I'm completely uncertain whether my history teacher knows much about history at all. Although he seems like a nice guy, he says some things that I just can't believe I heard.

Today we were talking about the Franco-Prussian war and the improving weapons without change in tactics. The class is more interested in this than a normal class, and some students ask him questions. One question was about how long the Prussians had a technological advantage over other powers.

His response was that their advantage was very important. In World War I, the Germans were rolling through Europe and only lost because they invaded Russia and, when the Russian winter set in, they lost at the battle of Stalingrad. :confused:

What the...?

Don't they have to take some sort of public service test?

Unless my memory fails me, I see five errors/contradictions. :confused:

Well, as far as I know, the Prussians did have a powerful army that defeated Frace in the Franco-Prussian War (afterwhich, the French vowed never to be humiliated in war again). New weapons were being introduced where the tactics failed to catch up.

Although Germany still had a tough army in WWI, I believe that France was relatively equal. Germany did not roll through Europe and German efforts in Russia resulted in a Russian surrender. Stalingrad was obviously not called Stalingrad, because the ruler was Czar Alexander II, not Joseph Stalin.

I don't really want to criticize the guy too much because he does seem to care a lot about history, but he makes mistakes that are obvious to me (some of them contradict what is written in the text book). I can get by, but I wonder about the other students who assume these mistakes are true.

take your legions, rebell, kill him, and insert yourself as the new classroom imperator, and proceed to teach the class according to proper knowldge.

powers.

His response was that their advantage was very important. In World War I, the Germans were rolling through Europe and only lost because they invaded Russia and, when the Russian winter set in, they lost at the battle of Stalingrad. :confused:

i would think a " slip of the tonque ", he was talking WWI and thinking WW II :crazyeye:

baaah, that classroom be mine, pompey!

take your legions, rebell, kill him, and insert yourself as the new classroom imperator, and proceed to teach the class according to proper knowldge.
It's not every day I agree so wholeheartedly with Xen. :goodjob: :lol:

(Maybe that's got something to do with the fact that he spelled the whole sentence correctly, as far as I can see. :eek: :mischief: )

I'm completely uncertain whether my history teacher knows much about history at all. Although he seems like a nice guy, he says some things that I just can't believe I heard.

Today we were talking about the Franco-Prussian war and the improving weapons without change in tactics. The class is more interested in this than a normal class, and some students ask him questions. One question was about how long the Prussians had a technological advantage over other powers.

His response was that their advantage was very important. In World War I, the Germans were rolling through Europe and only lost because they invaded Russia and, when the Russian winter set in, they lost at the battle of Stalingrad. :confused:

Does you class listen to the teacher? (sure I HAD to choose a hard school to teach in).

If so I want to be your teacher!

Hell, I may be a science teacher, but I'd far prefer to teach history, especially if pupils are willing to listen. Hell, when I did a history cover lesson the pupils were annoyed I kept 5 in for not working, saying "Why do you care? This is not your lesson."

Sounds like your history teacher may have a lack of subject knowledge in this department OR was wanting to press on and not spend much time on responding to the question. It may not be relevant to those all important learning objectives.

knowldge
*beep*
Nope.

*beep*
Nope.

thank the almighty, something like that could signal the of the world as we know it! :eek:

rebell
Dont want to be pedantic, but as you see, there's still no need to fear. The end of the world is far away.

Dont want to be pedantic, but as you see, there's still no need to fear. The end of the world is far away.

i get to live! [dance] :beer: :wavey: :band:

If Cambodian teachers were like that, I would understand Pol Pot very well...

:twitch: He needs help. If your a history teacher and you mess that crap up its sad.

I'm afraid High School teachers in general are of pretty low quality; if you're gonna pay peanuts, then expect monkeys. However, history graduates who go into history teaching generally are educated in modern history predominantly or exclusively: so I doubt he actually said all that the way you write.

I think some history graduates know pretty little of history.

I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that he said that or that nobody else caught him on it.

Well, that was an American class

Good point, most people in my school would think that Prussia is a region in Russia or something.

