' but to refuse to quote the name of a dog which was killed 70 years ago 'because it might offend somebody' is simply stupid.

 

So history - as portrayed in the re-make of the film - had to be re-written.

 

I suspect that much of History - British and that of many other countries - has been 're-written' to suit popular opinion.

 

As for how British History is taught in schools? - Probably in a very different manner to the way it was taught when I was a child.

 

I remember when the Dam Busters was first released. There was a clip of an American B-17 flying among the Avro Lancasters which caused a bit of an uproar.

 

"This was an all British operation. What's a bloody Yank plane doing there" ? people were asking in indignation.

 

The clip was shortly thereafter cut from the film

 

---------- Post added 17-05-2013 at 15:58 ----------

 

My opinion of Churchill is this, he had the same ego & overweening sense of entitlement & destiny as Stalin & Hitler. Had he been operating in a political situation where Dictatorship was possible he would have, in my opinion, taken full advantage.

 

His moral & ethical values were no different to the other two scumbags. Tonypandy was a minor blemish on his record. He advocated the gassing of 'Inferior Civilizations' & the sterilization of handicapped people. He threatened the use of tanks & aircraft bombers against civilians during the Irish war of Independence. Despite his great regard for his own self importance & 'place in history' he had no problem accepting a 'Back Hander' from the Burmah Oil company.

Churchill was held in check by our system. Allowed full rein like the other two megalomaniacs he would have been no better.

 

As to his contribution to the War effort, yes immense, good old Winnie.

 

Being a scumbag & being 'Great' are not mutually exclusive, in fact quite often the opposite.

 

'Most Great Men are bad men.'

 

Lord Acton.

 

Probably very true but such men do achieve great things. It took robber barons to build the transcontinental railways linking east and west coasts of America and Canada. They had visions of how the country should be and the money to fulfill these visions. Subsequently the rest of the populace benefited enormously from it.

 

I cant imagine someone like Howard Huntington for example losing much sleep because a 100 Chinese workers had accidentally been killed or horribly injured caused by an accident while blasting a tunnel for the railway through the Rocky Mountains.

[mjw47 10]

Harleyman. You are correct, good things do often result from bad things happening. We would not be anywhere near as technically advanced were it not for various wars taking place, providing the incentive, urgency & monetary backing to invent & produce items which subsequently proved useful in everyday life.

 

I have no problem acknowledging that fact. My point is that many of the people involved in these enterprises whether they be leading Governments or Corporations were not doing it for the benefit of Mankind.

They were doing it for themselves, for their own need to acquire wealth & status. Basically to satisfy their own greed. The fact that these people were quite prepared to see others die in order that they may gain, tends to make me view their 'Greatness' with a certain amount of cynicism.

 

The fact that some hold these people in high regard is of course up to them.

[Harleyman 12]

Harleyman. You are correct, good things do often result from bad things happening. We would not be anywhere near as technically advanced were it not for various wars taking place, providing the incentive, urgency & monetary backing to invent & produce items which subsequently proved useful in everyday life.

 

I have no problem acknowledging that fact. My point is that many of the people involved in these enterprises whether they be leading Governments or Corporations were not doing it for the benefit of Mankind.

They were doing it for themselves, for their own need to acquire wealth & status. Basically to satisfy their own greed. The fact that these people were quite prepared to see others die in order that they may gain, tends to make me view their 'Greatness' with a certain amount of cynicism.

 

The fact that some hold these people in high regard is of course up to them.

 

 

"Greed is good"....... Michael Douglas in Wall Street.

 

Does it really matter to anybody employed by the worldwide "XYZ Corporation" who has a job with that company and able to live a decent life style whether the long dead founder of the XYZ Company was a particularly moral man or not?

Fact is nobody cares.

 

Do you dream of vast wealth? I do. I'm content and happy with the circumstances of my existence but that doesnt stop me going out and spending a buck or two on a lottery ticket in hopes of winning a few million extra

 

A moralist would say I'm greedy.... well so be it if that's the case

 

Dont forget there were many men of wealth who were also great philanthopists.

Many American institutions of learning, colleges, universities, libraries and hospitals exist through the generous endowments of such men. Whether any of these men were particularly moral or not is irrelevent. In the sum total of all things they did far more good for mankind than they did not and they deserve the aclaim and kudos for doing so.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Harleyman

[Hillpig 10]

I once had the privelidge of meeting a member of Lord Halifax family. LordH was British foreign secretary under Chamberlain and was favourite to take over the premiership when Chamberlain resigned.

