You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Short Attention Span Theater-
1 in 10 Britons believe that Hitler wasn't real
2004-04-05
Now we've got the lower end of the bell curve defined...
British people are ignorant of some of the most important events and people in this country's history, a new survey has revealed. As well as an inability to recall the dates of military victories and the personalities involved, there is also huge confusion about which characters and battles are fact and fiction.
I remember one of the conversations I had with a "social studies" teacher, who asked rhetorically what it mattered if the Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066 or 1067. "How about 1492?" I asked. Then, being a smartass even then, I continued building on it: how Good Queen Bess and the Spanish Armada threw out the wiley Angles and their Saxophones, married King Arthur, and fought the Battle of Waterloo. She was testy the rest of the night, and soon stopped returning my phone calls.
One in 10 of the 2,000 adults questioned in the survey commissioned by Blenheim Palace thought that Adolf Hitler was not a real person, and half were convinced that King Arthur existed. Almost three-quarters did not know that the Battle of Blenheim took place 300 years ago, even though it is one of the greatest British military triumphs. Fewer than one in eight had heard of John Churchill, the first Duke of Marlborough, who led the British to victory against the French and for whom the palace was built by the nation as a reward. A quarter of the adults were unsure whether the Battle of Trafalgar was a real historical event, and more than half thought that Horatio Nelson commanded British troops at the battle of Waterloo. Similarly, one in seven Britons did not know that the Battle of Hastings was real. The lack of knowledge was greeted with alarm by historians.
Social studies teachers find nothing to be alarmed about, however...
Tristram Hunt, the historian and television presenter, said: "Perhaps more worrying is the apparent merging of fact and fiction. There has always been myth and legend in history, but these findings show that there is a real need for clear understanding. There is a clear challenge here for academics to engage with a popular audience." John Hoy, the chief executive of Blenheim Palace - the birthplace of Sir Winston Churchill - said that he was amazed that so few people had heard of the battle in whose honour the palace was named. "By defeating the forces of Louis XIV in the War of the Spanish Succession, John Churchill changed the history of Britain and Europe. It was such a momentous event that it led Queen Anne to bestow Blenheim Palace on Churchill as a gift from 'a grateful nation'. The problem for many people is that they associate history with dry and dusty dates and facts. Once they realise that history is about people - the way we used to live and the way we live now - it becomes more relevant and exciting."
Damn those dry and dusty dates and facts! On the other hand, Marlborough did have an interesting sex life. Not as interesting as Augustus III, mind you, and certainly not as interesting as Augustus II...
Researchers also found that respondents struggled with modern history. One in five believed that Harold Wilson was prime minister during the Second World War. Confusion about Britain's historical figures was laid at the door of Hollywood films, such as Braveheart, and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Almost half the adults surveyed believed that Sir William Wallace was not a real person, and a quarter were convinced that Robin Hood was. One in 20 thought that Conan the Barbarian, a character played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, was a genuine person. Some also believed that Lord Edmund Blackadder and Xena Warrior Princess, characters from television series, were real.
One in twenty is the way nether end of the bell curve...
Children are similarly ignorant of British history. Thirty per cent of 11 to 18-year-olds in a recent survey thought that Oliver Cromwell fought at the Battle of Hastings. A similar proportion did not know in which century the First World War took place. However, Peter Furtado, the editor of History Today magazine, said that history teaching had been praised by inspectors as excellent. "There has been a greater emphasis in schools on dates and historical timelines," he said. "In a way, there is just too much history and the most we can hope is that pupils are inspired to learn more and continue with history study. People have always been inspired by fiction to learn history. Many historians talk about the fact that a rollicking good read or film caught their imagination. It means that some people are inspired to find out more. Inevitably though, some people will get the wrong end of the stick."
Posted by:Dan Darling

#45  1 in 10 Britons believe that Hitler wasn't real

If they don't beleive that Hitler was a real person then how do they account for skinheads?

That question pretty well buttons up any arguing about it being time for Holocaust denial curiculum in Britain.

