Ukrainians present Russian prisoners of war to the press.
NY Times
Misstep by Ukr. This is against Geneva I think? Although bit of a grey area.
Albeit better than shooting them, as was the customary practice in 1941.
Mainly the comnmisars at that point. It became more general as things 'progressed'.
Maybe, although the latter survival as a prisoner of the Germans was limited, as the couldn’t be arsed to feed their captives.
Around 3 million Soviet troops were captured in 1941. They were put in camps without food or protection from the elements and most were dead by Christmas. It was a simultaneous Holocaust, indeed the gas chambers at Auschwitz were tested on Soviet POWs.
Whatever your quibbles about the UK, the EU, even the US, it's deeply moving that the people of Ukraine would fight so hard to replicate our systems of government and join our alliances.
I can't remember a time when the West has felt so self-confident. I was a child when Iraq commenced, so I'm not familiar with this feeling of unity and dispelling of cynicism. London 2012 is the only thing that comes close.
If we do go out in a blaze of nuclear armageddon, at least we will know we were on the good side.
Bloody hell, mate, I can absolutely promise you nobody you'd want to know felt like that about Iraq. A truly disgusting episode which felt disgusting at the time to pretty much everybody across the political spectrum.
I was assuming s/he meant that because it shattered the unity of the West, they didn't know what that had felt like.
Dunno
Nor about your gendering, bhal = fell = hill so they are probably named asfter a geographical feature
ETA I don't remember a lot of unity before 9/11 or iraq, either.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions.
Genuine LOL.
That is so funny
I wonder if he'd consider going into stand up with me?
We could come on and I would say something bland and uncontroversial like 'water is wet.'
Then he could shout 'No! Boris has declared water is dry! Therefore it is the driest thing ever!'
And I could reply, 'but it's still wet...'
We would have to spend time with each other, which we haven't done for years, but we could make a fortune very fast.
All you'd have to say is that it was what 2019 voters voted for and you'd get agreement.
Though I notice the 2019 manifesto talked about bolstering alliances and institutions, including NATO, yet for some reason it is a ok to say that the UK should not meet its obligations in respect of the ex-Soviet members of NATO because they should never have been admitted in the first place.
It's almost as though the suppsoed commitment to the party's positions is actually entirely flexible to personal interpretation.
We have a commitment to Nato, however there is no question expanding NATO well beyond its original role of protecting western Europe and North America from the Soviets to expanding even beyond Poland and Romania etc right up to the borders of Russia did not help avoid the current situation.
If there was no question of Ukraine joining NATO and had it kept its nuclear weapons, as in my view it should, Putin would not have invaded it
Given what has happened to other countries bordering Russia you can guarantee that the Baltic States would have been annexed by now had they not been members of NATO.
I was however aware of a vast number of ideologically committed free marketeers in the Economics department. They were militantly committed to the facts fitting the theory. MV had bloody well better equal PT, or it hadn't been measured properly. And the market could never be wrong. Even when the outcomes were pointedly nuts. We just weren't clever enough to see why it was in reality the epitome of good sense. I switched to Government.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
I doubt if it affects the great scheme of things what the BBC shows, but in principle I think it's a pity that they have weighed in so completely on one side in the news coverage - no attempt that I've seen to interview anyone Russian except for dissidents, no indication of what Putin supporters are saying or whether they're having doubts. I'm fine with pro-Ukraine commentaries which reflect what most of us feel but I'd like to have the facts presented neutrally for information in he-said-she-said style first. For example, both sides are claiming to have shot down a bunch of aircraft, but we're only hearing the Ukrainian claim (my source for the other is Interfax, which I think is Russian owned). That makes it harder to work out what's actually happening.
The BBC used to be famous for neutral(ish) reporting, even giving the Argentinians a polite hearing during the Falklands when we were involved in the war ourselves. It's a reputation that's worth preserving even in these difficult times.
Who was that chap who gave the daily briefing for the UK in the Falklands War? Most dolorous chap in the history of man. Always made the announcements of casualties first, then any successes.....
I was just a kid, but I remember him as staggeringly depressing.
Is this THE Niall Ferguson - ie the historian of empire?
Or 'twat,' as he's more usually referred to in the historical profession.
I've met only two people in my life where I've thought, on meeting them, Whoah, this person is way way smarter than me - quicker, and better informed, and just: Ouch
It's very peculiar. Like experiencing vertigo for the first time, having always lived in the Netherlands and always been the tallest person
One of those people was Niall Ferguson. He is formidably clever
I have probably, of course, met many other people much cleverer than me who are just better at hiding it, or who are so much cleverer I don't even realise they are cleverer, or they are cleverer in narrow ways I don't quite count as cleverness, per se (eg maths)
Unsurprisingly I’ve not met Ferguson, but there’s a reek off him of being very keen for others to think he’s way smarter than them. He also appears incapable of concealing his fairly politicised world view which seem less than smart to me.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
Well, I don't teach about the Koran for any of those, I will concede that.
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
Whatever your quibbles about the UK, the EU, even the US, it's deeply moving that the people of Ukraine would fight so hard to replicate our systems of government and join our alliances.
I can't remember a time when the West has felt so self-confident. I was a child when Iraq commenced, so I'm not familiar with this feeling of unity and dispelling of cynicism. London 2012 is the only thing that comes close.
If we do go out in a blaze of nuclear armageddon, at least we will know we were on the good side.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
Quite so. It's what HYUFD spouts all the time. How wonderful the British, really Engliush, were and are. Henrician settlement, C of E, Divine Right (right through to Princes Charles and Andrew), constitutional monarchy, etc. etc.
I'm not a trained historian - though I have read it and written published studies - and even I can see that a kilometre, sorry eight and a bit furlongs, off.
The very best bit of the film imv is a sight gag: when Vasily is explaining to the Chinese ambassador that his father's brain has been stolen by foreigners who are sucking the cock and balls of international jewry, and the ambassador's interpreter illustrates cock and balls with hand gestures.
But everything about it is superb. Masterly by SRB.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education, and so not empiricist) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Well that's one problem.
Another problem - and here I do agree with Hyufd's comment, channeling Martin McCauley - is that it doesn't work.
As Marx himself was forced to concede in the 18e Brumaire de Louis Napoleon, which is why uniquely among his work it is such a hoot to read.
A methodology for government that doesn't work? Don't let DfE find out about Marxism, then. Otherwise they'll be on it like a tramp on chips...
They've been there since the 70s already.
That's one reason why Tory activists believe the Teaching profession is riddled with Marxists stuck in 1895. We're not, but the DfE is.
Or is it that, due to really poor logistics, the Marxists have retreated to the DfE as a last defensible bastion?
Coming to a YouTube channel near you....
"Despite having the resources of a Department of State, the DfE was unable to successfully overrun Form 2A at St Thickchilds Bog Standard Comprehensive in Slough. This is partly due to misunderstanding Lanchester's Law.....
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
Quite so. It's what HYUFD spouts all the time. How wonderful the British, really Engliush, were and are. Henrician settlement, C of E, Divine Right (right through to Princes Charles and Andrew), constitutional monarchy, etc. etc.
I'm not a trained historian - though I have read it and written published studies - and even I can see that a kilometre, sorry eight and a bit furlongs, off.
A kilometre is five furlongs (well, seven yards short of five furlongs).
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
I doubt if it affects the great scheme of things what the BBC shows, but in principle I think it's a pity that they have weighed in so completely on one side in the news coverage - no attempt that I've seen to interview anyone Russian except for dissidents, no indication of what Putin supporters are saying or whether they're having doubts. I'm fine with pro-Ukraine commentaries which reflect what most of us feel but I'd like to have the facts presented neutrally for information in he-said-she-said style first. For example, both sides are claiming to have shot down a bunch of aircraft, but we're only hearing the Ukrainian claim (my source for the other is Interfax, which I think is Russian owned). That makes it harder to work out what's actually happening.
The BBC used to be famous for neutral(ish) reporting, even giving the Argentinians a polite hearing during the Falklands when we were involved in the war ourselves. It's a reputation that's worth preserving even in these difficult times.
Who was that chap who gave the daily briefing for the UK in the Falklands War? Most dolorous chap in the history of man. Always made the announcements of casualties first, then any successes.....
I was just a kid, but I remember him as staggeringly depressing.
IanMacdonald?
Yes, superb deadpan face. Ian McDonald. Sudden memories of my shared graduate student house and watching him on the b&w TV.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
Quite so. It's what HYUFD spouts all the time. How wonderful the British, really Engliush, were and are. Henrician settlement, C of E, Divine Right (right through to Princes Charles and Andrew), constitutional monarchy, etc. etc.
I'm not a trained historian - though I have read it and written published studies - and even I can see that a kilometre, sorry eight and a bit furlongs, off.
A kilometre is five furlongs (well, seven yards short of five furlongs).
Sorry, was muddling my cables and furlongs ... it's been a long time.
