Dalibor Svoboda

Virtual school/History department situated at: http://vs.eun.org/eun.org2/eun/en/vs-histo....cfm?id_area=21 would like to present two new projects. One of them “Aviation” is a co-project developed together with newly created Design department. This project is situated at: http://vs.eun.org/eun.org2/eun/en/vs-histo...ang=en&ov=33080 The second project “Olympic Games” is a cross-curriculum project made together by almost every department of Virtual School. “Olympic games” is situated at: http://vs.eun.org/eun.org2/eun/en/vs-histo...ang=en&ov=33160 Both projects shall be larger and better if people with interest in aviation and sports participate with their own contributions.

Virtual school/History department situated at: http://vs.eun.org/eun.org2/eun/en/vs-histo....cfm?id_area=21 would like to present two new projects. One of them “Aviation” is a co-project developed together with newly created Design department. This project is situated at: http://vs.eun.org/eun.org2/eun/en/vs-histo...ang=en&ov=33080 The second project “Olympic Games” is a cross-curriculum project made together by almost every department of Virtual School. “Olympic games” is situated at: http://vs.eun.org/eun.org2/eun/en/vs-histo...ang=en&ov=33160 Both projects shall be larger and better if many people with interest in aviation and sports participate with their own contributions.

The Islamic terrorist murdered and tried to intimidate western societies before the “invasion of Iraq”. Just remember Bali bombing where over 200 young peoples were slaughter when enjoying themselves. And before Afghan War and “invasion of Iraq” Islamist bombed embassies in Tanzania and Kenya causing a death of many innocents. The war between Islamist and “us“ has been on for a quite a time now. Some people really do have short memories. Shall you blame all the future terror from now on on “invasion of Iraq”?

Your contribution on Blair doctrine raises a lot of questions. The world of politics is a vast and unpredictable space of doctrines, agreements, ideas and ideologies which altogether are guiding politicians of today and also politicians of tomorrow in their decisions when dealing with threats, imminent war situations and also with different international agreements, alliances and co-operations. I myself tried to discuss these things when comparing two opposite kind of politicians as could be view at: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=372. The politicians as I called them with a “realistic” approach to the world affairs and the politicians with a “humanitarian” approach. The second ones, in my view, very often deliver to the mankind a lot of sufferings despite their noble goals. I do believe that Tony Blair is a “realistic” politician. I do not believe that he is guided by feelings and reasons which could be called as; “a right thing must be done, a right decision must be taken”. Are you absolutely sure that it is you who is right and that Tony Blair is without any pardon wrong? If it is so what is the ground for this view? The newspapers article you read? The critical television programs you watch? The debates with your friends (which probably do have the same opinion as you have) you have? Or do you have any other information unknown to us which you base your opinion at? Or are you reacting only like righteous citizen fighting for the truth? What is the truth?

I’m not sure that I did understand what you are trying to say. Well you certainly did not “introduce me to one of my fellow countrymen”. Please read my contribution again to be sure of that. In my short contribution I was just amazed that so many in other countries talk about his book (you too for example!) when he is virtually unknown in his own country. Even newspaper article I wrote about wondered about the same fact. I wish you a good seminar in Sierra Leone.

Virtual school existence is based on the activities members do develop inside it. These activities are measured by European Commission as we had been informed at our previous meetings of Virtual school. The more activities were developed inside Virtual school the more support of any kind was given to Virtual school from the European and national authorities. The communities were given to every department of Virtual school to enhance activities in form of debate, internal exchange of ideas, as a platform for planning etc. The Community of History department did not do very well. Other Communities (as I was informed) did work better ……. It’s not a question of promoting Virtual school at “own website and at own letters” because when people from outside visit this promoted place they very fast discover that “almost nothing” is going on there. Why is “almost nothing “going on there? Because most of the creative people who should be there did move to Educational Forum!

I do have his book in front of me. I should have read it a long time ago but surprise …. surprise this book was very little commented in Sweden previously thus escaping my attention.. And then suddenly the biggest Swedish morning newspaper wrote about him and his book in a rather short article wondering why he and his book is so often discussed abroad and at the same time not at all in Sweden. This must be in January maybe even later in at the end of last year. Since then he is practically once again “non-existent” in the Swedish public life and /or the Swedish debate. Interesting things with the book I do have is that it is actually two books. One half is written by Johan Norberg and when you turn the book so that you get the back to front (or vice versa) there is a booklet written by the (in Sweden) well known female anti-globalisation fighter. I interpret this as an unwillingness to let Johan Norberg to talk freely on his own about a subject which is for the moment “not politically correct” in Sweden.

Vilken lärobok i historia skulle jag vilja använda i min undervisning? Jag har testat två gånger att använda mig av olika läroböcker i en och samma klass med ganska bra resultat. Historia är trots all ett ämne som beskriver händelser från det förflutna och när den gör detta blir dessa händelser oftast behandlade på likartade sätt i läroböcker för grundskolan och gymnasiet. Denna användning av olika böcker har gett mig en vink att man inte ska överdramatisera vikten av den eller den lärobok skriven av det eller det förlag. Men jag skulle vilja ha en lärobok där de använda ord och skrivna meningar tog mera hänsyn till tonåringar. Texten måste kännas rolig att läsa! Och använder man sig av facktermer borde dessa förklaras i en spalt på samma sida där de förekommer. Förra veckan i en årskursettklass i historia la jag märke till att ett par elever använde sig hellre av elevskrivna uppsatser som var lättläsliga än av lärobokens text som de hade svårt att ta del av. Detta när de arbetade med avsnittet om Imperialismen. Jag tycker också att läroboken ska hålla en enhetlig linje rakt igenom. Jag skulle gärna vilja att den behandlade bara den politiska historien. Statsbildningar, regenter, krig, fördrag, upptäckter …… Allt annat som vi sorterar under rubriker som socialhistoria ( hur folk hade det under de olika tiderna i olika länder), kulturhistoria, ekonomihistoria, militärhistoria, teknikhistoria etc. Skulle jag samla i en separat lärobok. Även denna skulle vara kronologiskt skriven. Varje epok skulle helt enkelt beskrivas med utgångspunkt från hur folket hade det. Och denna ”del två” av läroboken kunde med fördel finnas på nätet (eller CD:rom) vilket skulle hjälpa till att visualisera och ljudlägga de saker som bättre förklaras med en bild eller filmsnutt än med en text. Skulle denna del ligga på nätet, vilket vore att föredra skulle den kunna byggas ut med hjälp av bidrag från aktiva och intresserade lärare. Skolorna skulle kunna prenumerera på den under en termin eller under ett läsår för att på detta sätt göra satsningen möjlig. Jag tror att en sådan lärobok skulle vara ett mycket bra hjälpmedel för den tid vi lever i.

I do have (as I already mentioned) a Spanish speaking student who is very keen to participate in Spanish debate at Spring for Europe. Don’t forget it. Thanks.

Educational forum supports exchange of debates between European teachers. The same goal has the Communities created at all the departments of Virtual School. The same debates as are going today at Educational Forum should have been done there. It was vital for the long term survival of Virtual school. Some communities succeeded better than others. Educational Forum does not support Virtual school and it’s activities at all. Members of History department tried to start different debates at two debate forums (the first created only for History department at the very beginning, the second at the Community) but without any success. I do feel that some of us at History department did tried harder others gave up more easily. John Simkin´s explanation of our failure is correct. The truth today is that we deserted our Community at History department. Nevertheless it’s history now. (By the way does History Forum still work or everybody moved from there to Educational forum?)