Posted by: Zenster   2004-04-05 6:09:54 PM  

#44  Actually England took over most of France during the Hundred Years war, until Joan of Arc stepped in and motivated the masses in a way the French royalty could not.

I would be really interested in more details. Like how many of these 10% oppose the war in Iraq. How many of the 90% oppose the war in Iraq. Similar numbers for France and Germany. And of course how many were toying with the questineers.
Posted by: ruprecht   2004-04-05 5:56:14 PM  

#43  Raj, does it matter???
Posted by: Rafael   2004-04-05 3:32:54 PM  

#42  I find this frightening, because we all know that in America, things deemed "offensive," such as slavery, are targeted by the left for neutralization in our schools. If we don't remember the history, they certainly won't - and they'll change it for their own demented purposes. Call me an alarmist if you will, but I genuinely fear that if this trend continues, we could see an "end of history" and a rewriting similar to the one seen in 1984 . . . and we would be doomed to repeat that history, because we would have lost the lessons of the past. Furthermore, with those "alternative histories" of other cultures that the PCers are always telling us to respect, you could have a complete perversion . . . and you wouldn't know the difference.
Posted by: The Doctor   2004-04-05 1:32:16 PM  

#41  and Xena Warrior Princess, characters from television series, were real.

I thought they were enhanced fake?
Posted by: Raj   2004-04-05 12:21:38 PM  

#40  So if "Bush is Hitler" does that mean that Bush doesn't exist? Ask the 1 in 10 that one and watch their heads spin.
Posted by: tu3031   2004-04-05 11:58:13 AM  

#39  ...how about stopping that silly thread?

Fairy muff, JFM. But the zulus didn't only have spears.

SH, there aren't that many skinheads in the UK, really.
Posted by: Bulldog   2004-04-05 11:47:42 AM  

#38  Can't we all get along? ... and go smoke some crack.
Posted by: Rodney King   2004-04-05 11:46:38 AM  

#37  Howard UK

Being outnumbered was the norm in colonial wars and the British at Rourke's drift were outnumbered 30 to 1 and still won. But at Isandwana the British commander was of a stupidity of Azincourtian proportions and his troops were wiped out.
Posted by: JFM   2004-04-05 11:42:46 AM  

#36  If they don't beleive that Hitler was a real person then how do they account for skinheads?
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-04-05 11:40:48 AM  

#35  Bulldog

There was a reason Wellington distrusted the Belgians: most of them, even between the Flemish preferred to be French instead of being returned to their protestant Dutch masters. But most of them didn't flee at Waterloo and fought well, some outstandingly.

Now, how about stopping that silly thread? It happens I have little esteem for the French of 2004, it happens I am a friend of the British and the Americans but it also happens I am pissed when someone makes a disparaging comment over the French soldier through the ages (including the guys at Austerlitz or Verdun), even about the guys of 1940 whose main tort was to have a bad general and to not have Churchill.
Posted by: JFM   2004-04-05 11:36:15 AM  

#34  At least the accents make them sound smarter than they really are! ;p
Posted by: Yosemite Sam   2004-04-05 11:35:13 AM  

#33  Yes, the French were just plain unlucky. Everyone knows the British army can't really fight and survives purely on the will of the Gods.(LMAO) To be fair, I think the incident with the Zulus was largely down to numbers. Chatillon la Bataille, Fontenoy - will research, sound fairly unimportant - certainly not defeats on the scale of the Zulu's otherwise they would have been etched on our national psyche in a similar manner.
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-04-05 11:33:32 AM  

#32  Howard UK

The English owned parts of France (aquitaine and Normandy) until the one Hundred Years War where they lost everything but Calais. They lost Calais under Elizabeth I ie 16th century

Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt were monuments to French stupidity and indiscipline. At Poitiers the English had a very strong position on a hill but that hill had no water. So instead of launching a piecemeal assault on that hill, with unprotected flanks who allowed the British horsemen to wreak havoc on the French infantry just surround the hill and ensure soldiers drink copiously in full view of the English.

