A sad fact (I thought) from the Daily Mail.
Even worse, 7% thought Maggie was in charge during the war and 4% Tony Blair!
So is it wrong that something so devastating, impacted just about every family across Europe, as well as happened in living memory for some, is already fading from the majority of the modern generation?
Or is it right and it's time to move on, with enough current crisis without dwelling on the past? Over 25's may know Churchill was the PM during the Second World War, but how many know was in charge during WW1? How about the Boer war, 40 years before?
I'm fascinated by history and will ensure my kids will have a good grounding, whether they find it interesting will remain to be seen But I want them to appreciate how lucky they are having a living great granny who worked in a bomber factory, then joined the WRAF during the war who can talk them first hand, rather than read about it.
Maybe it's the sheer destruction, loss of life, economic cost and the fact it signalled the end of the UK as a true world power, as well as the end of the Empire that makes it such an interesting subject for so many. You can argue modern Britain was directly shaped from the aftermath, from the NHS to changing values and politics.
It's because of this I think it should be such an important subject for kids to absorb and understand at school.
Can't beat a good cliche "You don't know where your going until you know where you've been"
So is it time to move on and consign WWII to history, accepting the modern youth will have little comprehension of the horror that swept Europe. Or should a bigger effort be made to educate the youngsters to this relatively modern, and for some still living memory?
Source: Mail online