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
Why do you want to censor our media and play into Putin hands
We have to stand strong with Ukraine and all NATO states and not role over to a war criminal
I am very pleased with the measures the UK - EU - US - NATO are taking and it is time we came in behind them all
Each has had an important input to this crisis and I hope that finally this will bring us all together in unity
It is also time to stop UK - good EU - bad and vice versa as it is simply divisive and plays into Putin's agenda
well I fundamentally disagree- Please get it into your heads (those that want to pursue this war) that you can not always win or good will always win. This is a situation where if Russia loses the world is on the brink - It needs (and Putin because he will not get toppled) a face saver . one can be done ,always one can be done but you have to try. All wars end at some point , the earlier the better especially in this case for EVERYONE
You do not win by rolling over to a bully
He has to be challenged and made to realise he cannot succeed in his war and the crimes he is committing
Russia cannot win this and the best hope is for an internal coup
Appeasement does not work
soundbite stuff and not the real reality of a nuclear filled Russia
According to you, the real reality of nuclear filled Russia is letting them invade any neighbor and commit whatever war crimes they like.
Did you get all gung-ho when Saudi arabia bombed Yemen ? Or the genocide in Rwanda or even when Russia invaded Georgia or sided with Assat in Syria? The suffering is the same in those places yet we seem to have built up this bellicose nature that is really taking it to the edge with Ukraine - Time to back off now and start coming down the other side of the mountain before its all gone - everything .
No, I opposed the Saudi intervention in Yemen. Rwanda was before my time. I argued for a harder line against Russia in Georgia and Putin would probably have not got as far as Ukraine had we been stronger then. I supported the Kurds in Syria. All of these positions are perfectly consistent stance now. It is all consistent with maintaining a rules based international system that restrains aggressive warmongers rather than emboldens them, to the detriment of all of us.
This, by the way, is what answering questions looks like. Unlike your constant pushes to leave more and more countries to the crocodile hoping that it won't get as far as us, while refusing to respond to questions about what Russian action would be too far. The Baltics? Poland? Germany? You won't say because your whole argument falls apart on the answer. So instead you dodge and run from scrutiny while trying to divert attention elsewhere, like the pathetic Russian shill you are.
The Russians need to say they won from this to their own audience - That can easily be done with a bit of negotiation - Thw world does not need warmongers like you especially when the war you want is hopeless to win
The only warmonger here is Russia, as Russian shills know full well so try not to talk about it. Putin is the only one that needs to say he wins for his own audience. Russia would be far better without him. Of course you are Putinbot shill so you see his interests as aligned with his.
I ask you again, which Russian invasion would be too far? The Baltics? Poland? Germany? Answer please. The silence is deafening.
Ukrainians present Russian prisoners of war to the press.
NY Times
Misstep by Ukr. This is against Geneva I think? Although bit of a grey area.
Albeit better than shooting them, as was the customary practice in 1941.
Here is an entIrely serious question. As Russia has not formally declared war and considers what it is doing to be a police action, and the Ukrainians are fighting a defensive action without ever having formally declared war either, are the combatants covered by the Geneva Convention?
As I am not a lawyer, I'm asking because I want to know the answer.
I wondered if the Falklands War at least (where war was never formally declared) should provide precedent, but in that case Britain had a UN Resolution covering its actions, which Ukraine does not. So I'm not sure it does.
Yes it applies no matter what.
ICRC Commentary of 1958:
Article 2 Paragraph 1 - Application of the Convention;
Armed Conflicts involving the Application of the Convention.
"By its general character, this paragraph deprives belligerents, in advance, of the pretexts they might in theory put forward for evading their obligations. There is no need for a formal declaration of war, or for recognition of the existence of a state of war, as preliminaries to the application of the Convention. The occurrence of de facto hostilities is sufficient."
The whole "If Kiev doesn't fall in 10 days it's all over" sounded a bit optimistic to me, I mean Yemen's been at war since 2014, Syria since 2011. I appreciate this is a somewhat simpler conflict than particularly Syria (Where there's about 5 different sides) but it seemed a bit more of 'two weeks to crush the curve/Ruskies' to me.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions.
Genuine LOL.
That is so funny
I wonder if he'd consider going into stand up with me?
We could come on and I would say something bland and uncontroversial like 'water is wet.'
Then he could shout 'No! Boris has declared water is dry! Therefore it is the driest thing ever!'
And I could reply, 'but it's still wet...'
We would have to spend time with each other, which we haven't done for years, but we could make a fortune very fast.
All you'd have to say is that it was what 2019 voters voted for and you'd get agreement.
Though I notice the 2019 manifesto talked about bolstering alliances and institutions, including NATO, yet for some reason it is a ok to say that the UK should not meet its obligations in respect of the ex-Soviet members of NATO because they should never have been admitted in the first place.
It's almost as though the suppsoed commitment to the party's positions is actually entirely flexible to personal interpretation.
We have a commitment to Nato, however there is no question expanding NATO well beyond its original role of protecting western Europe and North America from the Soviets to expanding even beyond Poland and Romania etc right up to the borders of Russia did not help avoid the current situation.
If there was no question of Ukraine joining NATO and had it kept its nuclear weapons, as in my view it should, Putin would not have invaded it
Given what has happened to other countries bordering Russia you can guarantee that the Baltic States would have been annexed by now had they not been members of NATO.
Are you okay with that?
They declared independence in 1991 from the USSR knowing the risks, they were not in NATO at the time even if they are now
Is this THE Niall Ferguson - ie the historian of empire?
Or 'twat,' as he's more usually referred to in the historical profession.
I've met only two people in my life where I've thought, on meeting them, Whoah, this person is way way smarter than me - quicker, and better informed, and just: Ouch
It's very peculiar. Like experiencing vertigo for the first time, having always lived in the Netherlands and always been the tallest person
One of those people was Niall Ferguson. He is formidably clever
I have probably, of course, met many other people much cleverer than me who are just better at hiding it, or who are so much cleverer I don't even realise they are cleverer, or they are cleverer in narrow ways I don't quite count as cleverness, per se (eg maths)
Ferguson was on a podcast someone linked to the other week. He hates Boris and thought that Partygate would finish him off. I thought Boris would survive Partygate so does that mean I'm cleverer than Ferguson?
That might have been me. They were fellow undergraduates. Interestingly Ferguson was on Bari Weiss' podcast where he talked about meeting Zelenskyy. Called him an engaging guy. He had a bit of a ding dong with Frank Fukuyama about Biden/Trump. 'End of History' Fukuyama has been doing a lot of work at Stanford with Ukrainian MPs/officials advising on state development. Naturally he's rather worried about them at the moment.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Ukrainians present Russian prisoners of war to the press.
NY Times
Misstep by Ukr. This is against Geneva I think? Although bit of a grey area.
Albeit better than shooting them, as was the customary practice in 1941.
Mainly the comnmisars at that point. It became more general as things 'progressed'.
Maybe, although the latter survival as a prisoner of the Germans was limited, as the couldn’t be arsed to feed their captives.
Around 3 million Soviet troops were captured in 1941. They were put in camps without food or protection from the elements and most were dead by Christmas. It was a simultaneous Holocaust, indeed the gas chambers at Auschwitz were tested on Soviet POWs.
It says a lot, that the death rates dropped massively for Soviet Prisoners of war, when they were used as slave labour. Rather than just being murdered.
Given the death rates of slave labour in Nazi Germany, that is....
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions.
Genuine LOL.
That is so funny
I wonder if he'd consider going into stand up with me?
We could come on and I would say something bland and uncontroversial like 'water is wet.'
Then he could shout 'No! Boris has declared water is dry! Therefore it is the driest thing ever!'
And I could reply, 'but it's still wet...'
We would have to spend time with each other, which we haven't done for years, but we could make a fortune very fast.
All you'd have to say is that it was what 2019 voters voted for and you'd get agreement.
Though I notice the 2019 manifesto talked about bolstering alliances and institutions, including NATO, yet for some reason it is a ok to say that the UK should not meet its obligations in respect of the ex-Soviet members of NATO because they should never have been admitted in the first place.
It's almost as though the suppsoed commitment to the party's positions is actually entirely flexible to personal interpretation.
We have a commitment to Nato, however there is no question expanding NATO well beyond its original role of protecting western Europe and North America from the Soviets to expanding even beyond Poland and Romania etc right up to the borders of Russia did not help avoid the current situation.
If there was no question of Ukraine joining NATO and had it kept its nuclear weapons, as in my view it should, Putin would not have invaded it
Given what has happened to other countries bordering Russia you can guarantee that the Baltic States would have been annexed by now had they not been members of NATO.
Are you okay with that?
They declared independence in 1991 from the USSR knowing the risks, they were not in NATO at the time even if they are now
Did they declare independence or did the USSR just dissolve? The Ukrainians also got a commitment to their territorial intregrity from Russia, the UK and the US. Of course, being a right wing autocrat you don't care about the rule of law. That is shown by your demand for violent overthrow of the Good Friday Agreement if democracy doesn't go your way.
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
I doubt if it affects the great scheme of things what the BBC shows, but in principle I think it's a pity that they have weighed in so completely on one side in the news coverage - no attempt that I've seen to interview anyone Russian except for dissidents, no indication of what Putin supporters are saying or whether they're having doubts. I'm fine with pro-Ukraine commentaries which reflect what most of us feel but I'd like to have the facts presented neutrally for information in he-said-she-said style first. For example, both sides are claiming to have shot down a bunch of aircraft, but we're only hearing the Ukrainian claim (my source for the other is Interfax, which I think is Russian owned). That makes it harder to work out what's actually happening.