At Azincourt the British were short on supplies and the French were between them and their bases.
They just had to delay the action until the British starved. In case they decided to go to battle the narrow bottleneck at Azincourt was the worst possible place since it impede any turning movement by the French cavalry and forced it to crash on the English pikes. The weather was the worst possible one: very thick mud who forced the French cavlry to "charge" at the speed of a walking man ie lengthening the time spent under British arrows. Any commander with an IQ over 1 would have gone to battle in another place or at another time.


Now, I have spoken of Agincourt I eagerly wait for your accounts of Chatillon la Bataille, Fontenoy or the naval battles who preceded Yorktown. Or you could talk of how you managed to lose against the Zulus. I am unaware of the French losing against natives armed with mere spears.
Posted by: JFM   2004-04-05 11:24:45 AM  

#31  In JFM's defense, Poitiers or Tours was possibly France's greatest military achievement imho. Western Europe may be speaking arabic now for not the valor of Martel and some pissed off Frank warriors.
Posted by: Jarhead   2004-04-05 10:57:35 AM  

#30  The Saxons were of German descent- Brits were/are Anglo-Saxon, I believe. Didn't Britain own parts of France until the eighteenth century? Go on then, JFM, describe France's greatest military moment in detail! Agincourt anyone?
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-04-05 10:46:22 AM  

#29  And about Trafalgar and Waterloo, Trafalgar was a british victory but Waterloo? There were more Belgians than British in Wellington's Army!!!

Are you trying to suggest the Duke of Wellingtone was a Belgian, JFM?! About a quarter of the allied army at Waterloo were British, but they participated in a disproportionate amount of the action. British casulaties were over 50 %. And the Belgians? Many bravely ran away. Before the start of battle, Wellington made sure the unreliable Belgians were intermixed with British, Dutch and Germans to try to prevent their mass desertion.

This British-led motley crew still beat Napoleon's forces despite being outnumbered. ;)
Posted by: Bulldog   2004-04-05 10:46:11 AM  

#28  Where ya been, mucky? Threads during the last few days would have given you a migrane! I even tried to fill in for you, but hey!

You da Man, Mucky!
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-04-05 10:36:15 AM  

#27  this is making my hed hurt.
Posted by: muck4doo   2004-04-05 10:31:03 AM  

#26  Angie Schultz

"Well the British never succeeded in invading France... June 6, 1944, ring a bell?"

Yes, the liberation of France. A thing the French have forgotten and I haven't.
Posted by: JFM   2004-04-05 10:24:15 AM  

#25  Howard UK

Those "Normans" had become French for a few generations, were speaking French, didn't use Viking weapons, armor or tactics and didn't use Drakars. On your account the Saxons were Germans not British.

Oh, and it would be interesting to count how many of them were from Viking descent and how many of Frank or Gallo-Roman descent.
Posted by: JFM   2004-04-05 10:20:12 AM  

#24  The French who invaded in 1066 were Normans or 'men from the north' - historically, vikings who the natural French unsurprisingly couldn't remove. I certainly don't remember the French engaging us militarily after 1815. The large number of Belgians present at Waterloo may be explained by the fact that Waterloo is in Belgium, although I would be only too happy to credit their part in the victory.

The French are our one true enemy.
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-04-05 9:44:13 AM  

#23  "and half were convinced that King Arthur existed."

Quite possibly he did, though obviously he'd not be as Geoffrey of Monmouth (or even worse, Mallory) portrayed him.

A contemporary to the time, Gildas, mentions a character he calls "The Bear" -- it's believed by many for example to be a reference to Arthur, given how "Bear-man" is "arth gwyr" ("arthgoour", "Arthur")

And a poem written in the 600s contained the line "although he fought bravely, he was no Arthur", which obviously signifies that a man with the name Arthur was very famous and well-thought of at the time.

Obviously he'd not be the kind of mythical king popularly known today, but just a Briton warlord of some fame. Quite possibly not even a king at all.

But I have no real doubt that such a person existed once.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-04-05 9:44:03 AM  

#22  Well the British never succeeded in invading France...

