Its not Politically Correct to have an interest in war. For the last 10 years this has been the local/national government message even as tony blair packed our troops to conflict after conflict.
When you see a sign in your local museum in the hall of weapons 'Why cant we all be nice to each other' ... you know that the liberal left, politically correct are in charge. War is bad, weapons are bad and if you like such things ... you are bad and will be taught that you are wrong.
Posted by: Geo | July 16, 2007 at 02:08 PM
Report this comment
Military history went out of fashion along with the rest of history when it was taken out of the school syllabus everywhere.
But military history has never been PC. I remember buying a book on WWII German warplanes in the 5th grade (waaaaaaaaaaay back in 1985), and one of my classmates asking me, "are you a Nazi?".
Posted by: Kristian | July 17, 2007 at 04:15 PM
Report this comment
I too agree with this. It is sadly that Military and History in general has fallen out of the interests of many.
I too love WWII and military history in general yet during school I was often asked if I was a Nazi because I simply had a book on the Germans in WWII.
Another sad thing is I just went to my college orientation, out of their biggest group thus far (75 orientating students) and I was the ONLY History Major...no joke, I find this sudden lack of interest very startling. I too hope it changes though because I love sharing it with the select few that will listen, something my parents have always been very good at, and luckily I have found a girl who has an interest in hearing me tell her about various battles and such.
All the best, Jon (soon to be USC Freshman majoring in History)
Posted by: Jon Nikitas | July 17, 2007 at 07:26 PM
Report this comment
I am taking history classes at California State University, Long Beach (Los Angeles County, USA)and the the subject of warfare in a historical context is very limited. Even in a class on European history from 1900-1970, the actual military history of WWII is covered in just one class period. I guess the emphasis is now on cultural and diversity history.
Posted by: Randy | July 17, 2007 at 09:09 PM
Report this comment
I think on the toy front, you need to know where to look. Mainstream toy stores do not sell historically accurate toy soldiers and weapons anymore, and it is because mainstream toy manufactures do not make them . This is probably because of the reasons people have already stated. The good military toys are still out there, but they are harder to find. I collect 54mm metal toy soldiers made by Trophy of Wales (unfortunately now out of business). Other good manufacturers include, William Britain's, King and Country, Frontline Figures etc. For the younger generations that still want to put their soldiers in the sandbox, one must look in hobby shops and older style toy shops to find historically acurate/ or at least decent military toys.
Posted by: Sam | July 18, 2007 at 04:40 AM
Report this comment
It seems to me that social history is the big thing nowadays, at least in the U.S. And hey, I love "a day in the life of" approaches to historical subjects, especially when it relates to soldiering! But this isn't done often enough to suit my tastes.
A good indication of how starved people are in this country for good military history: the popularity of Stephen Ambrose. From his WW II books, if you didn't know any better, you'd think it was the G.I.'s who did all the fighting. Come on, man! And if that weren't enough, Ambrose actually calls the Tommies "gutless." I don't know where he would get such an insulting idea. Which brings me to another point: where do people get the idea that the French are cowards? They must not be reading the same books as yours truly.
Ironic that Star Wars is mentioned as playing part in the decline of military history. George Lucas was clearly inspired by the samurai filmsof Kurosawa, which certainly led me to learn more about feudal Japan. But there's also been a decline in reading for entertainment. I'd be tempted to say Hollywood likes to make fantasy movies so they don't have to do research to get their facts right, but clearly, they had no qualms making such turkeys as Pearl Harbor. Who knew the Japanese attacked to break up the Affleck-Beckinsale-Hartnett love triangle?
-Chris
Posted by: Chris | July 19, 2007 at 06:18 AM
Report this comment
I think you need to go back a lot further than 10 years to see the beginnings of opposition to 'war toys' - it was certainly already around to an extent in the 70s, even though that was probably when toys like Action Man were at their peak.
You're probably right that the success of Star Wars figures had a lot to do with where physical toys have gone since, but I think your idea that military toys are out of fashion is completely ignoring the modern equivalent - computer games. You'll find plenty of games out there with a historical basis. Also, and these are probably why there are so many of these games, there are more new films and TV series with some sort of relationship with military history coming out now for quite some time. So, although vaguely historical toys may not sit on the shelves of many toy shops they do still exist, you were just looking in the wrong place!
Posted by: FinnN | July 19, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Report this comment
"...the popularity of Stephen Ambrose. From his WW II books, if you didn't know any better, you'd think it was the G.I.'s who did all the fighting. Come on, man! And if that weren't enough, Ambrose actually calls the Tommies "gutless.""
I wouldn't worry too much. Ambrose is fairly well known for some, uh, dodgy history. His continous denigration of British (French, Canadians and Poles don't even appear) is fairly obvious and should in general be ignored. Of course Britain gots its revenge by providing most of the actors for the "Band of Brothers" series.
The thing that really annoys me about Ambrose is that on my copies of Band of Brothers does it mention that this is a work entirely based on the remenices of men which he has not checked out.
That said his book "Citizen Soldiers" was very amusing. Ambrose seemed almost unaware that, umm, every other army out there was comprised of citizens too...