The BBC used to be famous for neutral(ish) reporting, even giving the Argentinians a polite hearing during the Falklands when we were involved in the war ourselves. It's a reputation that's worth preserving even in these difficult times.
Nick, you live in the UK. You are perfectly free to start your own newspaper, radio or TV station - heck, even a low-cost YouTube channel - and do that yourself. Give the other side; be more neutral. Interview Russians (if you can get through). As long as you stay within our rather lax broadcasting laws, you will be fine.
That's the difference with Russia. For thirty years (even before Putin came to power), journalists have been murdered. They have been jailed. Oddly, ones who publish or broadcast things the state doesn't like are more likely to suffer this fate. Odd, no?
If you were to do this in Russia, you would fall foul of the law designed to stop spreading 'false' war stories - i.e. ones the state don't like. Fancy 15 years in jail?
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Ukrainians present Russian prisoners of war to the press.
NY Times
Misstep by Ukr. This is against Geneva I think? Although bit of a grey area.
Albeit better than shooting them, as was the customary practice in 1941.
Mainly the comnmisars at that point. It became more general as things 'progressed'.
Maybe, although the latter survival as a prisoner of the Germans was limited, as the couldn’t be arsed to feed their captives.
The order was to shoot comissars and communists from the outset. That was interpreted as shooting Jews as well, because the Germans operated on the basis that all Jews were communists.
The order was to shoot female soldiers as well, on the basis that they were whores in uniform. The Germans usually interpreted that order as raping them, before making them. dig their own graves.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
Well, I don't teach about the Koran for any of those, I will concede that.
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
It certainly is for under 14s, which is the age range most people study history. You just need a broad overview amidst the 10 centuries or more of British and global history you do study.
Few study the Tudors at GCSE level in great depth either. You might study the Bible a bit more at A Level but still not to the extent you would do in Religious Studies A Level
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Almost as easily as you can explain the rise of Boris Johnson without discussing Brexit or Socialism, indeed.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions.
Genuine LOL.
That is so funny
I wonder if he'd consider going into stand up with me?
We could come on and I would say something bland and uncontroversial like 'water is wet.'
Then he could shout 'No! Boris has declared water is dry! Therefore it is the driest thing ever!'
And I could reply, 'but it's still wet...'
We would have to spend time with each other, which we haven't done for years, but we could make a fortune very fast.
All you'd have to say is that it was what 2019 voters voted for and you'd get agreement.
Though I notice the 2019 manifesto talked about bolstering alliances and institutions, including NATO, yet for some reason it is a ok to say that the UK should not meet its obligations in respect of the ex-Soviet members of NATO because they should never have been admitted in the first place.
It's almost as though the suppsoed commitment to the party's positions is actually entirely flexible to personal interpretation.
We have a commitment to Nato, however there is no question expanding NATO well beyond its original role of protecting western Europe and North America from the Soviets to expanding even beyond Poland and Romania etc right up to the borders of Russia did not help avoid the current situation.
If there was no question of Ukraine joining NATO and had it kept its nuclear weapons, as in my view it should, Putin would not have invaded it
Given what has happened to other countries bordering Russia you can guarantee that the Baltic States would have been annexed by now had they not been members of NATO.
Are you okay with that?
They declared independence in 1991 from the USSR knowing the risks, they were not in NATO at the time even if they are now
Did they declare independence or did the USSR just dissolve? The Ukrainians also got a commitment to their territorial intregrity from Russia, the UK and the US. Of course, being a right wing autocrat you don't care about the rule of law. That is shown by your demand for violent overthrow of the Good Friday Agreement if democracy doesn't go your way.
Declared independence, which was then formalised in December 1991 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Ukrainians present Russian prisoners of war to the press.
NY Times
Misstep by Ukr. This is against Geneva I think? Although bit of a grey area.
Albeit better than shooting them, as was the customary practice in 1941.
Mainly the comnmisars at that point. It became more general as things 'progressed'.
Maybe, although the latter survival as a prisoner of the Germans was limited, as the couldn’t be arsed to feed their captives.
Around 3 million Soviet troops were captured in 1941. They were put in camps without food or protection from the elements and most were dead by Christmas. It was a simultaneous Holocaust, indeed the gas chambers at Auschwitz were tested on Soviet POWs.
It says a lot, that the death rates dropped massively for Soviet Prisoners of war, when they were used as slave labour. Rather than just being murdered.
Given the death rates of slave labour in Nazi Germany, that is....
Reading all this makes me feel lucky to be here. My grandfather spent nearly five years as a POW. He suffered a broken leg whilst working on a railway. He said that the German doctors did a good job fixing it.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions.
Genuine LOL.
That is so funny
I wonder if he'd consider going into stand up with me?
We could come on and I would say something bland and uncontroversial like 'water is wet.'
Then he could shout 'No! Boris has declared water is dry! Therefore it is the driest thing ever!'
And I could reply, 'but it's still wet...'
We would have to spend time with each other, which we haven't done for years, but we could make a fortune very fast.
All you'd have to say is that it was what 2019 voters voted for and you'd get agreement.
Though I notice the 2019 manifesto talked about bolstering alliances and institutions, including NATO, yet for some reason it is a ok to say that the UK should not meet its obligations in respect of the ex-Soviet members of NATO because they should never have been admitted in the first place.
It's almost as though the suppsoed commitment to the party's positions is actually entirely flexible to personal interpretation.
We have a commitment to Nato, however there is no question expanding NATO well beyond its original role of protecting western Europe and North America from the Soviets to expanding even beyond Poland and Romania etc right up to the borders of Russia did not help avoid the current situation.
If there was no question of Ukraine joining NATO and had it kept its nuclear weapons, as in my view it should, Putin would not have invaded it
Given what has happened to other countries bordering Russia you can guarantee that the Baltic States would have been annexed by now had they not been members of NATO.
Are you okay with that?
They declared independence in 1991 from the USSR knowing the risks, they were not in NATO at the time even if they are now
Did they declare independence or did the USSR just dissolve? The Ukrainians also got a commitment to their territorial intregrity from Russia, the UK and the US. Of course, being a right wing autocrat you don't care about the rule of law. That is shown by your demand for violent overthrow of the Good Friday Agreement if democracy doesn't go your way.
They declared independence.
I have already said I would have allowed Ukraine to keep its nuclear weapons.
The GFA was based on respect for Unionists as well as Nationalists, given Unionists still win more votes than Nationalists in NI respecting that is hardly overthrowing democracy!
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
Well, I don't teach about the Koran for any of those, I will concede that.
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
It would be impossible to teach 16th century history correctly, without giving students a good grounding in Calvinist, Lutheran, and Catholic theology.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
Well, I don't teach about the Koran for any of those, I will concede that.
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
I was taught that the Reformation was all power politics - strangely little about religion. And religious belief among the powerful.
The fact that Henry *believed* that he was Right... and that he was taking a side in an existing struggle that had been going on for hundreds of years.. links to the Lollards, Becket, Sir John Oldcastle. All that came from my own reading....
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
Well, I don't teach about the Koran for any of those, I will concede that.
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
It certainly is for under 14s, which is the age range most people study history. You just need a broad overview amidst the 10 centuries or more of British and global history you do study.
Few study the Tudors at GCSE level in great depth either. You might study the Bible a bit more at A Level but still not to the extent you would do in Religious Studies A Level
Under the new GCSE around 50% study the Tudors at GCSE. It's one of three practical options on the study in depth and by far the most popular.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
Well, I don't teach about the Koran for any of those, I will concede that.
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
It would be impossible to teach 16th century history correctly, without giving students a good grounding in Calvinist, Lutheran, and Catholic theology.
It would for 7 to 14 year olds, which is when most school pupils study history ie in broad overview of the key facts of centuries of history.
Much of GCSE does not cover the Tudors or Stuarts either. There might be a case to do a bit more at A Level but that would still be less than done in Religious Studies
The whole "If Kiev doesn't fall in 10 days it's all over" sounded a bit optimistic to me, I mean Yemen's been at war since 2014, Syria since 2011. I appreciate this is a somewhat simpler conflict than particularly Syria (Where there's about 5 different sides) but it seemed a bit more of 'two weeks to crush the curve/Ruskies' to me.
It's more "if the Russians continue this level of commitment for x days without winning, it's all over".
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
Well, I don't teach about the Koran for any of those, I will concede that.
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
It certainly is for under 14s, which is the age range most people study history. You just need a broad overview amidst the 10 centuries or more of British and global history you do study.
Few study the Tudors at GCSE level in great depth either. You might study the Bible a bit more at A Level but still not to the extent you would do in Religious Studies A Level
Under the new GCSE around 50% study the Tudors at GCSE. It's one of three practical options on the study in depth and by far the most popular.
So still half don't, even of the minority of pupils who study history for GCSE
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
Well, I don't teach about the Koran for any of those, I will concede that.
