skip to main content

You Are Here: Home / Learning / History & the Arts / Blog / Category: World War II
 
History and the Arts

History & the Arts Blog on World War II

Subscribe to "World War II" category posts

Shostakovich: Why is he famous?

Posted on 2009-10-27 by The Open2 team

 

As World War II swept through Europe, a young Russian composer set out to win the fight with his piano. But is it possible that a piece of music was so powerful it actually ended the Siege of Leningrad?



Find out more

Explore Shostakovich with The Open University

Share this video

Copy the following code to paste into your own blog or website:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r6Txc9l4rUg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r6Txc9l4rUg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Or watch the Shostakovich siege of Leningrad video on YouTube

 

About the author

Open2.net from The Open University

Subscribe to The Open2 team's posts

 

The BBC and The Open University are not responsible for the content of external websites.

 

Permalink: Shostakovich: Why is he famous? - Shostakovich: Why is he famous? 0 Comments
Categories: Art, European history, 20th Century, World War II Tags: classical music, leningrad, music, second world war, shostakovich

Bookmark with:

  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit
  • Stumbleupon
Please wait while loading. You must have JavaScript enabled to view star ratings.
 

History Lessons: Part One

Posted on 21/01/08 by Stuart Mitchell

 

More years ago than it is decent to recall, when I first started teaching undergraduates, I would sometimes ask them why they thought we should study history. Unfairly sprung upon them, perhaps, some would take refuge in the axiom that ‘we can learn lessons from history’. Pressed harder, they might come up with such insights as ‘history teaches us that dictators should never be appeased’ or ‘the lesson of history is that democratic regimes ought not to negotiate with terrorists’. The first, I imagine, was a peculiarly British legacy from the Second World War: in particular the morally awkward status of the Chamberlain government’s appeasement of Adolf Hitler. The second may have been a consequence of the ‘troubles’ in Ulster that were, at the time, frequent headline news.

Both statements were thoroughly understandable, but just as thoroughly wrong. In the case of the former, it was easy enough to point out that if the British state had more effectively ‘appeased’ the dictatorships of Stalin and Mussolini then World War Two would likely have been averted. And if nothing else, the late success of the Northern Ireland peace process seems to have mortally undermined the latter. (Though I’m not suggesting that governments should in consequence be assiduously soothing the fits of all tyrants or laying on tea and biscuits for the most deranged terrorist.) Those two old saws are less repeated these days, thankfully. Still, my suspicion has lingered that, for many people, history’s utility lies in the great social and moral prescriptions it can allegedly offer its students.

I decided to test this hypothesis with a small experiment, which you may like to try yourselves. I googled the phrase ‘the lesson of history’, to see what the world’s favourite search engine would come up with. And I must admit that amongst the almost 65,000 results were several that appeared quite sensible, or at least arguable. Nevertheless, history was also conjured up to defend a whole variety of dubious proclamations. The panoramic seemed in vogue:
"The inevitable lesson of history is that, when you change just one thing, you end up changing everything."

As did the audacious:
"The lesson of history is that there is no economic force on this globe that is stronger than free people and their desire to create a better life."

And even the potentially hazardous got a good look in:
"The lesson of history is that when doctors start telling patients what they should and should not eat, patients would be well advised to ignore them."

However, what struck me was the continuing popularity of the type of prescriptive assertion sprung from the same seed as truisms about resisting dictators or defying terrorists. For instance, what did history have to say about one of the most debated contemporary issues - the conflict in Iraq? It seemed from my results pretty clear that history required America’s troops to stay in:
"The lesson of history is that walking away will cost more, whether in Iraq or elsewhere."

Or get out:
"The lesson of history and the solution [to problems in Iraq] is pretty simple: The US has to withdraw."

And history’s prevarication on contentious topics did not end there. The capricious sprite incessantly served up contradictory advice. It taught us that free trade was the best solution to world poverty, although it was only ever beneficial for rich people; that dictatorships were always ephemeral, but likely to be long-lived without foreign intervention to remove them; and that America’s military strength was a mighty deterrent to and cause of war. In short, history was evoked to support all manner of idiosyncratic, hectoring, or unshaded opinions. (I’m not denying that some of these opinions might contain a little truth, but what they’re not is ‘lessons of history’.) 

What does this tell us about the discipline, though? Does it simply lend weight to the idea (also fashionably repeated in my Google search results) that history provides us with no lessons at all? That - beyond the subject being rich, complex, and interesting in its own right - there is no reason to study it? Has history no social function? As it happens, history does provide ‘lessons’ for those who care to study it, although they are hardly ever of the rigid prescriptive kind that I’ve been talking about above. What some of them are will be the subject of the next part of this blog.

Taking it further:

Related courses from the Open University:

Total war & social change   - explore the relationship between war and the transformation of society that took place during the first half of the twentieth century. You’ll examine questions about possible relationships between total war and social, cultural and geopolitical change, and includes topics such as: European governments; societies and armies in 1914; the nature of warfare and differences in the conduct of those wars; social developments in Western democracies; the holocaust; the division of Europe after World War II; women and war; film and propaganda; and war, literature and the arts.

Exploring history: medieval to modern 1400-1900 - the problems and methodologies of history are well covered in this OU course, which gives students a very broad introduction to the study of history. It highlights three big historical themes - changing beliefs, producers and consumers, and state formation - and looks at how they altered from the medieval period through to the nineteenth century. Amongst the topics covered are slavery and the slave trade, the European Reformations, Imperialism, the French Revolution, and the Wars of the Roses.