 

I asked this person what would have happened if Lord H had taken over instead of Churchill.

 

In his opinion the war with Germany would have ended after the fall of France. Leaving the UK with its army and Navy intact.

 

This would have left Hitler free to attack Russia. We would have been free to build up our position. The Japanese may have attacked the US anyway, we would have been far more able to protect our empire in the east, or may have been able to produce a rapproachment between the japs and the US before their war broke out.

 

Hitler would probably still have failed against Russia. Both countries would terribly weakened anyway.

 

The US would have retained its isolationist stance and the industrial military complex would not have come into being.

 

Result?

 

The US would be a large but not overwhelming power.

 

Russia and German would be either locked in a deadly unwinnable war. Or so exhausted that they were no threat to anyone.

 

Japan would be a threat but given a decent settlement and access to oil and other necssary requirements could be content.

 

The British Empire would still be in existence with countries suchas India granted dominion status.

 

Although millions would die in the Russian/ German conflict many more millions would be alive than were slaughtered in the second world war.

 

We may well have been better off without Churchill, Although, like Harleyman I cannot put him in the same category as Hitler or Stalin. Breaking a strike using water cannon is not commensurate with what the other two did.

[Harleyman 12]

I once had the privelidge of meeting a member of Lord Halifax family. LordH was British foreign secretary under Chamberlain and was favourite to take over the premiership when Chamberlain resigned.

 

I asked this person what would have happened if Lord H had taken over instead of Churchill.

 

In his opinion the war with Germany would have ended after the fall of France. Leaving the UK with its army and Navy intact.

 

This would have left Hitler free to attack Russia. We would have been free to build up our position. The Japanese may have attacked the US anyway, we would have been far more able to protect our empire in the east, or may have been able to produce a rapproachment between the japs and the US before their war broke out.

 

Hitler would probably still have failed against Russia. Both countries would terribly weakened anyway.

 

The US would have retained its isolationist stance and the industrial military complex would not have come into being.

 

Result?

 

The US would be a large but not overwhelming power.

 

Russia and German would be either locked in a deadly unwinnable war. Or so exhausted that they were no threat to anyone.

 

Japan would be a threat but given a decent settlement and access to oil and other necssary requirements could be content.

 

The British Empire would still be in existence with countries suchas India granted dominion status.

 

Although millions would die in the Russian/ German conflict many more millions would be alive than were slaughtered in the second world war.

 

We may well have been better off without Churchill, Although, like Harleyman I cannot put him in the same category as Hitler or Stalin. Breaking a strike using water cannon is not commensurate with what the other two did.

 

Just how intact the empire would have remained is a matter for conjecture.

Hitler having conquered and occupied nearly all of western Europe would have lost no time in demanding huge amounts of cheap raw materials from Britain's empire and Britain would not have been in any position to refuse. Germany had no colonies of it's own and it needed easilly obtained raw materials to fuel it's industrial machine as well as it's war with Russia.

 

As for that war........ Stalin realizing that Britain had made peace with Hitler and the US thus remaining distant and isolated may well have made peace with Hitler also after the devastating setbacks the Red army suffered following the Nazi attack. He may have ceded a large part of Russia to Hitler including most of the Ukraine and with access to mineral and oil rights in the Caucasus

 

Fact is for a time following the Nazi invasion in June 1941 Stalin did seriously consider making a peace with Hitler.

 

I would see Britain attempting to achieve a raprochment between the US and Japan before they went to war as impossible.

The invasion of China and Manchuria by the Japanese Army in the 1930s and the atrocities committed by the Japanes army against the civilian population was one of the reasons for the tension between Japan and America. I wouldnt see the Japanese withdrawing from China and Manchuria just to appease America.

 

War would have broken out between the US and Japan sooner or later but the Japanese had no chance of prevailing since they didnt have the manpower or the vast resources in raw materials to prosecute a war for years and years and having to occupy the whole of Indo-China alone would have demanded a considerable amount of manpower and resources the Japanes couldn't effectively maintain while fighting America which would have mobilzed very quickly after war with Japan broke out and kicked it's enormous potential for industrial production into high gear

Edited May 18, 2013 by Harleyman

[Hillpig 10]

Just how intact the empire would have remained is a matter for conjecture.