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
I was taught that the Reformation was all power politics - strangely little about religion. And religious belief among the powerful.
The fact that Henry *believed* that he was Right... and that he was taking a side in an existing struggle that had been going on for hundreds of years.. links to the Lollards, Becket, Sir John Oldcastle. All that came from my own reading....
That again is Marxism, which is what the SHP was based in. Marxist historiography specifically dismisses religion as either irrelevant or misguided (in my more cynical moments, I think that's because they find it raises too many uncomfortable parallels with their own zealotry) and insist everything is about classes and economic power.
Which is not a useless insight - much historical development is about wealth creation and how wealth is distributed - but is also not actually correct in many cases.
"That fucker thinks he can take on the Red Army? I fucked Germany, I think I can take a flesh lump in a fucking waistcoat."
Bloody brilliant, yes. Stole it, bollocks, the cast batted all the way down to about 28. And Simon Russell Beale is man of the match.
Agree mainly, though still not entirely convinced by the actor that played JVS (who I just had to look up). Got the coarse pettiness but felt curiously unintimidated by him; big if literally small boots to fill of course.
Ukrainians present Russian prisoners of war to the press.
NY Times
Misstep by Ukr. This is against Geneva I think? Although bit of a grey area.
Albeit better than shooting them, as was the customary practice in 1941.
Mainly the comnmisars at that point. It became more general as things 'progressed'.
Maybe, although the latter survival as a prisoner of the Germans was limited, as the couldn’t be arsed to feed their captives.
Around 3 million Soviet troops were captured in 1941. They were put in camps without food or protection from the elements and most were dead by Christmas. It was a simultaneous Holocaust, indeed the gas chambers at Auschwitz were tested on Soviet POWs.
It says a lot, that the death rates dropped massively for Soviet Prisoners of war, when they were used as slave labour. Rather than just being murdered.
Given the death rates of slave labour in Nazi Germany, that is....
Reading all this makes me feel lucky to be here. My grandfather spent nearly five years as a POW. He suffered a broken leg whilst working on a railway. He said that the German doctors did a good job fixing it.
Read "Hitler's Army: Soldiers, Nazis, and War in the Third Reich"
The author makes a good case that the German military was thoroughly indoctrinated in Nazi racism.
The behaviour towards different groups/nationalities was directly in proportion to the position of said groups in the Nazi racial hierarchy.
So Norway and Norwegians were treated as top-notch Aryans. British and Americans, Aryans.... All the way down to Russia, where from the first moments they treated Russians as sub-human
Ukrainians present Russian prisoners of war to the press.
NY Times
Misstep by Ukr. This is against Geneva I think? Although bit of a grey area.
Albeit better than shooting them, as was the customary practice in 1941.
Mainly the comnmisars at that point. It became more general as things 'progressed'.
Maybe, although the latter survival as a prisoner of the Germans was limited, as the couldn’t be arsed to feed their captives.
Around 3 million Soviet troops were captured in 1941. They were put in camps without food or protection from the elements and most were dead by Christmas. It was a simultaneous Holocaust, indeed the gas chambers at Auschwitz were tested on Soviet POWs.
It says a lot, that the death rates dropped massively for Soviet Prisoners of war, when they were used as slave labour. Rather than just being murdered.
Given the death rates of slave labour in Nazi Germany, that is....
Reading all this makes me feel lucky to be here. My grandfather spent nearly five years as a POW. He suffered a broken leg whilst working on a railway. He said that the German doctors did a good job fixing it.
German treatment of the right kind of POW was very different. Most U.K., commonwealth and USA prisoners made it to the end of the war (not all).
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
Well, I don't teach about the Koran for any of those, I will concede that.
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
It certainly is for under 14s, which is the age range most people study history. You just need a broad overview amidst the 10 centuries or more of British and global history you do study.
Few study the Tudors at GCSE level in great depth either. You might study the Bible a bit more at A Level but still not to the extent you would do in Religious Studies A Level
Under the new GCSE around 50% study the Tudors at GCSE. It's one of three practical options on the study in depth and by far the most popular.
So still half don't, even of the minority of pupils who study history for GCSE
It's over 45%, which is a larger share than the Tories got for their majority at the last election...
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
Ukrainians present Russian prisoners of war to the press.
NY Times
Misstep by Ukr. This is against Geneva I think? Although bit of a grey area.
Albeit better than shooting them, as was the customary practice in 1941.
Mainly the comnmisars at that point. It became more general as things 'progressed'.
Maybe, although the latter survival as a prisoner of the Germans was limited, as the couldn’t be arsed to feed their captives.
Around 3 million Soviet troops were captured in 1941. They were put in camps without food or protection from the elements and most were dead by Christmas. It was a simultaneous Holocaust, indeed the gas chambers at Auschwitz were tested on Soviet POWs.
It says a lot, that the death rates dropped massively for Soviet Prisoners of war, when they were used as slave labour. Rather than just being murdered.
Given the death rates of slave labour in Nazi Germany, that is....
Reading all this makes me feel lucky to be here. My grandfather spent nearly five years as a POW. He suffered a broken leg whilst working on a railway. He said that the German doctors did a good job fixing it.
German treatment of the right kind of POW was very different. Most U.K., commonwealth and USA prisoners made it to the end of the war (not all).
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions.
Genuine LOL.
That is so funny
I wonder if he'd consider going into stand up with me?
We could come on and I would say something bland and uncontroversial like 'water is wet.'
Then he could shout 'No! Boris has declared water is dry! Therefore it is the driest thing ever!'
And I could reply, 'but it's still wet...'
We would have to spend time with each other, which we haven't done for years, but we could make a fortune very fast.
All you'd have to say is that it was what 2019 voters voted for and you'd get agreement.
Though I notice the 2019 manifesto talked about bolstering alliances and institutions, including NATO, yet for some reason it is a ok to say that the UK should not meet its obligations in respect of the ex-Soviet members of NATO because they should never have been admitted in the first place.
It's almost as though the suppsoed commitment to the party's positions is actually entirely flexible to personal interpretation.
We have a commitment to Nato, however there is no question expanding NATO well beyond its original role of protecting western Europe and North America from the Soviets to expanding even beyond Poland and Romania etc right up to the borders of Russia did not help avoid the current situation.
If there was no question of Ukraine joining NATO and had it kept its nuclear weapons, as in my view it should, Putin would not have invaded it
Given what has happened to other countries bordering Russia you can guarantee that the Baltic States would have been annexed by now had they not been members of NATO.
Are you okay with that?
They declared independence in 1991 from the USSR knowing the risks, they were not in NATO at the time even if they are now
The Baltic States joined NATO in 2004. Given that the war in Georgia was in 2008, and the conflict with Ukraine started in 2014, don't you think it is likely that Russia's eye would have turned to the Baltic States had they not been in NATO.
Would you have been okay with that? Just fine with you? Russia's might is right?
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
History is built on key facts.
That is what makes history different from philosophy or political science. You can analyse historical fact but it is still historical fact with a chronological narrative at its core
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
Why do you want to censor our media and play into Putin hands
We have to stand strong with Ukraine and all NATO states and not role over to a war criminal
I am very pleased with the measures the UK - EU - US - NATO are taking and it is time we came in behind them all
Each has had an important input to this crisis and I hope that finally this will bring us all together in unity
It is also time to stop UK - good EU - bad and vice versa as it is simply divisive and plays into Putin's agenda
well I fundamentally disagree- Please get it into your heads (those that want to pursue this war) that you can not always win or good will always win. This is a situation where if Russia loses the world is on the brink - It needs (and Putin because he will not get toppled) a face saver . one can be done ,always one can be done but you have to try. All wars end at some point , the earlier the better especially in this case for EVERYONE
You do not win by rolling over to a bully
He has to be challenged and made to realise he cannot succeed in his war and the crimes he is committing
Russia cannot win this and the best hope is for an internal coup
Appeasement does not work
soundbite stuff and not the real reality of a nuclear filled Russia
According to you, the real reality of nuclear filled Russia is letting them invade any neighbor and commit whatever war crimes they like.
Did you get all gung-ho when Saudi arabia bombed Yemen ? Or the genocide in Rwanda or even when Russia invaded Georgia or sided with Assat in Syria? The suffering is the same in those places yet we seem to have built up this bellicose nature that is really taking it to the edge with Ukraine - Time to back off now and start coming down the other side of the mountain before its all gone - everything .
No, I opposed the Saudi intervention in Yemen. Rwanda was before my time. I argued for a harder line against Russia in Georgia and Putin would probably have not got as far as Ukraine had we been stronger then. I supported the Kurds in Syria. All of these positions are perfectly consistent stance now. It is all consistent with maintaining a rules based international system that restrains aggressive warmongers rather than emboldens them, to the detriment of all of us.
This, by the way, is what answering questions looks like. Unlike your constant pushes to leave more and more countries to the crocodile hoping that it won't get as far as us, while refusing to respond to questions about what Russian action would be too far. The Baltics? Poland? Germany? You won't say because your whole argument falls apart on the answer. So instead you dodge and run from scrutiny while trying to divert attention elsewhere, like the pathetic Russian shill you are.
