How is British history taught in schools?

[fairyworld14]

Harleyman

How dare you treat me as someone who doesn't know anything about history because myself & my brother love history & we had relatives that fought in the wars . So don't patronise me . I am not not naïve & never will be where our history is concerned . So don't even go there . I do know what I am talking about

[Harleyman]

The facts tell a different story. Whether we like it or not America played a huge part in winning the war, both in supplying materials & manpower. It is regularly stated that they 'only came in at the end', but their losses were almost the same as those of the British, 418,000 US as opposed to 450,000 UK.

Those were total deaths & the British total includes 67,000 civilians as opposed to the US civilian total of 1700 which means the US actually lost more troops than the British.

 

Both totals fall far short of the Russian death toll of between 22,000,000 to 30,000,000 so many they couldn't get an accurate count.

 

In percentage of population terms Poland lost the most over 5,000,000 deaths which represented over 16% of their population as opposed to the UK loss of less than 1% of the population.

 

Which is why I get a bit annoyed when we try to overstate our contribution.

We don't have to, it was impressive enough without having to overstate it.

 

Dont forget that the Russian casualties include the millions who died while in German captivity. Russia was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention and the Germans either worked them to death or starved them to death.

 

---------- Post added 14-05-2013 at 23:48 ----------

 

Harleyman

How dare you treat me as someone who doesn't know anything about history because myself & my brother love history & we had relatives that fought in the wars . So don't patronise me . I am not not naïve & never will be where our history is concerned . So don't even go there . I do know what I am talking about[/QUOTE]

 

You dont ! Not when you make statements such as "the Americans never helped Britain at the start of the war".

What do you think Lend Lease was... for god's sake?

[Annie Bynnol]

When D day arrived the Americans outnumbered the combined British & Canadian troops by 3 to 1..

 

On D-Day

156 000 Allies landed in Normandy of which:

83 115 British and Canadian

73 000 American

 

Operation Neptune/Overlord also involved:

112,824 British

52,889 US

4988 other Allied

 

As the war proceeded the American ratio did increase.

[mjw47]

On D-Day

156 000 Allies landed in Normandy of which:

83 115 British and Canadian

73 000 American

 

Operation Neptune/Overlord also involved:

112,824 British

52,889 US

4988 other Allied

 

As the war proceeded the American ratio did increase.

 

Interesting, the 3 to 1 ratio was one that I have definitely read in the past & on more than one occasion.

Having said which, your previous posts have been impressive in detail & I have no reason to doubt you on this, so I'm prepared to accept your figures. I'm nothing if not fickle .

 

Incidentally, I meant to reply to your earlier post at 122 which I completely agree with, but I got sidetracked by someone I completely disagreed with

 

The history of these Islands Britain & Ireland is fascinating, but also extremely contentious, & in fairness, you probably wouldn't have one without the other.

 

In my opinion, the challenge to teaching our history is to somehow find a middle ground between Jingoistic nonsense, which ignores the appalling behavior which took place, & the cultural 'cringe' attitude which does the exact opposite & can find no good in anything which happened.

[Harleyman]

Try Winston Churchill's "History of the English speaking people' It's been around for donkey's years and a well written, concise and accurate literary work

 

---------- Post added 15-05-2013 at 23:12 ----------

 

Interesting, the 3 to 1 ratio was one that I have definitely read in the past & on more than one occasion.

Having said which, your previous posts have been impressive in detail & I have no reason to doubt you on this, so I'm prepared to accept your figures. I'm nothing if not fickle .

 

Incidentally, I meant to reply to your earlier post at 122 which I completely agree with, but I got sidetracked by someone I completely disagreed with

 

The history of these Islands Britain & Ireland is fascinating, but also extremely contentious, & in fairness, you probably wouldn't have one without the other.

 

In my opinion, the challenge to teaching our history is to somehow find a middle ground between Jingoistic nonsense, which ignores the appalling behavior which took place, & the cultural 'cringe' attitude which does the exact opposite & can find no good in anything which happened.

 

 

In the days and the weeks following D-Day thousands more US troops landed on the Normandy beaches who been kept back in England.

 

Eisenhower chose the elite of the US troops to actually land on the night of June 5/6 and by sea on June 6.

 

Some of those were the the 82nd Airborne Divison, 101st Airborne Division, the veteran First Infantry Division... The BIg Red One..... (Omaha Breach) which had already seen action in North Africa, Sicily and Italy and last but not least the Ranger Infantry Divison also veterans of Sicily and Italy

[Annie Bynnol]

Some of those were the the 82nd Airborne Divison, 101st Airborne Division, the veteran First Infantry Division... The BIg Red One..... (Omaha Breach) which had already seen action in North Africa, Sicily and Italy and last but not least the Ranger Infantry Divison also veterans of Sicily and Italy

 

 

I am trying to identify the "Ranger Infantry Division".

 

The 2nd and 5th Ranger Battalions-very much smaller in size than a division-created for DDay.

Apart from the first three mentioned only other American division which landed on D-day was 4th Infantry- not veterans.

[mjw47]

Harleyman. Did you not know of Churchill's proud boast? 'I know history will be kind to me because I shall write it.'

