I never really questioned this before but I decided to look into it and am a little eh....

 

 

 

I'm in 8th grade in the U.S. if that matters, and my History teacher is the stereotypical 1950's anti-commie guy. Anyway, the unit for this whole year so far has been about "The Great War." He's not talking about WWI, but he's saying that the Cold War eventually escalated to actual combat, and the alleged "Great War" broke out between the U.S. and Russia. He's spent the year saying talking about the major events of the war, and about our "glorious victory" over the "Reds". Really I just went with it, I had no reason not to believe him. But I found out from my friend's that other history teachers in my school have never said a word about a war, and that the closest we've ever been to combat with Russia was Vietnam.

 

 

 

I looked around on the internet, checked textbooks, and nothing about "The Great War". So basically, there was no Great War, and this is really disturbing to me. How is this nutcase allowed to teach? I'm really patriotic, but this idiot outright MADE UP a war to glorify the U.S.

 

 

 

I don't even know what to say or do from here so...

 

 

 

Opinions? Advice? Was there a Great War besides WWI and my Google skills just suck?

 

 

 

:?

Maybe he came from the future and is warning us of the war to come like in Fallout.

 

 

 

If he isn't from the future then yes, he is insane. How could you not know that the Cold War never escalated into combat?

Maybe he came from the future and is warning us of the war to come like in Fallout.

 

 

 

If he isn't from the future then yes, he is insane. How could you not know that the Cold War never escalated into combat?

 

 

 

That's what I was taught the year before, but this guy has said the most on it and I never really bothered to look into it until now.

 

 

 

P.S. Trust me, you don't want this guy on Project Purity if he is from the future.

Yeah, the Cold War was called the Cold War for a reason... We never outright went into combat with Russia; If we did, the planet would be a nuclear mess right now. Dunno how he can teach that and not be fired; but if your school has the same program like mine, they aren't allowed to fire teachers who have worked for over 20 years, so that may be it. You might want to make a complaint to your principal about it though, just so he doesn't keep spouting stories in future years.

Wait, how old is he? (by your best guess)

Wait, how old is he? (by your best guess)

 

 

 

I'd say like his late 40's.

Wait, how old is he? (by your best guess)

 

 

 

I'd say like his late 40's.

 

Huh. I would have imagined some old guy. Well I guess he must be slightly crazy. If I were you I'd ask for some solid evidence, a book or a reliable website source.

How can he be a 'stereotypical 1950's anti-commie guy' if he wasn't, you know, alive then.

figurativly, yes the cold war did escalate to a "great war". but there were no real battles or skirmishes (unless you count the 1980 olympics). The US and the USSR region have only ever been on oposing sides of a skirmish during the two world wars. And almost in Vietnam. Communism caused some political tormoil between the USSR and the US but never any actual combat during the Cold War. Which is why it's called the "Cold" War. It was merely an arms race. I think it's also relatable to the Cuban missle crisis, but again...no actual combat, just diplomacy. Your teacher is full of it.

How can he be a 'stereotypical 1950's anti-commie guy' if he wasn't, you know, alive then.

 

 

 

Parents?

Well... The cold war in itself is a useless term. During the time there was political tension as Russia and the US competed to be the world's only super power. Capitalistic America believed in free enterprise and the economy. Communist Russia basically believed in the people working for the state and that everyone would be treated equally. The western world basically viewed this as the most horrible thing possible as under Communism there is no upper class or lower class everyone is equal.

 

 

 

During this time other countries like Korea and Vietnam had parts of their country (Generally the north funny enough join the communistic ideals). So in order to try and stop the spread of communism which was feared to be able to destroy the capitalistic paradigm we live in the Korean and Vietnam wars broke out.

 

 

 

Calling these small conflicts great wars are foolish, technically they were not even wars. Sounds like this teacher is pushing personal opinion not true historical facts.

 

 

 

My suggestion would be take a tape into class and record what he is saying and then approach a counsellor/faculty that are in a position to do something and ask of them how you can possibly be learning the correct things in history when he is speaking propagandist facts.

 

 

 

I you want a really good book for history grab this one: "Flashpoints: National and International Studies" Germany 1918-1945, Russia and the Soviet Union 1917-1945, The Cold War 1945-1991, Indochina 1954-1979.

 

 

 

Here's a quote from the text book:

 

 

 

Background: The beginnings of the Cold War can be traced to the closing months of WWII. However, its fundamental origins lie in WWI. In Oct, 1917, the Bolshevik Party, led by V.I Lenin and supported by discontented industrial workers and war-weary soldiers and sailors, seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks formed a new revolutionary government. It claimed the be a communist government that would create a socialist state ruled by workers and peasants, who would take control of industry and agriculture from the wealthy capitalists and large landowners.

Thanks Goddess :thumbsup:

 

 

 

In one post you've made more sense than he has all year.

That guy is insane, no doubt. We're currently running through the Cold War era in our history class, and there was no fighting, apart from maybe the Bay of Pigs. Even then, we used Cuban exiles, none of our own troops.