The Russians need to say they won from this to their own audience - That can easily be done with a bit of negotiation - Thw world does not need warmongers like you especially when the war you want is hopeless to win
The only warmonger here is Russia, as Russian shills know full well so try not to talk about it. Putin is the only one that needs to say he wins for his own audience. Russia would be far better without him. Of course you are Putinbot shill so you see his interests as aligned with his.
I ask you again, which Russian invasion would be too far? The Baltics? Poland? Germany? Answer please. The silence is deafening.
Germany, Belgium, Holland, France?
Piccadilly? Watford Gap service station? The Reform Club?
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
Luckily future historians of our era will simply be able to refer to opinion polls.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
History is built on key facts.
That is what makes history different from philosophy or political science. You can analyse historical fact but it is still historical fact with a chronological narrative at its core
So in taking a thematic approach for my MA and PhD theses, did I do it wrong? And were the examiners wrong to pass it with only minor corrections? And the publishers wrong to accept them?
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Not for my degree it wasn't, that was only a minor part of it
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
"Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." - Indiana Jones.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
Well, I don't teach about the Koran for any of those, I will concede that.
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
It certainly is for under 14s, which is the age range most people study history. You just need a broad overview amidst the 10 centuries or more of British and global history you do study.
Few study the Tudors at GCSE level in great depth either. You might study the Bible a bit more at A Level but still not to the extent you would do in Religious Studies A Level
Under the new GCSE around 50% study the Tudors at GCSE. It's one of three practical options on the study in depth and by far the most popular.
So still half don't, even of the minority of pupils who study history for GCSE
It's over 45%, which is a larger share than the Tories got for their majority at the last election...
If 45% take history for GCSE and half of them do the Tudors, that is actually only 22.5% of all pupils
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Historiography is interesting but only takes you so far. With my own Master's degree, I've read most of the relevant secondary sources, but what's more interesting is reading letters/archives and other primary sources.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Not for my degree it wasn't, that was only a minor part of it
Everyone obsesses about Viktor Orban but Eastern Europe is coming up with some top draw leaders.
Volodymr Zelenskyy - Enough said Nicolae Ciuca - prime minister of Romania. Former general who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maia Sandu - President of Moldova. Harvard graduate who speaks Russian Spanish and English as well as Romanian Kiril Petkov - Prime minister of Bulgaria. Has a masters in Economics from Harvard
Also Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya who should be President of Belarus.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
Well, I don't teach about the Koran for any of those, I will concede that.
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
It certainly is for under 14s, which is the age range most people study history. You just need a broad overview amidst the 10 centuries or more of British and global history you do study.
Few study the Tudors at GCSE level in great depth either. You might study the Bible a bit more at A Level but still not to the extent you would do in Religious Studies A Level
Under the new GCSE around 50% study the Tudors at GCSE. It's one of three practical options on the study in depth and by far the most popular.
So still half don't, even of the minority of pupils who study history for GCSE
It's over 45%, which is a larger share than the Tories got for their majority at the last election...
If 45% take history for GCSE and half of them do the Tudors, that is actually only 22.5% of all pupils
So you're saying that it's slightly more popular than Boris Johnson? And that's only 'few'?
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
Well, I don't teach about the Koran for any of those, I will concede that.
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
I was taught that the Reformation was all power politics - strangely little about religion. And religious belief among the powerful.
The fact that Henry *believed* that he was Right... and that he was taking a side in an existing struggle that had been going on for hundreds of years.. links to the Lollards, Becket, Sir John Oldcastle. All that came from my own reading....
That again is Marxism, which is what the SHP was based in. Marxist historiography specifically dismisses religion as either irrelevant or misguided (in my more cynical moments, I think that's because they find it raises too many uncomfortable parallels with their own zealotry) and insist everything is about classes and economic power.
Which is not a useless insight - much historical development is about wealth creation and how wealth is distributed - but is also not actually correct in many cases.
It certainly made a complete nonsense of the period. Even the simple fact that not being a total believer was anathema back then. Henry would never, in his entire life have met anyone who didn't Believe - or at least think that they Believed.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Not for my degree it wasn't, that was only a minor part of it
That's why I put the caveat in.
It generally isn't at most of the most academic universities, they are taught by leading researchers for whom in depth study of the facts is the key on which analysis is built. Theory comes from the facts not before the facts
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Historiography is interesting but only takes you so far. With my own Master's degree, I've read most of the relevant secondary sources, but what's more interesting is reading letters/archives and other primary sources.
Exactly, history without primary sources and archives as its origin is not history at all
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
Why do you want to censor our media and play into Putin hands
We have to stand strong with Ukraine and all NATO states and not role over to a war criminal
I am very pleased with the measures the UK - EU - US - NATO are taking and it is time we came in behind them all
Each has had an important input to this crisis and I hope that finally this will bring us all together in unity
It is also time to stop UK - good EU - bad and vice versa as it is simply divisive and plays into Putin's agenda
well I fundamentally disagree- Please get it into your heads (those that want to pursue this war) that you can not always win or good will always win. This is a situation where if Russia loses the world is on the brink - It needs (and Putin because he will not get toppled) a face saver . one can be done ,always one can be done but you have to try. All wars end at some point , the earlier the better especially in this case for EVERYONE
You do not win by rolling over to a bully
He has to be challenged and made to realise he cannot succeed in his war and the crimes he is committing
Russia cannot win this and the best hope is for an internal coup
Appeasement does not work
soundbite stuff and not the real reality of a nuclear filled Russia
According to you, the real reality of nuclear filled Russia is letting them invade any neighbor and commit whatever war crimes they like.
Did you get all gung-ho when Saudi arabia bombed Yemen ? Or the genocide in Rwanda or even when Russia invaded Georgia or sided with Assat in Syria? The suffering is the same in those places yet we seem to have built up this bellicose nature that is really taking it to the edge with Ukraine - Time to back off now and start coming down the other side of the mountain before its all gone - everything .
No, I opposed the Saudi intervention in Yemen. Rwanda was before my time. I argued for a harder line against Russia in Georgia and Putin would probably have not got as far as Ukraine had we been stronger then. I supported the Kurds in Syria. All of these positions are perfectly consistent stance now. It is all consistent with maintaining a rules based international system that restrains aggressive warmongers rather than emboldens them, to the detriment of all of us.
This, by the way, is what answering questions looks like. Unlike your constant pushes to leave more and more countries to the crocodile hoping that it won't get as far as us, while refusing to respond to questions about what Russian action would be too far. The Baltics? Poland? Germany? You won't say because your whole argument falls apart on the answer. So instead you dodge and run from scrutiny while trying to divert attention elsewhere, like the pathetic Russian shill you are.
The Russians need to say they won from this to their own audience - That can easily be done with a bit of negotiation - Thw world does not need warmongers like you especially when the war you want is hopeless to win
The only warmonger here is Russia, as Russian shills know full well so try not to talk about it. Putin is the only one that needs to say he wins for his own audience. Russia would be far better without him. Of course you are Putinbot shill so you see his interests as aligned with his.
I ask you again, which Russian invasion would be too far? The Baltics? Poland? Germany? Answer please. The silence is deafening.
Germany, Belgium, Holland, France?
Piccadilly? Watford Gap service station? The Reform Club?
For me, it is Craft Cocktails in Gdansk. The Russian fuck that up - turn *all* the keys.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
Luckily future historians of our era will simply be able to refer to opinion polls.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
Well, I don't teach about the Koran for any of those, I will concede that.
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
I was taught that the Reformation was all power politics - strangely little about religion. And religious belief among the powerful.
The fact that Henry *believed* that he was Right... and that he was taking a side in an existing struggle that had been going on for hundreds of years.. links to the Lollards, Becket, Sir John Oldcastle. All that came from my own reading....
That again is Marxism, which is what the SHP was based in. Marxist historiography specifically dismisses religion as either irrelevant or misguided (in my more cynical moments, I think that's because they find it raises too many uncomfortable parallels with their own zealotry) and insist everything is about classes and economic power.
Which is not a useless insight - much historical development is about wealth creation and how wealth is distributed - but is also not actually correct in many cases.
It certainly made a complete nonsense of the period. Even the simple fact that not being a total believer was anathema back then. Henry would never, in his entire life have met anyone who didn't Believe - or at least think that they Believed.
Or at the very least, admit that they didn't.
There is a recorded case of atheism from the Stuart period (he got, quite literally, burned) but I don't know of any in Tudor times. Equally, I will confess I am not particularly expert on the Tudors (give me the fifteenth century any day) and it's more than possible there's a very famous case I simply don't know about.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
History is built on key facts.
That is what makes history different from philosophy or political science. You can analyse historical fact but it is still historical fact with a chronological narrative at its core
I've just finished The End, by Ian Kershaw. It's about the last months of Nazi Germany, and Kershaw wrestles with the question of why did ordinary Germans hold out so long. To my mind, that question is at least as interesting - and important - as simply reading a narrative of what happened.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Historiography is interesting but only takes you so far. With my own Master's degree, I've read most of the relevant secondary sources, but what's more interesting is reading letters/archives and other primary sources.
Exactly, history without primary sources and archives as its origin is not history at all
You can use facts to tell lies about history though, which is why you can't reduce it to facts alone.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Not for my degree it wasn't, that was only a minor part of it
That's why I put the caveat in.
It generally isn't at most of the most academic universities, they are taught by leading researchers for whom in depth study of the facts is the key on which analysis is built. Theory comes from the facts not before the facts
It really isn't, but I realise you might not know that having been at Warwick. Not that you would accept it if you did, having stated it the other way to start.
How are academics trained? A PhD.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review. Only when that is completed are you let loose on other source material.
And that is because it's the most important part of it. Until you know what other views there are, you can't realistically analyse them or material in light of them.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions.
Genuine LOL.
That is so funny
I wonder if he'd consider going into stand up with me?
We could come on and I would say something bland and uncontroversial like 'water is wet.'
Then he could shout 'No! Boris has declared water is dry! Therefore it is the driest thing ever!'
And I could reply, 'but it's still wet...'
We would have to spend time with each other, which we haven't done for years, but we could make a fortune very fast.
All you'd have to say is that it was what 2019 voters voted for and you'd get agreement.
Though I notice the 2019 manifesto talked about bolstering alliances and institutions, including NATO, yet for some reason it is a ok to say that the UK should not meet its obligations in respect of the ex-Soviet members of NATO because they should never have been admitted in the first place.
It's almost as though the suppsoed commitment to the party's positions is actually entirely flexible to personal interpretation.
We have a commitment to Nato, however there is no question expanding NATO well beyond its original role of protecting western Europe and North America from the Soviets to expanding even beyond Poland and Romania etc right up to the borders of Russia did not help avoid the current situation.
If there was no question of Ukraine joining NATO and had it kept its nuclear weapons, as in my view it should, Putin would not have invaded it
Given what has happened to other countries bordering Russia you can guarantee that the Baltic States would have been annexed by now had they not been members of NATO.
Are you okay with that?
They declared independence in 1991 from the USSR knowing the risks, they were not in NATO at the time even if they are now
The Baltic States joined NATO in 2004. Given that the war in Georgia was in 2008, and the conflict with Ukraine started in 2014, don't you think it is likely that Russia's eye would have turned to the Baltic States had they not been in NATO.
Would you have been okay with that? Just fine with you? Russia's might is right?
As I said they took that risk when they declared independence from Russia before Russia left the USSR.
NATO was created to protect western Europe and North America, not going so far into Eastern Europe as to absorb all the states neighbouring Russia
I'm glad some people are calling out the Corbynism of Gove and others.
Michael Gove is taking a "Jeremy Corbyn approach" in his bid to seize oligarchs' homes without compensation, government insiders have warned, as some in Whitehall resist proposals to confiscate Russian-owned assets.
A government source warned against undermining "the right of an individual to own their own property" as part of the crackdown on those linked to Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, following the invasion of Ukraine.
An ally of Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, also warned against any move that infringes on property rights.
Last week, The Telegraph disclosed that Mr Gove was pushing to seize lavish UK homes owned by Putin's allies. It followed independent research which suggested that £1.5 billion worth of property has been bought by Russians accused of corruption or links to the Kremlin since 2016.
The Housing Secretary is drawing up plans to allow the Government to confiscate oligarchs' homes without paying compensation.
But the proposals are being resisted within Whitehall by figures who point out that they go much further than traditional sanctions that result in such assets being frozen - meaning they cannot be sold or mortgaged - and individuals being banned from entering the country.
Asset freezes do not involve a change in ownership or confiscation.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Historiography is interesting but only takes you so far. With my own Master's degree, I've read most of the relevant secondary sources, but what's more interesting is reading letters/archives and other primary sources.
Exactly, history without primary sources and archives as its origin is not history at all
You can use facts to tell lies about history though, which is why you can't reduce it to facts alone.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
History is built on key facts.
That is what makes history different from philosophy or political science. You can analyse historical fact but it is still historical fact with a chronological narrative at its core
I've just finished The End, by Ian Kershaw. It's about the last months of Nazi Germany, and Kershaw wrestles with the question of why did ordinary Germans hold out so long. To my mind, that question is at least as interesting - and important - as simply reading a narrative of what happened.
Yes but it would still have needed source material to make it history not fiction or philosophy
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
Well, I don't teach about the Koran for any of those, I will concede that.
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
I was taught that the Reformation was all power politics - strangely little about religion. And religious belief among the powerful.
The fact that Henry *believed* that he was Right... and that he was taking a side in an existing struggle that had been going on for hundreds of years.. links to the Lollards, Becket, Sir John Oldcastle. All that came from my own reading....
That again is Marxism, which is what the SHP was based in. Marxist historiography specifically dismisses religion as either irrelevant or misguided (in my more cynical moments, I think that's because they find it raises too many uncomfortable parallels with their own zealotry) and insist everything is about classes and economic power.
Which is not a useless insight - much historical development is about wealth creation and how wealth is distributed - but is also not actually correct in many cases.
It certainly made a complete nonsense of the period. Even the simple fact that not being a total believer was anathema back then. Henry would never, in his entire life have met anyone who didn't Believe - or at least think that they Believed.
In one of the LOL passages of The Prince, Macchiavelli asserts that while a ruler should certainly profess to be a Christian, it would be absolutely fatal for a ruler to seriously follow the teachings of Christianity.
No wonder Cardinal Pole thought the book had "the very stink of Satan" about it.
"That fucker thinks he can take on the Red Army? I fucked Germany, I think I can take a flesh lump in a fucking waistcoat."
I second that. The whole movie is great - dude playing Beria was fantastic, even though it's a comedy - but Jason Isaacs was having so much fun as Zhukov.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Historiography is interesting but only takes you so far. With my own Master's degree, I've read most of the relevant secondary sources, but what's more interesting is reading letters/archives and other primary sources.
Exactly, history without primary sources and archives as its origin is not history at all
You can use facts to tell lies about history though, which is why you can't reduce it to facts alone.
Analysis too but built on facts
That's a wonderfully ironic statement from a supporter of Boris Johnson.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Not for my degree it wasn't, that was only a minor part of it
That's why I put the caveat in.
It generally isn't at most of the most academic universities, they are taught by leading researchers for whom in depth study of the facts is the key on which analysis is built. Theory comes from the facts not before the facts
It really isn't, but I realise you might not know that having been at Warwick. Not that you would accept it if you did, having stated it the other way to start.
How are academics trained? A PhD.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review. Only when that is completed are you let loose on other source material.
And that is because it's the most important part of it. Until you know what other views there are, you can't realistically analyse them or material in light of them.
And that is the key to historical practice.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
Source material is the basis of history. Without archival source material it is just literature, not history
Charles Walker, Con, Broxbourne Paul Blomfield, Lab, Sheffield Central Ben Bradshaw, Lab, Exeter Alex Cunningham, Lab, Stockton North Kate Green, Lab, Stretford and Urmston Harriet Harman, Lab, Camberwell & Peckham Margaret Hodge, Lab, Barking Barry Sheerman, Lab, Huddersfield Alan Whitehead, Lab, Southampton Test Rosie Winterton, Lab, Doncaster Central
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
Well, I don't teach about the Koran for any of those, I will concede that.
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
I was taught that the Reformation was all power politics - strangely little about religion. And religious belief among the powerful.
The fact that Henry *believed* that he was Right... and that he was taking a side in an existing struggle that had been going on for hundreds of years.. links to the Lollards, Becket, Sir John Oldcastle. All that came from my own reading....
That again is Marxism, which is what the SHP was based in. Marxist historiography specifically dismisses religion as either irrelevant or misguided (in my more cynical moments, I think that's because they find it raises too many uncomfortable parallels with their own zealotry) and insist everything is about classes and economic power.
Which is not a useless insight - much historical development is about wealth creation and how wealth is distributed - but is also not actually correct in many cases.
It certainly made a complete nonsense of the period. Even the simple fact that not being a total believer was anathema back then. Henry would never, in his entire life have met anyone who didn't Believe - or at least think that they Believed.
Or at the very least, admit that they didn't.
There is a recorded case of atheism from the Stuart period (he got, quite literally, burned) but I don't know of any in Tudor times. Equally, I will confess I am not particularly expert on the Tudors (give me the fifteenth century any day) and it's more than possible there's a very famous case I simply don't know about.
"Or at the very least, admit that they didn't." - indeed.
What I was trying to express was that Henry and everyone else he was dealing with were, by todays standards, hard core deep religious believers. In the sense that they *believed* that if they did The Wrong Thing they were damning themselves to hell, and even (according to some clerics) the whole country, if the King Did Wrong.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
History is built on key facts.
That is what makes history different from philosophy or political science. You can analyse historical fact but it is still historical fact with a chronological narrative at its core
I've just finished The End, by Ian Kershaw. It's about the last months of Nazi Germany, and Kershaw wrestles with the question of why did ordinary Germans hold out so long. To my mind, that question is at least as interesting - and important - as simply reading a narrative of what happened.
And potentially relevant with respect to Russia today.