 
Stuart Mitchell

About the author

Dr Stuart Mitchell has spent seventeen years teaching history in higher education - the last fifteen of which have been with the Open University, amongst other institutions. Currently, he is working on the new history MA, and tutors on Exploring History: Medieval to Modern (A200) and Total War and Social Change (AA312). He also serves as the university's academic consultant on the BBC television programme, Timewatch. His first book, The Brief and Turbulent Life of Modernising Conservatism, was published in 2006.

Subscribe to Stuart Mitchell's posts

 

The BBC and The Open University are not responsible for the content of external websites.

 

Permalink: History Lessons: Part One - History Lessons: Part One 0 Comments
Categories: Timewatch, History, European history, 20th Century, World War II Tags: google, history, lessons

Bookmark with:

  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit
  • Stumbleupon
Please wait while loading. You must have JavaScript enabled to view star ratings.
 

What if...?

Posted on 21/12/07 by Chris Williams

 

Blogging about

The Things We Forgot To RememberThe Things We Forgot To Remember

Some events resonate and are celebrated down the ages; others, equally significant, are forgotten. Michael Portillo investigates The Things We Forgot to Remember.

The Things We Forgot to Remember (TTWFTR) all began with a throwaway remark on an internet discussion group. The group was, and indeed still is, soc.history.what-if, and I spent many a happy hour reading it in the 1990s, when I should have been working on my PhD. The group's topic is historical counterfactuals: debates about how events in history could have turned out differently. Among all the fine stories that we told, and questions that we prompted and answered, it rapidly became clear to me that any rational and informed discussion about 'if it had happened otherwise' soon ran up against the basic questions of historical causation.

Some events are more important than others. One very easy way to measure this importance is to conduct thought experiments about how things would have turned out had they been different. If Hitler had worn different colour trousers on March 15th 1939, very little would have changed. Had he decided not to occupy the remnants of Czechoslovakia, tearing up the 1938 Munich Agreement and setting the UK on course for war, a great deal would have been different.

The throwaway remark that started it all off was part of our interminable discussions about Operation Sealion, the projected German invasion of Britain in 1940. Our conclusion was straightforward: while the Royal Navy existed, Sealion was impossible. The outcome of the Battle of Britain didn't matter.

So if the war in the air was a strategic sideshow, where were the shots actually called? The only way that the Axis could have come was by sea, and British sea power was secure (for the moment, at least). The only force that could credibly threaten it was the French navy - which right up until the surrender had been working closely with its British counterparts, in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Most of this had fled from the German advance (often in heroic circumstances - half-finished ships had engines fitted in hours, then set sail as the shells fell around them), and significant squadrons were in British ports, in British controlled Alexandria (Egypt) and in their main fleet base, Mers-el-Kebir, near Oran on the Algerian coast.

For Britain to be safe, the French fleet had to be neutralised. Churchill made it clear to his admirals that they had little time to impose a solution on the French, and if they could not, they should attack. The RN acted swiftly: the ships in harbour in Britain were taken over, and ultimatums were delivered in Alex and Algeria. In Alex, Admiral Cunningham ignored Churchill's deadline (he was too brilliant to sack - probably the best admiral of the war), and hammered out a disarmament agreement with his opposite number. At Mers-el-Kebir, the French Admiral, Gensoul, relayed a distorted version of the ultimatum to Paris, and once he got their backing, turned it down. On July 3rd, 1940, the RN opened fire, destroying a French battleship, knocking two more out, and ending the potential threat to Britain's command of the sea.

That's the story. My involvement in it would have ended there had I not ended up working for the Open University. The OU is the best university on the planet for a number of reasons, and one of these is that we spend money on sponsoring the BBC to make good programmes on the TV and radio.

So when in 2004 I got the chance to suggest a programme that the OU could put some money into, I saw it as an opportunity to get rid of the bee in my bonnet about the Battle of Britain vs Mers-el-Kebir. It did more than that: it forced me to follow Churchill's reasoning through his papers (edited by Martin Gilbert). It also introduced me to some compelling stories of the operation. Perhaps the most forceful was the testimony of Alfred Fishlock, a sailor on the cruiser HMS Orion during the negotiations with the French fleet in Alexandria harbour, who had sent in his story to the BBC's People's War website.

'On the 1st July we were ordered to Action Stations intending to use force if necessary to prevent French ships leaving harbour. My action stations was in "B turret LH 6" gun operating the cordite hoist. We aimed our guns at the French Cruiser by opening the breech looking along the barrel with the shell striking aimed ships. so we remained in that turret for a little over two days in really hot weather taking meals in rotation. occasionally the ship ahead would raise and lower its guns and I'm sure all our hearts stopped beating, it was to, say the least traumatic.'

Sometimes, I learn about moments in time that seem to sum up major events, and Fishlock's experience is one of these. The night before he'd been out on the town with his French allies: that morning he was getting ready to kill them. If every episode of TTWFTR can bring a moment like that to life, then it's done its job.

 
Chris Williams

About the author

Chris Williams is a lecturer in the History Department of the Open University. He researches on British policing, and chairs the course team for the OU course Total War and Social Change: Europe 1914-1955.

Subscribe to Chris Williams's posts

 

Bookmark with:

  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit
  • Stumbleupon
Please wait while loading. You must have JavaScript enabled to view star ratings.