Wait! How long has he been teaching there? Our town is currently missing our village idiot, maybe he wandered into your school.

Wait! How long has he been teaching there? Our town is currently missing our village idiot, maybe he wandered into your school.

 

 

 

Maybe. Did your village idiot respond to the name "Skippy"?

No worries, if you have a PO box it's yours for free. Usually cost around $50-$60, it's a proper year 12 history text book but very easy to understand so you can use it for all levels.

Wait! How long has he been teaching there? Our town is currently missing our village idiot, maybe he wandered into your school.

 

 

 

Maybe. Did your village idiot respond to the name "Skippy"?

 

 

 

As a matter of fact, yes. Beware, he isn't supposed to be around any objects sharper than an egg.

no fighting, but you did [bleep] over Russia by sending aid to Afghanistan that led to bin Laden's power

 

 

 

the irony in that is too good

The Great War refers to WW1.

 

The nearest thing to war in the Cold War was the Cuba missle crisis.

 

 

 

Report this to the principal.

I would tend to disagree with IGoddessI's primer there on the origins of the Cold War. Problem with textbooks is that they are vast parts of history summed up by a single person and therefore only provide that person's narrative.

 

 

 

I'd say if you wanted to get technical, the Cold War was really an American invention that began the second we dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We didn't drop them exclusively to blast Japan into submission, it was more of Truman's way of saying "screw you" to Stalin. Contention in Yalta led over the handling of Germany really put tensions between the two powers and Russia responded by developing it's own atomic weapons, blah blah blah. Surprisingly, the common narrative is fairly accurate, and both sides have come dangerously close to actual blows on numerous occasions. However, did the Revolution of 1917 contribute to the conflict? Yes, and no...

 

 

 

Attributing the Cold War specifically to the Revolution of 1917 is a shining example of causality. A basic teleological error (x happens before y, therefore x caused y) is presented by the author. When studying history, you are provided with the effect of a certain cause. The problem is, that you do not know this cause. The cause can drastically change just be altering when you begin your search. One could discuss the Revolution of 1917 as an effect of the formation of the Communist Party if they start their study in 1900, or attribute it to terrible famines if they go back a decade. Here, the author is making that same mistake. If one started their study of the Cold War in 1750 they could just as easily claim that the American Revolution was just as much to blame as the Revolution of 1917 or the bombs, or Yalta, or Hitler, or whatever they seek to claim.

 

 

 

The study of history is far deeper than this, and must be approached from multiple perspectives as part of a greater whole. You can not just simply divvy out causes to explain your effects without realizing that there would be a good deal of causes to lead to your effect.

 

 

 

Now, to the original poster. Your teacher sounds from what you describe as teaching some fairly wacky stuff. However, I've only heard your side of the story. Not even really your side of the story, per say, but an interpretation of what you witnessed that could be colored by your past experiences, personality, or what you had for breakfast this morning. Which is a challenge that historians must overcome to begin with. Now, if you really feel that he is teaching bad crap, ask to speak with the history department chair at your school or something, and discuss your concerns.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: IGoddessI, who wrote that primer? That angle sounds familiar and one of the professors I know (who studies Russian history extensively) might know the guy who wrote that. Just out of curiosity.

 

 

 

Also, if anyone wants some good books for history, feel free to ask. I will make your Amazon wishlist fear me.

There are a lot of teachers and substitute teachers that do not belong in History classrooms. My Sophomore year of High School I had a substitute teacher attempt to teach us that the Holocaust was a hoax and it was all fabricated. Needless say he was never allowed to teach at our school district again.

My writings aren't actually from any specific text book, it's an accumulation of many university level history text books combined with personal knowledge. My fiance' actually has a degree in teaching (like you) not many people know he was going to be a history teacher before he went to the army. The quote itself is from the text book I quoted, by "Vicki Greer & Robert Darlington" - Used by pretty much most of the Australian Tertiary education, hence it was the best title choice to quote for Drizzle.

 

 

 

Technically, you are just looking at it from a different point of view. However, the technical definition of the cold war is the two different ideologies and paradigms trying to gain the upper hand, it then turned physical or "hot" in Korea, Malaysia and Vietnam to name a few.

I would agree with that assessment, but you can not truly pin it down to one specific cause. I presented that argument to show when the Cold War actually came into being. The origins of it can be traced to a multitude of factors tracing back hundreds of years, to be honest. I was just taken aback at the specific "pinning" of the Cold War on the Revolution. It was a fragrant logical error, at least in my mind. Placing much too signifigance on an event that really was only a small factor.

 

 

 

Working on MA in history, too :). Remember the adage. Get two historians in a room and what do you get? An argument.

Opinions? Advice? Was there a Great War besides WWI and my Google skills just suck?

 

 

 

:?

 

 

 

WWII

haha that's a good one and remember the more true adage that history is written by the victor (look at WWII for instance.) But yes the Cold war is really quite insignificant and I think comparing ideas on it detracts from the original post. The guy's history teacher sounds wacky, at least that's something we can both agree on.