"Military History Should Be Required Curriculum" Topic

You were asked – TMP link

In the news, it was reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin has submitted legislation that would add "war history" to Russia's required education. Should all students be required to learn some military history before graduation?

57% said "yes, all students should learn about military history"

27% said "no, all students should not learn about military history"

History in general, absolutely. Military History? Maybe as an AP elective, it not mandatory.

My Geography and Modern Studies High School teacher was an ex Major in Intelligence so the war was mentioned and discussed at every opportunity.

Loved it.

Somehow missed that poll. My bad.
I suspect Putin's "war history" will be patriotic nonsense about the Great Patriotic War and, just maybe, 1812. No student should be subjected to that, or the national equivalent thereof.

Not necessarily nonsense at all. Treading on heavily studied and talked about subject. This is not stalin's soviet union anymore, too many forget it.
I did learm a lot on ww2 there, some that was better than our germano centered version.

Since I taught a HS semester survey of US military history from 1976 until my retirement in 2006 I think I can add a few items.
First I created the course since neither the text nor 90% of the people in my dept. had a clue about military history except for Gettysburg and D- Day.
Second there was a great deal of interest in the student body for such a course. Mostly boys to be sure but a fair number of girls were interested too.
Third, it was only a semester so we barely scratched any surfaces. I usually taught two classes per semester or four for a year. It was popular class.
Four, it gave me a great chance to have students read and judge primary sources. This was especially useful when two opposing sides gave conflicting accounts of the battle.
Five, it also gave me a chance to explore the influence of technology; the struggles and challenges of race and gender in the military and the role of domestic politics and economics in military events.
Six, I had no text except handouts I wrote; but OI did require them to read two outside books, one each quarter. They also had to give an oral report with maps and a full explanation of events leading up to a battle; what went wrong and what went right. This was done once each quarter.
I think it works. I think it supports many of the goals of a good social studies program. H

"The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence under no circumstances can it be neglected." — Sun Tzu

In fact, maybe if we did effectively study the history of war, we might be better able to avoid it.

But I doubt that's at all what Putin has in mind.

Required? No.

Not the way they'd teach it now. The AWI block would be 1 hour 45 minutes on how non-inclusive the Continental Army officer corps was, and fifteen minutes of speculation on the sex life of Baron von Steuben. Deborah Sampson would be a separate block.

Until you fix the schools, discussing curriculum is meaningless even by TMP Poll standards

In the end, students decide what is taught because they decide what they learn.

Until enough money is put into public schools (per student), you'll keep the same level of intellectual investment as exists. The difference between school districts' (located side by side) funding is a sad subject that does not get enough attention. The state governments (in US) continuing tampering with the funding amounts is damaging an already dire situation.

I don't think Putins idea of War History is anything like Military History. As mentioned above, it will be 1812, WW2 and maybe a special segment about those perfidious Poles.

Military history sure why not? Personally I think history has to be studied in a non partisan (not always easy granted) way to try understand how or why things happened in the past. To often it seems history these days is used to further some current political agenda rather than teach.

If Mr Putin's wants war history taught it won't be becuase he thinks Russian school children need an unbiased and political free lesson it military history. We might as well call it what it will be… propaganda by another name.

When I taught in UK preparatory schools I was allowed a pretty free hand in devising my history curriculum. The 13+ Common Entrance exam for entry to independent senior schools always contained some questions about wars and battles and when the history exam was restructured to sets of thematic questions one section was titled War and Rebellion, which suited me fine!

But military history does not enjoy much support from academics. A friend of mine (who shares my interest in military history) dared to point out to a lecturer in his college of education who had claimed that Parliament enjoyed an advantage in the ECW because it controlled the Tower with its stocks of "muskets and bayonets" that the bayonet was not invented or used in the ECW. He was publicly humiliated by being told "I'm concerned with history, not things!" when he had almost certainly a far better knowledge of military history than the 'expert' lecturer…

I would certainly endorse the idea of an optional military history course/module (or whatever) for school pupils.

I am sure in the current Putinist Russia, they have room in the curriculum for such luxuries. Closer to home there is little such room given the time needed for critical race theory, women's studies, self-awareness edication, how to sex instruction, etc. They may even be running out of time for the 3-R's