Just seems like your teacher was thinking about ww2 and ww1 just slipped in, but if that's not the case then your teacher sure is incompetent.

I think the guy just jumped ahead a bit and you didn't quite keep up - I doubt he compressed it all into one sentence as you did.
If he was talking about German tech advantages and adapting tactics and followed the history line, the whole thing starts making sense again.

I suppose he did that. It was basically how I said it, though.

I don't think he's a stupid guy, just that he's said some things that were odd.

Ya he needs some sleep. Hes probably underpaid and teaching something that his heart is not in.

Actually, we should transfer this to Off Topic, since it is almost too dumb a topic for world History. The issue here is a retarded teacher.

I've a situation similar, except with my health teacher. He'll say something and then contradict himself a few minutes later. Or say something that doesn't make sense at all. The saddest thing, however, is the kids in my class will believe anything they're told. :shakehead
Good point, most people in my school would think that Prussia is a region in Russia or something.You should see my school! In my French class the other day we were doing nationalities. On a quiz, we had a city name and had to write the corresponding nationality in french. Well, one of them was Berlin. Guess what somekid asks (he was in 11th grade, btw)- yup, "where's Berlin?"
Pathetic :cringe:

If I'm not mistaken, isn't Berlin a type of donut? :confused:

If I'm not mistaken, isn't Berlin a type of donut? :confused:Well, perhaps you arren't not not un-mistaken...

The teacher may have not know what they were doing (:shakehead) or it could have just been a slip of the tounge that simple went unoticed by the rest of the class. There is also the slightest chance that the Teacher did this intentionaly, to see if anyone was paying attention (Doubtfull though, as he would have corrected himself after seeing that no one noticed)

If I'm not mistaken, isn't Berlin a type of donut? :confused:

Nein.

Einen Berliner, is a type of donut.

As Eddie Izzard said, how'd it have been if when he was in Hamburgh he said:

"I am a Hamburgher"

In Frankfurt:

"I am a Frankfurter."

Nope: "I am a type of donut!" and the crowd went wild! :yeah:

Franco-Prussian War (afterwhich, the French vowed never to be humiliated in war again).

LOL they were so wrong.

because the ruler was Czar Alexander II, not Joseph Stalin.

when you dis someone for not knowing history, get it right. Tsar Nicholas II is what you meant.

when you dis someone for not knowing history, get it right. Tsar Nicholas II is what you meant.

Woops, my bad.

Tsar Alexander II was ruling during the Franco-Prussian War. Also, I have no idea why I spell Tsar the way I do, I guess its just a bad habbit.

Woops, my bad.

Tsar Alexander II was ruling during the Franco-Prussian War. Also, I have no idea why I spell Tsar the way I do, I guess its just a bad habbit.

It's not wrong, Czar is the correct spelling in Eastern European languages; in German it's Zar, Tsar is I believe the normal English usage - but that doesn't mean Czar is wrong.

Tsar or Czar are both acceptable in English.

Bottom line with teachers is this: they are human (honestly!) and do make dumb, everyday mistakes. The kind of dumb everyday mistakes we all make. The way to measure the caliber of your teacher is to see if next day they have realized their error and clear it up. I had a history teacher who got Lenin and Stalin confused, my wife had a history teacher who claimed the Holy Roman and Byzantine empires were the same thing. We survived to tell the tale. Sometimes people are just dumb. Kudos to you for smelling a rat! You should always question the answers as well as answer the questions.

One possible explanantion is that, at least in the US, History teachers tend also to be PE teachers. So football coaches get hired and wind up having to teach History and Social Science, but their heart (and mind) isn't really into it.

I disagree with Calgacus' comment upstream about monkeys and peanuts. Teachers are highly educated and smart people who are (mostly) motivated by the thought of encouraging people to learn. This makes teaching the most noble of all professions. It's not fair to call these guys 'monkeys'.

One possible explanantion is that, at least in the US, History teachers tend also to be PE teachers. So football coaches get hired and wind up having to teach History and Social Science, but their heart (and mind) isn't really into it.

He is an assistant Football Coach. I did not realize this was a common thing. :eek: