How is British history taught in schools?

[Harleyman 12]

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.

 

 

I dont see how a policy of keeping the US isolated would have benefited Britain in any way unless the idea was to maintain Britain's status as one of the great powers.

 

In 1939 the Empire was already coming apart. How would Halfax have dealt with the likes of Nehru and Ghandi for instance? There was a rising nationalism not only in India but in Africa and the middle east as well. It was the beginning of a tide that was turning against all European colonial powers. In French Indo-China such nationalists as Ho Chi Minh were already working towards getting rid of the French even before Japan invaded and occupied Indo-China and although China was ruled by Chiang Kai Zek and some parts of the country under Japanese occupation Mao Tse Tung's Communist army was already a large force and gathering more and more strength by the month.

 

The rest of the world outside Europe and Russia was changing rapidly

 

As for the US it was completely self sufficient in oil, minerals, coal, food, raw materials, had a population of around 125 million, a huge reserve of manpower and the potential industrial capability to out produce any European nation in everything from consumer goods to military hardware

 

With a scenario of Britain now on peace terms with Nazi Germany if not it's ally even...... Canada, Australia and New Zealand would have very possibly withdrawn from the Commonwealth and gone their own way, Canada eventually uniting politically with the US

 

That's how I see it happening anyway

Edited May 18, 2013 by Harleyman

[Michael_W 11]

Schools would do well to teach how these little islands in the NW corner of Europe had so much influence on the modern world, in a few hundred years it may become so much more insignificant than it is seen now !

[Harleyman 12]

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?

 

I wont argue with youir opinion of Cheney.He was a disgrace to politics and America. His boss George Bush dodged the Vietnam draft by joinng the Texas Air National Guard. His dad Bush Senior was pals with the General Commanding that unit and got his son signed up.

Bush junior however did do a lot for helping in the fight against the spread of HIV in Africa

 

There wont be any glory for either of them in the annals of American history though

 

---------- Post added 18-05-2013 at 20:40 ----------

 

Schools would do well to teach how these little islands in the NW corner of Europe had so much influence on the modern world, in a few hundred years it may become so much more insignificant than it is seen now !

 

Why should it? The Roman Empire is still a fascinating subject for historians and compared to the British Empire much smaller in size and influence.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Harleyman

[mjw47 10]

Harleyman. The Roman Empire lasted for just short of 2000 years more than the British Empire.

It's influence was in fact greater.

[Hillpig 10]

I dont see how a policy of keeping the US isolated would have benefited Britain in any way unless the idea was to maintain Britain's status as one of the great powers.

 

In 1939 the Empire was already coming apart. How would Halfax have dealt with the likes of Nehru and Ghandi for instance? There was a rising nationalism not only in India but in Africa and the middle east as well. It was the beginning of a tide that was turning against all European colonial powers. In French Indo-China such nationalists as Ho Chi Minh were already working towards getting rid of the French even before Japan invaded and occupied Indo-China and although China was ruled by Chiang Kai Zek and some parts of the country under Japanese occupation Mao Tse Tung's Communist army was already a large force and gathering more and more strength by the month.

 

The rest of the world outside Europe and Russia was changing rapidly

 

As for the US it was completely self sufficient in oil, minerals, coal, food, raw materials, had a population of around 125 million, a huge reserve of manpower and the potential industrial capability to out produce any European nation in everything from consumer goods to military hardware

 

With a scenario of Britain now on peace terms with Nazi Germany if not it's ally even...... Canada, Australia and New Zealand would have very possibly withdrawn from the Commonwealth and gone their own way, Canada eventually uniting politically with the US

 

That's how I see it happening anyway

 

Youre futuristic speculation is just as valid as mine! I just do not see the US going to war unless a. It was attacked or b. It had an overwhelming reason to do so.

 

The US, at the time was overwhelmingly isolationaist and, for the reasons you state, its complete self reliance meant it just did not need to fight anyone.

 

It is true that the British Empire was in decline,but it was a slow decline and like the Romam empire in the 2nd century it could well have halted and indeed reversed that decline assuming certain circumstances prevailed.

 

You assume that by the time the peace between the british and the germans was agreed that the germans would have over run the west. The Germans would have had to establish air superiority which they signally failed to do and also command of he Channel which they never got close to acheiving.

 

But, as I said before, it never happened, we are where we are.

[Harleyman 12]

Harleyman. The Roman Empire lasted for just short of 2000 years more than the British Empire.

It's influence was in fact greater.

 

Oh I dont know about that buddy. Take the English language, spoken throughout the world as an official language or a second language and gaining evermore usage in China in the matter of business and commerce. As a matter of fact in decades to come one out of three Chinese will be able to speak it

Then there's English Common Law either used as an official law as in the US and Commonwealth countries or variations of it

Then there's the most popular and most beloved game in the world..... football.

These are a few of lasting legacies of the British Empire and what it passed on to much of the world, geographically immense compared to the size of the Roman Empire

[Hillpig 10]

Harleyman. The Roman Empire lasted for just short of 2000 years more than the British Empire.

It's influence was in fact greater.

 

I assume that you incorporate the Byzantine Empire into your figure of 2000 years? You are perfectly right to do so.

 

The British Empire was in many ways different. Although the Brits did many bad things, we were never as brutal as the Romans indeed you could say that we were more cynical, we sought profit rather than domination and the empire was expanded as much to keep the other european nations out as for any other reason.

 

I still think it an open question as to whether, on balance the empire was good or bad, it was good in parts. It was at the end of the day a huge confidence trick. We never had more than 40,000 troops in India for instance, for 200 years we convinced the world that we were some sort of superior beings. A reading of Orwells time in Burma illustrates this perfectly.

[Harleyman 12]

Youre futuristic speculation is just as valid as mine! I just do not see the US going to war unless a. It was attacked or b. It had an overwhelming reason to do so.

 

The US, at the time was overwhelmingly isolationaist and, for the reasons you state, its complete self reliance meant it just did not need to fight anyone.

 

It is true that the British Empire was in decline,but it was a slow decline and like the Romam empire in the 2nd century it could well have halted and indeed reversed that decline assuming certain circumstances prevailed.

 

You assume that by the time the peace between the british and the germans was agreed that the germans would have over run the west. The Germans would have had to establish air superiority which they signally failed to do and also command of he Channel which they never got close to acheiving.

 

But, as I said before, it never happened, we are where we are.

 

Before Pearl harbour there was ever increasing friction between US naval vessels and German U-boats in the Atlantic once the war in Europe started.

Convoys crossing to Britain where US warships were part of the escorts as far as Greenland were being attacked and the German submariners despite orders from Hitler werent too careful about where their torpedoes went. No US warships were hit but in one instance there was a skirmish betwwen a U-boat and a US destroyer.

 

At that time US war production of planes, artillery and tanks was beginning to get into high gear and the "Draft" was passed by Congress in 1940 which made all men between 18 and 34 eligible for call up for military service.

So despite all the isolationist rhetoric by some in Congress and among the populace people in high places knew that sooner than later the US must enter the European conflict... Pearl Harbour just made that eventuality occur sooner

Now if Halifax had signed a peace accord with Hitler after the invasion of Poland Hitler would more than likely not have declared war on America as he saw no threat of it as becoming any ally of Britain.

Germany and the US (if any kind of war had been declared in 1939) had no way of fighting such a war as both were out of range of each other's aircraft and the German navy wasnt a serious sea going force to contend with except nuisance raids by what was then a small U-boat forceThe Japanese may well have attacked Pearl Harbour anyway as relations over trade and the situation in China had reached a near state of war in 1941. Free of any obligation to Europe the US could have concentrated it's whole military effort on Japan and the Pacific war would have ended much quicker. The long range B-29 bomber and the atomic bomb would have also become part of the American arsenal.

 

The decline of the British Empire was not slow after 1945. A decade later Eurpean flags were being hauled down everywhere. The French tried to cling to what they had ruled for a couple of centuries in Indo-China and got a licking for their troubles and the same happened in Algeria and Morocco.. The US was destined to learn the hard way about Asian nationalism a few years later

 

Colonial people in every corner of the world had seen the humiliating defeat of the white man in the far east by the Japanes in 1941 and it proved to them that the white man was not so invincible after all

Edited May 19, 2013 by Harleyman

[I1L2T3 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.

 

It is all in the past. Even recent history

 

Couple of interesting stories this week:

 

1. The assassination of Alexander Litvinenko. Obviously a salient event in British-Russian post-cold war relations. But much of what really happened may never be publicly known. At best it might be 30-40-50 years before details are released. Try blending that into an account. It may actually be easier for a historian in 50 years to do it justice.

 

2. Turkish discomfort over the Armenian genocide in 1915. Captain Terossian, an Armenian and one of the officers of the Ottoman armies at Gallipoli, detailed his experiences in a biography. Even nearly a 100 years later some Turkish academics still struggle to accept that Armenians and Turks fought on the same side at Gallipoli. Read this:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-armenian-hero-turkey-would-prefer-to-forget-8612890.html

 

History is what you want it to be. Anybody can selectively stack up evidence to present a view of events. Sometimes the evidence is not there to stack up.