June 6, 1944, ring a bell?
Posted by: Angie Schultz   2004-04-05 9:42:22 AM  

#21  Howard UK

Well the British never succeeded in invading France while the French did. :-)))))

And about Trafalgar and Waterloo, Trafalgar was a british victory but Waterloo? There were more Belgians than British in Wellington's Army!!!
Posted by: JFM   2004-04-05 9:24:55 AM  

#20  And Trafalgar and Waterloo didn't. (!)
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-04-05 8:53:22 AM  

#19  GK

That part of history is a lot easier for the French.


No, it is the part about the defeats who is easy because there are few: take a map of medieval France and you will notice it was far smaller than now. Meaning that she won most of its wars as you will notice if you read a history book. And that is perhaps part of the problem: the French didn't develop the mental patterns to face defeat, recover and emerge stronger. 1940 broke their spirit.
Posted by: JFM   2004-04-05 8:50:30 AM  

#18  As well as an inability to recall the dates of military victories.... That part of history is a lot easier for the French.
Posted by: GK   2004-04-05 8:36:16 AM  

#17  Check the grave, bitches...
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-04-05 8:29:18 AM  

#16  It's all there, I tell you.
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-04-05 8:24:25 AM  

#15  And while we are on the subject of English place names. There were two villages not far from where I grew up called Ugley and Nasty. And I swear this true! There used to be a sign on Ugley village hall - 'Ugley Women's Institute'. I don't recall a 'Nasty Women's Institute' and I sincerely hope they haven't subsequently combined. The villages are about seven miles apart on the Essex/Hertfordshire border if you care to check a map.
Posted by: phil_b   2004-04-05 8:23:30 AM  

#14  Robin Hood was real all right. aka "Robin of Loxley"

Believe it or not I lived for a year in the village of Loxley west of Sheffield (and near Hathersage). No one there seemed to be aware of any Robin Hood connection.
Posted by: phil_b   2004-04-05 8:11:52 AM  

#13  And Blackadder should have existed.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-04-05 8:10:15 AM  

#12  "Never so many ignored so much about the so few"

Apparently the guys who flew Hurricanes and Spitfires did it for the fun.
Posted by: JFM   2004-04-05 8:10:07 AM  

#11  King Arthur did exist.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2004-04-05 8:06:30 AM  

#10  I still rely of this great work for all history British.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-04-05 7:53:18 AM  

#9  BTW - I wonder if antiwar was surveyed, bwhahaha.
Posted by: Jarhead   2004-04-05 7:48:41 AM  

#8  Don't feel bad my Brit brethren - it's prolly 5 in 10 for us Yanks concerning ignorant adults. I don't even want to think how much the kids are not being taught.
Posted by: Jarhead   2004-04-05 7:47:46 AM  

#7  They are so ignorant they probably don't know that Xena and Conan actually married and had a child called David Bowie.
Posted by: Bill Nelson   2004-04-05 7:35:01 AM  

#6  F*ck you. Robin Hood was real all right. aka "Robin of Loxley" - and Little John is buried in Hathersage, Derbyshire. So there.
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-04-05 6:14:13 AM  

#5  Ignorance in the modern world is the widespread norm. I have just heard a CNN reporter describe Buddhist monks as 'Hindus'.
Posted by: phil_b   2004-04-05 6:04:19 AM  

#4  As well as an inability to recall the dates of military victories and the personalities involved, there is also huge confusion about which characters and battles are fact and fiction.

Having taught in a couple of secondary schools in the UK I would say that's fairly accurate. I remember having to teach a class of able sixteen year olds all about WW2 and The Cold War - I was amazed they knew pretty much FA about either. At least they know when Divali is Hindu for Bonfire Night and that Eid is the Muslim Christmas. My country where have you gone??
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-04-05 5:50:10 AM  

#3  Fooey. Conan the Barbarian is a real person. He is now governor of California.
Posted by: Rafael   2004-04-05 4:50:36 AM  

#2  LOL! Take exception to this piece, do you?!!?
Posted by: .com   2004-04-05 4:46:40 AM  

#1  Yeah, whatEVER!

;)
Posted by: Bulldog   2004-04-05 4:43:36 AM  

00:00