Hitler having conquered and occupied nearly all of western Europe would have lost no time in demanding huge amounts of cheap raw materials from Britain's empire and Britain would not have been in any position to refuse. Germany had no colonies of it's own and it needed easilly obtained raw materials to fuel it's industrial machine as well as it's war with Russia.

 

As for that war........ Stalin realizing that Britain had made peace with Hitler and the US thus remaining distant and isolated may well have made peace with Hitler also after the devastating setbacks the Red army suffered following the Nazi attack. He may have ceded a large part of Russia to Hitler including most of the Ukraine and with access to mineral and oil rights in the Caucasus

 

Fact is for a time following the Nazi invasion in June 1941 Stalin did seriously consider making a peace with Hitler.

 

I would see Britain attempting to achieve a raprochment between the US and Japan before they went to war as impossible.

The invasion of China and Manchuria by the Japanese Army in the 1930s and the atrocities committed by the Japanes army against the civilian population was one of the reasons for the tension between Japan and America. I wouldnt see the Japanese withdrawing from China and Manchuria just to appease America.

 

War would have broken out between the US and Japan sooner or later but the Japanese had no chance of prevailing since they didnt have the manpower or the vast resources in raw materials to prosecute a war for years and years and having to occupy the whole of Indo-China alone would have demanded a considerable amount of manpower and resources the Japanes couldn't effectively maintain while fighting America which would have mobilzed very quickly after war with Japan broke out and kicked it's enormous potential for industrial production into high gear

 

An interesting and acceptable point of view, I know we are speculating wildly here and there are a dozen if not more outcomes that where possible. My conversation with the Halifax familiy member was quite short, but it did indicate to me that within that family and presumably amongst Halifaxs supporters (and there were quite a few) there was a possible outcome to this period that was other than that we experienced under Churchill.

 

I dont share your view that the UK would have had to accomodate a Germany seeking raw material, in 1940 we still had the worlds largest navy, aircraft production was growing, it may have been possible to improve the army officer class which was so weak after the depredations of the 1st war. By keeping out of the German/russian war we could well have been in a position to dictate to and dominate a war weary Germany.

 

Obviously we could debate this for ever. I do find it an interesting speculation on what might have been.

[I1L2T3 10]

This is straying into alternative 'what if.....' history now.

 

Hugely enjoyable though.

[mjw47 10]

Harleyman.

 

There appears to be some confusion arising here. You appear to be under the impression that I view ALL rich & successful people as scumbags. Nothing could be further from the truth. My derogatory remarks were aimed at specific people. Those who seek fame & fortune KNOWING that the methods which they are employing will result in harm to other people & not caring as long as it brings them what they want.

 

There are countless instances of people becoming incredibly rich whilst actually benefiting society.

 

Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Richard Branson, James Dyson to name a few. None of these people set out with any intention of harming anyone, they just wanted wealth. They succeeded, I'm impressed.

 

Now compare & contrast their careers with that of Dick Cheney CEO of Halliburton & Vice President of the USA.

A man who made fortunes out of the results of war & who was in a position to influence the taking part in war.

A man who applied for, & received, five draft deferments which kept him out of the Vietnam war because, in his words 'I had other priorities in the 60s than military service.'

 

Yeah, I bet he did, not getting killed being right at the top of them.

This man had no problem in requiring other men to put their lives at risk to enrich his bank balance & his place in history.

Guess what I think of Cheney?

 

Incidentally I started & ran my own business successfully for 16 years, I am not a socialist nor any other kind of ist for that matter. I admire people who build successful businesses & am pleased for them if it results in enriching them & their families.

 

As to having a go on the Lottery from time to time what's that got to do with anything? So do I occasionally, who's it harming?

[Hillpig 10]

This is straying into alternative 'what if.....' history now.

 

Hugely enjoyable though.

 

My fault entirely , my apologies.

 

But if I may just dream on a bit, Harleyman says that war between Japan and the US was virtually inevitable, may I suggest another scenario, under the Axis, had Germany and Japan attacked Russia, (and Russia feared this). The raw materials Japan sought could well have been obtained had the attack and invasion of eastern Russia been successfull.

 

This would have kept the US out of the war, increased her isolationist tendency and worked in the UKs favour.

 

Sorry I will shut up now.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Hillpig