Jump to content



  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#16 Cyfer

  • Student
  • 322 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 24 August 2011 - 04:55 PM

As they would say on facebook: John D Clare likes this post!

Haha +1 :)

Economics is a great subject in its own right but I prefer studying it within a historical context. I prefer economics as a tool to understand the past and to make sensible guesses as to the right policies for the future, rather than as a tool of the occult to make wild risks based on predictions which might more accurately be described as a prophecy!

I prefer History because, whilst it can attract a good grade with a simple mastery of the subject itself, to excel it is a subject which depends upon the mastery of many other academic fields including economics, sociology, international relations, politics & government, English literature and language, psychology and philosophy. As you can therefore probably imagine, mastering History is a life's work which I am still learning and thoroughly enjoying!

Are you studying history at University? If so, what are you studying at the moment and is it interesting?

#17 Andrew W

Andrew W
  • Student
  • 12 posts

Posted 24 August 2011 - 11:58 PM

I have studied History at university and I have an undergraduate degree. Since qualifying I moved to Australia and I'm currently looking at studying for a taught Masters degree over here where I'm hoping to study the philosophy of History. In its simplest form this will be asking the seemingly obvious question of 'what is History' although this is actually a highly contentious debate! I'm also interested in how History is presented to the public and how the subject has been used and abused over the years to meet political ends. Before I get on to such lofty topics though, I need to get taught training in how to research at graduate level and receive introductions to various historiographical debates. I'm also looking to complete teacher training before embarking on this degree part time, which will take a while as I have to get my permanent residency in Australia before I can afford it!

One area of History that you might find interesting with your choices at A-Level and which involves both Ancient and Modern (including Classics) is the History of Ideas. I'm not sure how much of this is covered in British schools but it is normally offered at most British universities. It's a useful bridging subject that demonstrates that the differences between the approach to 'humanities' and 'sciences' really aren't that big.

Actually, the categorisation of subjects under these headings can largely be ascribed to the eighteenth century and is ridden with class bias. At that time the 'humane' subjects such as philosophy and history were considered the more complex and therefore considered appropriate for the upper classes. The technical subject of science, prior to its boom of knowledge in the nineteenth century, was considered appropriate for those who would serve them. Charles Darwin actually studied divinity before becoming a scientist, proving his worth in the humanities before persuing his interests! The industrial revolution and the growth of a distinct middle class turned all of this on its head, as new money replaced old.

Arguably today, some scientists can be sniffy about the humanities because they don't appreciate their worth in the workplace; however, they clearly ignore employers who say the skills lacking from candidates today tend to be good writing skills and the ability to present a coherent argument....

#18 poland first to fight

poland first to fight
  • Student
  • 70 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 04:24 PM


As for the second question, it is not enough to determine if any surrendering states were spared. Hitler treated many territories differently some with a degree of self governance (Vichy France, Quisling Norway) and some with ruthless dictatorship (Poland, Ukraine). Others were somewhere in between (Channel Islands, Northern France). I wouldn't investigate this general question further, as this won't lead to any firm conclusion.

Instead, look to the countries like the Soviet Union, such as the Ukraine and Poland. Hitler despised Communists as surely as he despised Jews. This may give some indication of what the Soviet Union had in store but honestly? The Soviet Union was too vast for Hitler to be any more destructive than Stalin.

In conclusion, I would argue that Stalin's brutality was unnecessary. Industrial or not, the Soviet Union would have been impossible to occupy in the long term.



How is Poland like Soviet Union? Hitler in fact liked Poland to an extent. Poland was one of the biggest enemies of USSR and Hitler saw Poland as a useful ally in his planned crusade against Communism. Poland was far more powerful than Hungary and Romania or even Italy. But comparing Poland to Soviet Union? I really don't know what is on your mind. Could someone explain?

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users