Posted by: xeoran | July 19, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Report this comment
I'm going to be taking my A2 in History next year.(For anyone who doesn't know about the British education system, an A2 is part of an A-level. An A-level means 'advanced level', and is taken by 17-18 year olds.)
Although I haven't started yet, I know that we will be spending a term entirely devoted to the History of Warfare from 1792 (French Revolutionary Wars), to 1918. I'm quoting this exactly from my booklet on my History A-level:
"Scholars will be expected to ascertain how different tactics and methods of war evolved over the past two centuries, incorporating the scholar's understanding of the significance of war."
So, to all adults, don't think that military history is quite out of schools yet. I plan to take Military History at Uni, and my education has given me the interest in pursuing my chosen course, so don't knock it. :)
Posted by: EasyPeasy21 | July 22, 2007 at 08:52 PM
Report this comment
This is heartening! It would be interesting for other readers, and for me personally as a sometime educational publisher, to know the name of this enlightened A-level exam board.
In response to concerns about military history as an element of the US curriculum (expressed in earlier comments on this blog), we are working with colleagues at Random House, our distributors in North America, on material to promote the cause to high school and college teachers. This will take the form of a strongly argued article by a distinguished military historian, himself a college professor, and an introductory Teacher's Guide to Osprey Essential Histories. The latter will focus on the titles on the French & Indian War, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War I and Vietnam. Both will be downloadable free of charge and available in the fall.
We plan something similar for the UK and input on how best to pitch this would be highly welcome!
Posted by: William | July 24, 2007 at 04:12 PM
Report this comment
Well, I suppose I can help out in that regards, since I am an example of the target audience that you will want to get hooked onto military history; a secondary school student.
If you're going to get teenagers hooked on history, then working on getting them interested in military history is the best way to go, especially when it comes to boys (for obvious reasons :). We like tanks and bombers and all that sort of stuff).
When you're presenting the material to the teachers, you should be talking to them about videos and other multi-media tools that they can use in the class, before they move onto books. Again, from a boy's perspective :), we like to actually SEE what we're being taught. That's why military history is so unique, because it can be exciting to learn.
Once the students have grasped and visualed what is going on in regards to what they are learning, then they can introduced to books. Gradually, you move away from the videos, and then the books become the mainstay of learning the material of the course.
And by the way, don't quote me on this, but I think Edexcel is board that I'm taking my exams under. But don't call them enlightened :D. I have been learning about Hitler and Nazi Germany, NON-STOP, since 2003, and it's getting pretty repetitive.
Posted by: EasyPeasy21 | July 24, 2007 at 06:16 PM
Report this comment
Oh, and I would suggest that the titles that you should be promoting to the UK are:
The Campaigns of the Norman Conquest
The Hundred Years' War
The English Civil Wars
The First World War
The Second World War
The Falklands War
I would suggest these because are important events in our history.
Posted by: EasyPeasy21 | July 25, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Report this comment
I'm going to blog this myself via cross-posting, if you don't mind.
Makes sense, although I've never thought of Star Wars being particularly to blame. There's likely a little bit more to it than just Star Wars in my opinion, although if you knew me you'd know I have an unwavering disgust for Star Wars and all things like it.
I've long lamented the same things you do. I love science and history, and no one seems to care about it all anymore. It's sad. But I guess that just makes us a closer-knit community, eh?
Long live the study of history!
Dr. Paleo Ph.D.
Posted by: Dr. Paleo Ph.D. | July 30, 2007 at 07:00 AM
Report this comment
I think this is highly dependent on country of origin; where I'm from, the Netherlands, military history has long been shunned by professional historians. For a long time the flag was carried by officers who did personal research and published their findings, but lacked proper historical education and therefore didn't have a good grasp of the sources. In Belgium, on the contrary, military history was more popular, with leading medieval military historians like J F Verbruggen and Claude Gaier coming from there and publishing loads of works.
In the UK it appears to me the situation is even more strongly in favour of military history. It has one of the greatest outputs of military history books that I know of, quite often of high quality (though regularly also prone to clear national bias) and spear-headed by professional historians like the late David Chandler.
Whether or not children play with toy soldiers, I think, is immaterial; warfare always has appeal to some people, and whether they are introducted to it by Action Man or Lord of the Rings is beside the point. As long as there's people interested in it, and not afraid to research and publish studies on the subject, history is served.
To end on a positive note, military history in the Netherlands has become more popular recently, with high quality studies having been published regarding both the middle ages and the Republic times of late. One does not require Action Man to generate interest.
Posted by: Kor Bosch | July 30, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Report this comment
Hi
I can only agree in that there is to little military history in the educational system (i am from Denmark myself, and it also count over here). I am inroled at a university majoring i history, and there is a major lack of courses dealing with military history. I am now taking some classes as private studies, to be able to study military history.
I also finds that social history is the big thing in the buisness. It is a problem that almost no new profesors is working with mil. hist.
Regards
Nicolaj
If anybody has interest in the Cold War, please visit; WWW.koldkrigsstudier.sdu.dk
Posted by: Nicolaj Vraa-Andersen | July 30, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Report this comment
Lots of interesting comments to this question. Certainly, there is has been a real turn away from teaching history in US schools over the past 35 years. I actually taught WWII to my AP history class, because the teacher (who was excellent in many ways) didn't want to address the subject.