[Michael_W 11]

I wont argue with youir opinion of Cheney.He was a disgrace to politics and America. His boss George Bush dodged the Vietnam draft by joinng the Texas Air National Guard. His dad Bush Senior was pals with the General Commanding that unit and got his son signed up.

Bush junior however did do a lot for helping in the fight against the spread of HIV in Africa

 

There wont be any glory for either of them in the annals of American history though

 

---------- Post added 18-05-2013 at 20:40 ----------

 

 

Why should it? The Roman Empire is still a fascinating subject for historians and compared to the British Empire much smaller in size and influence.

 

I'm not saying the British empire will not be a fascinating subject, I'm saying it's influence or indeed it's legacy will have become less significant or somewhat forgotten.

I would suggest the British Empire is still fairly recent history, in a few hundred years time it won't be ..... the Aussies will probably have dropped the Union flag from its own as a very small example.

It's not so long ago that many US citizens could trace there ancestry back to these Islands and within a generation that has changed ..... therefore the British link became less significant. I'm fairly certain many of those who rid America of British colonialism would have been of British ancestry, historically of course we all refer to them as Americans.

What I am saying is Britain has had it's heyday, the US has in my opinion had the biggest influence over the last 80 years or so (even the English language is Americanised) and at some point the US in turn may concede that influence to some other dominant nation on the world stage, only time will tell !

[Harleyman 12]

I'm not saying the British empire will not be a fascinating subject, I'm saying it's influence or indeed it's legacy will have become less significant or somewhat forgotten.

I would suggest the British Empire is still fairly recent history, in a few hundred years time it won't be ..... the Aussies will probably have dropped the Union flag from its own as a very small example.

It's not so long ago that many US citizens could trace there ancestry back to these Islands and within a generation that has changed ..... therefore the British link became less significant. I'm fairly certain many of those who rid America of British colonialism would have been of British ancestry, historically of course we all refer to them as Americans.

What I am saying is Britain has had it's heyday, the US has in my opinion had the biggest influence over the last 80 years or so (even the English language is Americanised) and at some point the US in turn may concede that influence to some other dominant nation on the world stage, only time will tell !

 

The US like mostl nations is gradually changing. BY 2050 just under half of all Americans will trace their ancestry to that of Mexico or other parts of south America. The language will still be American-English. By third generation American born, those of Mexcan ancestry dont even speak Spanish anymore or even understand it except for a word here and there. The US flag and Constituion will still very much exist. What part it will still play in a military role remains to be seen.

Obama appears to be the first US President who doesn't want the US leading the charge into the world's trouble spots. He has already stated that any outside intervention in the civil war in Syria must be led by the Arab and European countries with the US only in a supporting role.... Good news to me!

 

The US will move ever closer to Asia in the decades to come and perhaps in 70 or 80 years from now there will be some kind of loose federation between the US, Canada amd many of the south Amrerican countries.

 

The bad news though is that the world's population will by then have increased to around 10 billion and if no catastrophe occurs to wipe out a significant percentage of the earthly population in the meantime then we're all looking at Armageddon

[mjw47 10]

Oh I dont know about that buddy. Take the English language, spoken throughout the world as an official language or a second language and gaining evermore usage in China in the matter of business and commerce. As a matter of fact in decades to come one out of three Chinese will be able to speak it

Then there's English Common Law either used as an official law as in the US and Commonwealth countries or variations of it

Then there's the most popular and most beloved game in the world..... football.

These are a few of lasting legacies of the British Empire and what it passed on to much of the world, geographically immense compared to the size of the Roman Empire

 

The English language, written using Roman letters, as are the languages of Spain, France Germany, Italy & most other European countries. Britain, a country named by the Romans as are numerous other European countries.

America, a country whose political system includes a Senate invented by the Romans.

 

Not bad for an Empire that fell over 1,500 years ago.

 

Will we have had the same impact on history 1,500 years from now? Who knows?

 

Personally, as far as Britain is concerned, I think we will play the part that the Greeks played in the Roman story.

We will be regarded in a similar light in the American story, influential in the beginning, inconsequential in the end.

 

Obviously, it will all depend on whether or not we can sort out the giant Ponzi scheme which is currently referred to as the Western financial system.

 

If we cannot, then American hegemony may go down as the shortest lived 'Top Dog' status in history.