Clement Attlee a far superior human being remarked that it should have been titled ' Things in history that interested me'.

If that duplicitous Barsteward told me the moon was round I should begin to doubt the evidence of my own eye's.

 

Bye the way Eisenhower ( who I hold in high regard) may have used his 'elite' troops in this offensive but the Germans used most of their 'elite' troops on the Eastern Front another reason that, more than anyone else, we have the Russians to thank.

 

There is a seeming reluctance to concede this point by many people. I can only assume because they like to think of the War as a simple struggle between the 'good guys' us & the 'bad guys' them.

The significant presence of Uncle Joe makes that simplistic view a bit untenable,you know, what with Stalin being a certifiable maniac & murderer who was at least as bad, if not worse than Hitler.

[Harleyman]

I am trying to identify the "Ranger Infantry Division".

 

The 2nd and 5th Ranger Battalions-very much smaller in size than a division-created for DDay.

Apart from the first three mentioned only other American division which landed on D-day was 4th Infantry- not veterans.

 

My father-in-law was a member of the 4th infantry Divison, 8th infantry regiment, landed on Utah Beach D-Day aged 19.

 

---------- Post added 16-05-2013 at 16:25 ----------

 

Harleyman. Did you not know of Churchill's proud boast? 'I know history will be kind to me because I shall write it.'

Clement Attlee a far superior human being remarked that it should have been titled ' Things in history that interested me'.

If that duplicitous Barsteward told me the moon was round I should begin to doubt the evidence of my own eye's.

 

Bye the way Eisenhower ( who I hold in high regard) may have used his 'elite' troops in this offensive but the Germans used most of their 'elite' troops on the Eastern Front another reason that, more than anyone else, we have the Russians to thank.

 

There is a seeming reluctance to concede this point by many people. I can only assume because they like to think of the War as a simple struggle between the 'good guys' us & the 'bad guys' them.

The significant presence of Uncle Joe makes that simplistic view a bit untenable,you know, what with Stalin being a certifiable maniac & murderer who was at least as bad, if not worse than Hitler.

 

Churchill's history was accurate. He traced the origins of what became the Ango-Saxon English from the various Germanic tribes who first raided, later conquered and settled what was then a Celtic land, driving the Celts westward to what is today Cornwall and Wales. Winnie may have had his moments of self grandeur but his work was acknowledeged to be a leading authority on how the English nation came into being.

Of course if you dont like the man........... Well what can I say.

 

I agree with you about the Russian involvement in the war. The fact that the Russians bled the German army white on the eastern front had never been emphasized enough by western military historians until just recently

 

The Allies created a dummy army, rubber tanks, rubber howitzers, all kinds of rubber military vehicles which from the air looked like the real thing. Old Georgie Patton was put in charge of that. Hitler was convinced that the Allies would attempt a landing in the Pas de Calais and kept much of his elite Panzer divisons deployed in that area.

 

The other vital thing of course was that the Allies had complete air superiority and elite Panzer divisons or any elite military formations are just sitting ducks. LIke shooting fish in a barrel

 

 

 

Montgomery was often critised by the Americans for not advancing quickly enough following the D-Day landings. The American historian Stephen Ambrose irritated the crap out of me when he would comment on the D-Day operations by mentioning what he saw as Montgomery's short comings conveninetly forgetting of course that the British and Canadians found themselves facing both German Army and SS Panzer divisions around the Caen area, these divisons veterans of the Russian front

The Americans themselves had their own problems trying to clear the Germans out of the Bocage

[Michael_W]

History is very subjective, most people who commentate about history are just voicing their own opinion of it, and of course most were not there to witness it first hand

We inherit opinions from what we read or is passed down to us, some from genuine stories, some from exaggerated ones, that's why there is resentment of certain countrymen wherever you are from .... England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France, Germany, USA ..... how we all belittle each other and generalise.

We also do this within our countries when comparing people from different cities and regions .... and so on.

Personally as an Englishman, I will never be apologetic about what has gone before in history, slavery, colonialism, the potato famine had nothing to do with me or my family, likewise I would not expect any Germans to be apologetic for bombing my parents ..... we are all inherent from a sometimes ruthless, tribalistic and complex history ..... the USA like Britain and Ireland is strongly linked historically to the rest of Europe as well as each other.

[mjw47]

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 ----------

 

History is very subjective, most people who commentate about history are just voicing their own opinion of it, and of course most were not there to witness it first hand

We inherit opinions from what we read or is passed down to us, some from genuine stories, some from exaggerated ones, that's why there is resentment of certain countrymen wherever you are from .... England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France, Germany, USA ..... how we all belittle each other and generalise.

We also do this within our countries when comparing people from different cities and regions .... and so on.

Personally as an Englishman, I will never be apologetic about what has gone before in history, slavery, colonialism, the potato famine had nothing to do with me or my family, likewise I would not expect any Germans to be apologetic for bombing my parents ..... we are all inherent from a sometimes ruthless, tribalistic and complex history ..... the USA like Britain and Ireland is strongly linked historically to the rest of Europe as well as each other.

 

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.