Charles Walker, Con, Broxbourne Paul Blomfield, Lab, Sheffield Central Ben Bradshaw, Lab, Exeter Alex Cunningham, Lab, Stockton North Kate Green, Lab, Stretford and Urmston Harriet Harman, Lab, Camberwell & Peckham Margaret Hodge, Lab, Barking Barry Sheerman, Lab, Huddersfield Alan Whitehead, Lab, Southampton Test Rosie Winterton, Lab, Doncaster Central
Douglas Ross, Con, Moray
Wayne David, Lab, Caerphilly
Labour heavily over-represented. Why?
Because the Conservatives pushed out all their older MPs at the last election, in the Brexit bonfire of talent and experience.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
Well, I don't teach about the Koran for any of those, I will concede that.
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
It certainly is for under 14s, which is the age range most people study history. You just need a broad overview amidst the 10 centuries or more of British and global history you do study.
Few study the Tudors at GCSE level in great depth either. You might study the Bible a bit more at A Level but still not to the extent you would do in Religious Studies A Level
Under the new GCSE around 50% study the Tudors at GCSE. It's one of three practical options on the study in depth and by far the most popular.
So still half don't, even of the minority of pupils who study history for GCSE
It's over 45%, which is a larger share than the Tories got for their majority at the last election...
If 45% take history for GCSE and half of them do the Tudors, that is actually only 22.5% of all pupils
So you're saying that it's slightly more popular than Boris Johnson? And that's only 'few'?
43% voted for Boris in 2019, that is the point. 35% would still vote for him now
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History primarily.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History.
Though of course about 2/3 of the global population are Christians, Muslims or Hindus, far more than are pure Marxists, Capitalists or Anarchists
How do you teach about the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, dissolution of the monasteries or Anglo Irish relations without discussing religion?
You don't teach the Bible or the Koran.
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
Well, I don't teach about the Koran for any of those, I will concede that.
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
I was taught that the Reformation was all power politics - strangely little about religion. And religious belief among the powerful.
The fact that Henry *believed* that he was Right... and that he was taking a side in an existing struggle that had been going on for hundreds of years.. links to the Lollards, Becket, Sir John Oldcastle. All that came from my own reading....
That again is Marxism, which is what the SHP was based in. Marxist historiography specifically dismisses religion as either irrelevant or misguided (in my more cynical moments, I think that's because they find it raises too many uncomfortable parallels with their own zealotry) and insist everything is about classes and economic power.
Which is not a useless insight - much historical development is about wealth creation and how wealth is distributed - but is also not actually correct in many cases.
It certainly made a complete nonsense of the period. Even the simple fact that not being a total believer was anathema back then. Henry would never, in his entire life have met anyone who didn't Believe - or at least think that they Believed.
Or at the very least, admit that they didn't.
There is a recorded case of atheism from the Stuart period (he got, quite literally, burned) but I don't know of any in Tudor times. Equally, I will confess I am not particularly expert on the Tudors (give me the fifteenth century any day) and it's more than possible there's a very famous case I simply don't know about.
"Or at the very least, admit that they didn't." - indeed.
What I was trying to express was that Henry and everyone else he was dealing with were, by todays standards, hard core deep religious believers. In the sense that they *believed* that if they did The Wrong Thing they were damning themselves to hell, and even (according to some clerics) the whole country, if the King Did Wrong.
I think it's a good rule of thumb to assume that most people actually believe in the religion that they profess. They may have a very bad grasp of its precepts, but I don't think you can. make sense of Henry VIII without acknoledging that he thought his will was the will of God.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions.
Genuine LOL.
That is so funny
I wonder if he'd consider going into stand up with me?
We could come on and I would say something bland and uncontroversial like 'water is wet.'
Then he could shout 'No! Boris has declared water is dry! Therefore it is the driest thing ever!'
And I could reply, 'but it's still wet...'
We would have to spend time with each other, which we haven't done for years, but we could make a fortune very fast.
All you'd have to say is that it was what 2019 voters voted for and you'd get agreement.
Though I notice the 2019 manifesto talked about bolstering alliances and institutions, including NATO, yet for some reason it is a ok to say that the UK should not meet its obligations in respect of the ex-Soviet members of NATO because they should never have been admitted in the first place.
It's almost as though the suppsoed commitment to the party's positions is actually entirely flexible to personal interpretation.
We have a commitment to Nato, however there is no question expanding NATO well beyond its original role of protecting western Europe and North America from the Soviets to expanding even beyond Poland and Romania etc right up to the borders of Russia did not help avoid the current situation.
If there was no question of Ukraine joining NATO and had it kept its nuclear weapons, as in my view it should, Putin would not have invaded it
Given what has happened to other countries bordering Russia you can guarantee that the Baltic States would have been annexed by now had they not been members of NATO.
Are you okay with that?
They declared independence in 1991 from the USSR knowing the risks, they were not in NATO at the time even if they are now
The Baltic States joined NATO in 2004. Given that the war in Georgia was in 2008, and the conflict with Ukraine started in 2014, don't you think it is likely that Russia's eye would have turned to the Baltic States had they not been in NATO.
Would you have been okay with that? Just fine with you? Russia's might is right?
As I said they took that risk when they declared independence from Russia before Russia left the USSR.
NATO was created to protect western Europe and North America, not going so far into Eastern Europe as to absorb all the states neighbouring Russia
I just don't understand what you are trying to say. I've asked a very simple question and your reply does not address my question at all.
Is it fair to say that, yes, you would be perfectly happy with Russia annexing the Baltic States, and you regret the fact that we have helped to keep them as free and democratic countries by sending the British Army to help defend them?
Ukrainians present Russian prisoners of war to the press.
NY Times
Misstep by Ukr. This is against Geneva I think? Although bit of a grey area.
Albeit better than shooting them, as was the customary practice in 1941.
Mainly the comnmisars at that point. It became more general as things 'progressed'.
Maybe, although the latter survival as a prisoner of the Germans was limited, as the couldn’t be arsed to feed their captives.
Around 3 million Soviet troops were captured in 1941. They were put in camps without food or protection from the elements and most were dead by Christmas. It was a simultaneous Holocaust, indeed the gas chambers at Auschwitz were tested on Soviet POWs.
And then, if they did by some miracle survive the war Stalin put them into a gulag for the crime of being captured by the Germans rather than "joining the partisans".
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Historiography is interesting but only takes you so far. With my own Master's degree, I've read most of the relevant secondary sources, but what's more interesting is reading letters/archives and other primary sources.
Exactly, history without primary sources and archives as its origin is not history at all
You can use facts to tell lies about history though, which is why you can't reduce it to facts alone.
Analysis too but built on facts
I know this is veering towards philosophy, but what is a fact? And who decides? Putin has instructed that the "facts" that Ukrainians are being terrorised by pro-Nato Nazis, that there is no War, that his troops are welcomed as liberators, are taught in schools. And don't just say they aren't facts. Anyone can say that. Putin provides other facts. How do you decide? And who is best placed to decide which are more reliable historical facts? A Tory Minister? Or a historian? Cos you are veering towards the same arguments as Putin here. That there is an approved set of true facts dictated by politicians.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
History is built on key facts.
That is what makes history different from philosophy or political science. You can analyse historical fact but it is still historical fact with a chronological narrative at its core
I've just finished The End, by Ian Kershaw. It's about the last months of Nazi Germany, and Kershaw wrestles with the question of why did ordinary Germans hold out so long. To my mind, that question is at least as interesting - and important - as simply reading a narrative of what happened.
Did he or you come to a conclusion? I agree it’s a very interesting question and it’s an undoubted fact that large numbers of Germans kept the faith almost unto the end. My not very insightful reading is that the more formative years spent under Nazism, the deeper the commitment/delusion.
Charles Walker, Con, Broxbourne Paul Blomfield, Lab, Sheffield Central Ben Bradshaw, Lab, Exeter Alex Cunningham, Lab, Stockton North Kate Green, Lab, Stretford and Urmston Harriet Harman, Lab, Camberwell & Peckham Margaret Hodge, Lab, Barking Barry Sheerman, Lab, Huddersfield Alan Whitehead, Lab, Southampton Test Rosie Winterton, Lab, Doncaster Central
Douglas Ross, Con, Moray
Wayne David, Lab, Caerphilly
Labour heavily over-represented. Why?
I assumed it would be because Labour will be overrepresented in MPs who have been around for quite a while, given the huge numbers elected in 1997, but looking at date of election there isn't a noticable trend.
1979 1 1982 1 1994 1 1997 3 2001 1 2005 1 2010 3
Only 31 MPs are left who were elected prior to 1997. 13 of those were elected as Labour, including 6 of the longest serving 11 (well, one of those is now Ind)
Charles Walker, Con, Broxbourne Paul Blomfield, Lab, Sheffield Central Ben Bradshaw, Lab, Exeter Alex Cunningham, Lab, Stockton North Kate Green, Lab, Stretford and Urmston Harriet Harman, Lab, Camberwell & Peckham Margaret Hodge, Lab, Barking Barry Sheerman, Lab, Huddersfield Alan Whitehead, Lab, Southampton Test Rosie Winterton, Lab, Doncaster Central
Douglas Ross, Con, Moray
Wayne David, Lab, Caerphilly
Labour heavily over-represented. Why?