Largely this was a response to burn out from the Vietnam War, the maniputation of hte public by the government during the Cold War (e.g., McCarthyism), and (although actually not so much the peace movement). Many academics started preaching the view that we can avoid war through ignorance of the history, and that most military history was just so much jingoism. I think there is a lot of truth to the latter view (just see the comments about Ambrose's books), but you don't cut-off your nose to spite your face!
But I've also come to see that there are more reasons for this too, some quite surprising. Even with a strongly conservative bend in US politics over the past 25 years, I still don't see any decent effort at teaching any history at all! The prevailing view in US culture today is that anything outside of "economics" is irrelevant: The only activities that count are those directed to creating wealth--mostly for Wall Street. So, we neglect any subject outside of the most basic subjects. This strange turn of events seems to come from the sort of post-Cold War triumphalism that is best exemplifed by the Neo-cons: The West's victory over the Soviets was the final victory that ended the great battle in favor of "democracy" and captialism--history had indeed ended, but not as Marx had predicted.
This sort of lunacy is just a new incarnation of the retreat from rationality that has been infecting academicians on both sides of the Atlantic for the past 40 years or so. (I recommend Alan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" for a good overview.) We've often associated this sort of thinking with the liberal side of the political spectrum, but the Bush administration has shown amply that is covers the entire political spectrum today. In short, wealth trumps all: If you have the money, you get to define reality.
The other unexpected aspect is that lack of interest in theaching military history to the military itself! This observation was made recently in a letter published in a recent issue of the US Naval Institute Proceedings, but I've seen this developing for decades through my own connections as well. In short, the US military simply considers that technology renders all previous experience irrelevant--again, triumphalism (technological) has led to an end of history! Thus, we see the debacle of the fizzled "shock and awe" leading to the disasters that has been unfolding in Iraq today.
We have a long way to go before we hit bottom and people start to move back to respecting the rationality that underlies our political and economic systems. I only pray that we can make it without losing our freedom.
Posted by: David Lentini | July 30, 2007 at 03:52 PM
Report this comment
The study of military history has suffered a reversal in western societies as a unfortunate byproduct of cultural liberalism which places a stigma on all things reflecting a militaristic aspect. The good news is that in the more rarefied world of miltary publishing there never has been such a surge in first rate military studies and an undeniable plethora of highly readable reexaminations of conflicts past and present.....this remains a constantly evolving field whose relevance is more important than ever.
Posted by: JAMES HIONIS | July 30, 2007 at 08:39 PM
Report this comment
there exists in the world today a fuzzy dream that all men can be brothers and that the future can be without war.
to this end, toy guns, toy soldiers and movies, etc., studying war are verboten.
to paraphraphrase georges santayana, those who forget military history are doomed to be overrun.
Posted by: william hart | July 30, 2007 at 09:51 PM
Report this comment
There is hope. I've been amazed lately of the interest my son has taken in my old Airfix soldiers. It's amazing, he uses his imagination for hours instead of zoning out to his Playstation. My old Airfix toys have another life to live. When his friends come over and see these "new toys" they're in awe. "Where did you get these?" They ask. I know Airfix is gone but Conteco and The San Diego Toy Soldier Company have brought new life to toy soldiers again. I'm not giving up. I think, I mean my son thinks these are awesome. To me there is nothing more satisfying to hear Ptchew Ptchew and Dugga Dugga Dugga from the living room. Omaha Beach is played daily. Oh and I did make sure to buy some British Paratroopers. I'm one of the few Americans that realize the British were there too. :)
Posted by: Scott (Deep in the Heart of Texas) | July 31, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Report this comment
William Hart's "fuzzy dream" reminded me of a nice take on the role of the historian that I came across on Civil Warriors whilst googling around in the Wilderness. (http://civilwarriors.net/wordpress/?p=179) "As far as the issue of timing the stands [on Staff Walks} goes, my doctoral advisor Herman Hattaway (who was also an Anglican minister) once advised me that no sermon ever saved a soul after thirty minutes, and I try, except for the first and last stops, to keep most stands within thirty. On the occasions when I do go over, however, I take comfort in once hearing Dennis Showalter say that while it is the mission of ministers to comfort the afflicted, it is the job of the historian to afflict the comfortable".
Posted by: william | August 01, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Report this comment
William Hart's "fuzzy dream" reminded me of a nice take on the role of the historian that I came across on Civil Warriors whilst googling around in the Wilderness. (http://civilwarriors.net/wordpress/?p=179) "As far as the issue of timing the stands [on Staff Walks} goes, my doctoral advisor Herman Hattaway (who was also an Anglican minister) once advised me that no sermon ever saved a soul after thirty minutes, and I try, except for the first and last stops, to keep most stands within thirty. On the occasions when I do go over, however, I take comfort in once hearing Dennis Showalter say that while it is the mission of ministers to comfort the afflicted, it is the job of the historian to afflict the comfortable".
Posted by: william | August 01, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Report this comment