To show you how ignorant the general population of America is.

"The problem with most of the Western historiography, is that it only looks the events and the way they happened, leaving no space for a fluid interpretation. I used to think the Western historians belived the Soviet Union played a supossed decisive role together with the Western Allies, and this was only a way to emphasize the Soviet sacrifices. But no, their goal is really show that Germany lost the war in the East, and would likely lose it regardless of the Western Allies, which played a helpful but secondary role."


Jenisch,
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. What do you mean when you say a "fluid interpretation"?
If you make a thesis and the events and the way they happened don't agree are the facts wrong?
And why would 'Western historians' have a hidden goal ? All the historians (including me)?

 

First, I would like to let clear that I'm not generalizing the Western historians.

Now on the subject: take for example David Glantz, he belives that left alone, Stalin and his military would likely take 12-18 months more to defeat Hitler. What do I think of this? His logic for this is only on the basis of the historical Eastern Front, because there are endless intangibles in such a scenario that made impossible to make such a claim. Primarily, it would be necessary a totally new geopolitical reality to be examined, and obviously this is already impractical. Also, would Hitler surprise Stalin like historically? If the German invasion happened like historically, but without the naval blockade, without the U-boat production, without Lend-Lease to the Soviets, without the bombing, without most Luftwaffe casualities in the West, among other things, it would be "likely" that Stalin would achive the same results, specially if we considerate all those factors in a cumulative form? Being able to import fuel, with all the French and European occupied countries being able to import raw materials to produce for Germany, how many more trucks, locomotives, Tiger and Panthers tanks with well trained crews, how much more Luftwaffe planes would be facing the Russians? They would "likely" still won if this happened? Of course, maybe they still could won, if they managed to avoid the surprise attack for example. But we are talking about a World War as well, isn't? What Japan and Italy would be doing? Japan would try to attack the Pacific with the now well defended European colonies? the US and Britain would probably not be much simpatic to the USSR in this scenario, so there would be a possibility for them to help Hitler letting Japan invade the USSR without an oil embargo. Mussoline also would help the Fuher in Russia, and certainly if the Italian government survived until 1943, their industry would be in a much better shape, producing modern equipment in quantity like the Centauro fighter. It would be "likely" that Stalin would overcome all this?

In the end, it cannot be said the Russians decided the war, or that they would likely won it or not alone. Unless someone invents a time machine to prove us what would happen, I keep my view: WWII was a joint victory of the Allied powers, were each power played a decisive role for the final outcome of the conflict.

 

to emphasize just how little history, social study is being taught in American high-schools today, watch this and weep for our children and grandchildren. Is this the result of "no child left behind" teaching to enrich standardized test scores? History and current events are certainly NOT some of the subjects included in the system it appears.

Goto:

'Lunch Scholars' Video Reveals American Teens Can't Answer Basic Trivia (VIDEO)

 

Brilliant!

America gained its independence from the civil war! I had no idea!

 

Ignorance of history long predates "No Child Left Behind". Americans are notoriously ignorant of history and have been so for decades.

 

That may well be, and when History and Social Studies were "bundled" in the eighties (here in Billings at least) the depth of what was taught lessened. My oldest son was finishing HS at the time, and when he graduated his general history knowledge was pretty weak. When my youngest entered HS even that level had deteriorated, and it only got worse after the ninties when he was in HS. Now, that said all those young people in the video were products of the NCLB program.

 

Sloni----for a state next door that was a correct answer as their governor(who ran for president) started his term reminding everyone they could still be independent if they legally so choose. So if you are from that state it could be confusing....and these kids in the video look pretty good as compared to what Jay Leno finds when he goes "Jay Walking". You will find also that a lot of new teachers that have no idea.....as there is a big movement against Liberal Arts..........presumably because of the label "liberal" so there is less emphasis on having a broad general base of knowledge with a specialization of a degree stacked upon that. Instead, today, the Liberal Arts are eliminated and all you have to learn is the specialized subject for the degree, hence more ignorance. Now it is assumed that only engineers need math, so if one chooses that field there is little preparation for you done by most high schools as math, history, foreign languages are just extras. Colleges that strictly adhere to a strong Liberal Arts are often downgraded for their general educational requirements so they have a better time if they eliminate that "old fashioned" view of knowledge. Only the parts of science, history, math, and even English that is taught in high schools are the things that can be presented with entertainment and if you dwell on the rote basics your evaluation as an entertaining teacher will surely suffer. As a result of only valuing a monolingual product, we give up knowing any parts of speech whatsoever as that is the rote stuff you would be downgraded for not presenting entertaining lessons with. A teacher is more like a technician competing with nightly television as another entertainment source. Amongst parents, you will find about 90% value you more as a babysitter than having you insist on requiring real effort from their child.

 

'The vice president of the U.S. is... Bill Clinton!' Shocking video shows high school students are woefully uninformed | Mail Online

No Comment

 

Yeah, all those videos and the "Jay Walking" episodes....one wonders exactly how many interviews/questions were asked to find the right amount of ignorance to fill up the video? Don't get me wrong, the public education system blows Hungarian goats...but I tend to view anything put out by the media that supports their viewpoint to be suspect.

 

WRT "Jay Walking",

I did like this one bit:

Q: Which American president was nicknamed "Tricky Dick"?
A: Umm...Bill Clinton.


I'd say she got that one correct

 

That is sort of funny, by Nixon had that moniker from well before Clinton was even born. I believe he picked it up during his poker games in WW2, he managed to make so much cash playing poker he actually financed his first political campaign with his poker winnings. Now that name came back to haunt him during the Watergate kerfluffle, but he owned that one all by himself.

 

And tell me, just how well acquainted with the history of North and South America is the average European? Barely from my experience.

 

You do not need to teach history(or any subject) in college for non-History majors. The history people ought to know can be taught over the decade or so they are in grade school.Why does a biology major need to know anthropology? Why does a history major need to know chemistry? They don't. It is a waste of money to teach a person something they will not use in their given profession. A basic education in the arts and sciences can be taught at the high school level.

College is so expensive now that I find it increasingly necessary to find ways to reduce costs for students. One such method is eliminating the two years of prerequisites that largely have nothing to do with your chosen area of study.

I respect the concept of teaching people a little bit of everything, but frankly I find it to be a waste of time and resources. Most college grads will never use nor recall information acquired in courses unrelated to their area of study. I know plenty of people who are college educated at universities who know little about WWII or history in general.

 

Oooh i'd have to stronly disagree with the first comments...indeed, whats wrong with "education" these days is the relative ignorance of the teachers! A history teacher who has a degree in anthropology can actualy "teach" the subject...not just give the correct knowledge that will pass them the test. Knowledge is all connected...you can study chemistry or micro biology but not get alot of what is put in front of the person becasue they dont have a rounded knowledge on the subject...So study "physics" instead, the study of all things physical in the world. I can see more possibilities in chemistry through say an astro physics degree than a simple chemist. Targeted knowledge, or specialising in knowledge puts the user at the same risk animals have when they specialise too much...if they are slightly out of their comfort zone, they are found wanting. An engineer needs far more knowledge than just engineering to do his job properly...he should know a good amount about mettalurgy, artictecture and even human behaviour...just knowing about engineering wont get him employed. Its this thinking that knowledge is somehow "too expensive" - "not relevant" - "too hard" - "for nerds and bookworms" - "for smart people"...is and always will be wrong. Our learning and tool making abilities are what make us human and not a chimp...we should be more one and less the other.

 

The same goes for any job. The fact of being highly specialized doesn't prevent one from learning more from other branches. The trouble is that some people will stick to their specificity without wanting to know anyhting else.

 

Agree, in the late ‘80s I was a Lesson Developer and Instructor at the US Army Sergeants Major Academy. We were working on a new course, the Staff NCO Course. We worked, by design, outside our specialty fields, I was in Intelligence and worked on the Logistics part of the course. I think this was a very good idea, it forced us to see things from a perspective outside our “comfort zones”.

 

I propose that the lower grades can teach all that may be necessary......however it is my experience our education system doesn't run on what can be done. It runs on what is done. I propose that if a person can "test out" and pass a "Liberal Arts" capability then let him specialize from there on. However it is my experience that people in work in demanding careers will not be very successful if they are "Liberal Arts" ignorant as they wouldn't even understand how government really works(a current problem anyway) and would be unable to communicate their advances in their field with others if they managed to make some(also a current problem). Some fields require publishing to satisfy professional levels of performance sharing new knowledge and more and more professors complain their students are not able to do that, hence poor blogging has to substitute as they wouldn't be chosen to be presented in professional journals. I could go on and on but the person who sees it as more necessary to concentrate only on their specialty is really not facing the needs so many have for a better Liberal Arts base. By arguing the case for not including anything but chosen subject matter will surely put all our children at the back of the pack for competing for tomorrows jobs. Even if you have a very important specialty, you still have to know how to use a computer, you also must be literate enough to write down your thoughts in e-mail, and must tolerate many other types of "cross-over" knowledge that will make you a good corporate citizen. Your evaluation will be based on the totality of how you perform even if you are wonderful in a specialty. I know this having served in such a position. The corporate climber that will succeed is one who has all the Liberal Arts skills and business does not have a use for those closeted in their own skill subject as they cannot communicate with you in that form. I also will submit this to you as I experienced this.....as one excels in competing a Liberal Arts degree, it deepened the knowledge of my chosen subject area by enhancing learning skills relating to becoming skilled in the subject you/I choose to specialize in. Think of it as the athlete that plays football. He has but to run the football to the goal line. However it is not his specialty to run in track at long races. However he trains himself to do so. He receives the benefit by running faster and maintaining his speed all the way to the goal line so he was complimented by another sport that was not his specialty. The sad reality is we have no excuse for ignorance.....and being so ignorant we choose ignorance is a symptom of one thing.......laziness. We do not know how to apply ourselves to learn. If I were to get my way (not a chance) I would say your Liberal Arts are not complete until you become so proficient in the general skills that you can choose any subject and teach yourself that subject to a level of specialization in that subject with minimal help from outside. That is often how a professional goes on his own to achieve high things, because he is no longer dependent on another's skills being taught to him to advance. That defines the rocket scientist, the physicist, the surgeon developing new techniques and just about any one else that is pioneering a path to new and better knowledge. That is the level when you have commanded your liberal arts. Just my opinion here.

Also I must add I am partially out of the oil patch, where specialized knowledge was once a stalwart need whether you were building pipelines or processing natural gas through refining towers. This became a profession that excluded eventually nearly every person who could not use a laptop. Many of those people are not in the oil fields today. Only the basest of jobs are now available there if you are not computer literate.

 

CAC wrote :
" Its this thinking that knowledge is somehow "too expensive" - "not relevant" - "too hard" - "for nerds and bookworms" - "for smart people"...is and always will be wrong."

I could not agree more !
if someone does not want to learn and experience new things then they are pretty much condemning themselves to being a troglodyte.

 

I was told many years ago that everything makes more sense if you remember that at least 60% of all people are stupid.

There are a lot of “troglodyte’s” out there.

Just saw a TV segment about a NYC teacher who was suspended from the classroom 10 yrs ago for sexual misconduct and is still drawing full pay from the city! So the problem seems to be all encompassing.

"Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education." Bertrand Russell