Best guess is that Labour MPs are on average older. Partly this will be because most recent elections have seen the Tories gain seats, and so would have younger MPs entering Parliament for the first time.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
History is built on key facts.
That is what makes history different from philosophy or political science. You can analyse historical fact but it is still historical fact with a chronological narrative at its core
I've just finished The End, by Ian Kershaw. It's about the last months of Nazi Germany, and Kershaw wrestles with the question of why did ordinary Germans hold out so long. To my mind, that question is at least as interesting - and important - as simply reading a narrative of what happened.
I read that some years ago. To some extent the idea of protecting your country, as is playing out now in Ukraine. Plus the knowledge of what had been done to others in their name, so they could see the revenge coming. Plus the still highly efficient state control, making it hard to rebel, or even not to resist. It also needs to be understood that for some, belief in nazism was a genuine thing.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_atrocities_committed_against_Soviet_prisoners_of_war
Nor about your gendering, bhal = fell = hill so they are probably named asfter a geographical feature
ETA I don't remember a lot of unity before 9/11 or iraq, either.
Are you okay with that?
You teach the break with Rome, the English Civil War and the battle over Crown v Parliament's power, the confiscation of the vast wealth of the monasteries by the Crown and the Norman settlements, plantations in Ulster, Cromwell, Home Rule, the Irish War if Independence and civil war and the Troubles.
You might have some minor discussion about the emphasis on more Roman Catholic icons and ceremony in the Anglican worship style favoured by Charles as opposed to the simpler, more evangelical style of the Puritans but that is about it
But unfortunately from your point of view it is a little difficult to explain the break with Rome without explaining Henry's Biblical scholarship, especially his highly literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:21.
"That fucker thinks he can take on the Red Army? I fucked Germany, I think I can take a flesh lump in a fucking waistcoat."
Lol.
I'm not a trained historian - though I have read it and written published studies - and even I can see that a kilometre, sorry eight and a bit furlongs, off.
But everything about it is superb. Masterly by SRB.
Coming to a YouTube channel near you....
"Despite having the resources of a Department of State, the DfE was unable to successfully overrun Form 2A at St Thickchilds Bog Standard Comprehensive in Slough. This is partly due to misunderstanding Lanchester's Law.....
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/losses-england-london-ian-mcdonald-sof-quot-as-part-of-news-footage/813279074
I ask you again, which Russian invasion would be too far? The Baltics? Poland? Germany? Answer please. The silence is deafening.
ICRC Commentary of 1958:
Article 2 Paragraph 1 - Application of the Convention;
Armed Conflicts involving the Application of the Convention.
"By its general character, this paragraph deprives belligerents, in advance, of the pretexts they might in theory put forward for evading their obligations. There is no need for a formal declaration of war, or for recognition of the existence of a state of war, as preliminaries to the application of the Convention. The occurrence of de facto hostilities is sufficient."
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/5aa133b15493d9d0c12563cd0042a15a
I am told that the runway is extremely thick concrete and is designed to take a nuclear strike...
Given the death rates of slave labour in Nazi Germany, that is....
That's the difference with Russia. For thirty years (even before Putin came to power), journalists have been murdered. They have been jailed. Oddly, ones who publish or broadcast things the state doesn't like are more likely to suffer this fate. Odd, no?
If you were to do this in Russia, you would fall foul of the law designed to stop spreading 'false' war stories - i.e. ones the state don't like. Fancy 15 years in jail?
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
The order was to shoot female soldiers as well, on the basis that they were whores in uniform. The Germans usually interpreted that order as raping them, before making them. dig their own graves.
Few study the Tudors at GCSE level in great depth either. You might study the Bible a bit more at A Level but still not to the extent you would do in Religious Studies A Level
I have already said I would have allowed Ukraine to keep its nuclear weapons.
The GFA was based on respect for Unionists as well as Nationalists, given Unionists still win more votes than Nationalists in NI respecting that is hardly overthrowing democracy!
The fact that Henry *believed* that he was Right... and that he was taking a side in an existing struggle that had been going on for hundreds of years.. links to the Lollards, Becket, Sir John Oldcastle. All that came from my own reading....
Much of GCSE does not cover the Tudors or Stuarts either. There might be a case to do a bit more at A Level but that would still be less than done in Religious Studies
Which is not a useless insight - much historical development is about wealth creation and how wealth is distributed - but is also not actually correct in many cases.
The author makes a good case that the German military was thoroughly indoctrinated in Nazi racism.
The behaviour towards different groups/nationalities was directly in proportion to the position of said groups in the Nazi racial hierarchy.
So Norway and Norwegians were treated as top-notch Aryans.
British and Americans, Aryans....
All the way down to Russia, where from the first moments they treated Russians as sub-human
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Would you have been okay with that? Just fine with you? Russia's might is right?
That is what makes history different from philosophy or political science. You can analyse historical fact but it is still historical fact with a chronological narrative at its core
Piccadilly? Watford Gap service station? The Reform Club?
Volodymr Zelenskyy - Enough said
Nicolae Ciuca - prime minister of Romania. Former general who served in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Maia Sandu - President of Moldova. Harvard graduate who speaks Russian Spanish and English as well as Romanian
Kiril Petkov - Prime minister of Bulgaria. Has a masters in Economics from Harvard
Also Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya who should be President of Belarus.
There is a recorded case of atheism from the Stuart period (he got, quite literally, burned) but I don't know of any in Tudor times. Equally, I will confess I am not particularly expert on the Tudors (give me the fifteenth century any day) and it's more than possible there's a very famous case I simply don't know about.
How are academics trained? A PhD.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review. Only when that is completed are you let loose on other source material.
And that is because it's the most important part of it. Until you know what other views there are, you can't realistically analyse them or material in light of them.
And that is the key to historical practice.
NATO was created to protect western Europe and North America, not going so far into Eastern Europe as to absorb all the states neighbouring Russia
Michael Gove is taking a "Jeremy Corbyn approach" in his bid to seize oligarchs' homes without compensation, government insiders have warned, as some in Whitehall resist proposals to confiscate Russian-owned assets.
A government source warned against undermining "the right of an individual to own their own property" as part of the crackdown on those linked to Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, following the invasion of Ukraine.
An ally of Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, also warned against any move that infringes on property rights.
Last week, The Telegraph disclosed that Mr Gove was pushing to seize lavish UK homes owned by Putin's allies. It followed independent research which suggested that £1.5 billion worth of property has been bought by Russians accused of corruption or links to the Kremlin since 2016.
The Housing Secretary is drawing up plans to allow the Government to confiscate oligarchs' homes without paying compensation.
But the proposals are being resisted within Whitehall by figures who point out that they go much further than traditional sanctions that result in such assets being frozen - meaning they cannot be sold or mortgaged - and individuals being banned from entering the country.
Asset freezes do not involve a change in ownership or confiscation.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/03/05/michael-gove-accused-corbyn-approach-seizure-oligarchs-lavish/
No wonder Cardinal Pole thought the book had "the very stink of Satan" about it.
Source material is the basis of history. Without archival source material it is just literature, not history
Charles Walker, Con, Broxbourne
Paul Blomfield, Lab, Sheffield Central
Ben Bradshaw, Lab, Exeter
Alex Cunningham, Lab, Stockton North
Kate Green, Lab, Stretford and Urmston
Harriet Harman, Lab, Camberwell & Peckham
Margaret Hodge, Lab, Barking
Barry Sheerman, Lab, Huddersfield
Alan Whitehead, Lab, Southampton Test
Rosie Winterton, Lab, Doncaster Central
Douglas Ross, Con, Moray
Wayne David, Lab, Caerphilly
Labour heavily over-represented. Why?
What I was trying to express was that Henry and everyone else he was dealing with were, by todays standards, hard core deep religious believers. In the sense that they *believed* that if they did The Wrong Thing they were damning themselves to hell, and even (according to some clerics) the whole country, if the King Did Wrong.
Is it fair to say that, yes, you would be perfectly happy with Russia annexing the Baltic States, and you regret the fact that we have helped to keep them as free and democratic countries by sending the British Army to help defend them?
You don't believe in democracy at all.
See this for a fictionalised version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Day_in_the_Life_of_Ivan_Denisovich
Russian soldiers in 1941 had it tough.
Putin has instructed that the "facts" that Ukrainians are being terrorised by pro-Nato Nazis, that there is no War, that his troops are welcomed as liberators, are taught in schools.
And don't just say they aren't facts. Anyone can say that. Putin provides other facts.
How do you decide?
And who is best placed to decide which are more reliable historical facts? A Tory Minister? Or a historian?
Cos you are veering towards the same arguments as Putin here.
That there is an approved set of true facts dictated by politicians.
1979 1
1982 1
1994 1
1997 3
2001 1
2005 1
2010 3
Only 31 MPs are left who were elected prior to 1997. 13 of those were elected as Labour, including 6 of the longest serving 11 (well, one of those is now Ind)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_MPs_by_seniority_(2019–present)
It also needs to be understood that for some, belief in nazism was a genuine thing.