Vitejte Pedagogicke Forum je forum urcene pro debaty kolem politiky, kultury, pedagogiky, skolstvi a mnoho jinych tematu. Proste zalezi na zajmu a tez na zvedavosti. Pedagogicke Forum je forum vytvorene v Anglii anglickymi pedagogiky. Aby bylo co nejpristupnejsi jsou zde tez mensi fora kde debaty jsou vedene v ruznych evropskych jazycich. Forum pro cestinu bylo vytvoreno zacatkem brezna. Proc? Vzdyt jiz existuji ceska pedagogicka fora v Cechach, namitnete. Myslim si, ze musi byt vice ucitelu mluvicich cesky nez ja, kteri vyucuji v ruznych evropskych skolach. Anebo vlastne ve skolach roztrousenych po celem svete. Myslim si, ze tohle debatni forum by mohlo byt mistem kde bychom se vsichni mohli potkavat. My, kteri zijeme a ucime ”v cizine” a vy kteri zijete a ucite doma. Kdo jsem ja? Jmenuji se Dalibor Svoboda a pracuji jako gymnazialni ucitel na predmesti Stockholmu. Do Svedska jsem emigroval (ach jake tvrde slovo, ”emigroval”!) na podzim v roku 1968. Az doposud jsem se na Pedagogickem foru zucastnil ruznych politickych a pedagogickych debat vedenych v anglictine a ve svedstine. Kdyz pisi tohle pozvani k debatam vidim, ze muj pocitac neni zadaptovan na cestinu. Slova jsou tedy bez hacku a carek. Doufam, ze Vas to nerozlobi. Pokusim se to casem napravit. Ucastnici debat se musi registrovat. Registrace je velice jednoducha: Zmacknete „Register“. 1. Do objevicich se peti tabulek napisete nejdrive svoje jmeno anebo prejeteli si byt anonymni svuj pseudonym. 2. Do druhe tabulky napiste Vami zvolene heslo, ktere Vam umozni kdykoliv znovu navstivit nase forum. 3. Potvrdte heslo. 4. Sdelte Vasi e-mailovo adresu do ctvrte tabulky. 5. Nakonec, podvrte Vasi e-mailovou adresu. Jeste jednou, vitam Vas. Dalibor Svoboda

Andy Whaw, whaw you certainly have the ability to see what you want to see in my words, Andy. You certainly do have ability to disregard from nuances. I do also think that you somewhat miss what is important in my answers to your responses you wrote to my articles. Nevertheless I won’t quote you because the continuation of our debate exchanges would most probably be the same. We both will maybe be back at this thread in the future, right now it seems to me that the futility of debating (or not debating it does feel like separate monologues going on) mostly with one debater prevails ……..

You call for politicians with values and principles. Aren’t all politicians equipped with these two virtues? Would you sincerely and without any doubt say that Tony Blair for example does not have any values and principles?? Or that George W. Bush does not have any values and principles??

When looking back at the second period of 20th century one could simply catch the essence by saying “The Cold War”. Both participants had at their disposal weapons which could destroy humanity in few seconds when used. Nevertheless this MAD doctrine used and accepted by both sides at the same time gave us (at least in most of Europe and America) the improbability of a devastating war. Which system was more threatening at the excess of its capability and which was threatening just in acceptable way? Was the Soviets introduction of SS-20 middle distance missile breaking suddenly the balance of power between Soviet and USA more or less threatening than Reagan’s “Strategic Defence Initiative” in respect to bring us closely to the brink of war? Or was it exactly in opposite way? It´s hard to tell. But I was not discussing that. I was simply trying to talk about “good guys” who often (sometimes?) make things worst and the not so “good guys” rather often hated by easily led opinions who after all can show a greater success when dealing with the world affairs. I called these two types of politicians realistic and humanistic minded politicians …. And provocatively asked which should be preferred.

Did I say that anywhere in my description of Dubceks political deeds? You certainly do have a peculiar ability to interpret what people are not saying at all. Many historians familiar with the situation in Czechoslovakia in 1968 suggested that Dubcek should have push for the same kind of policy as Janos Kadar involved himself into in Hungary after 1956. That meant by that time to slowly, step by step move from the suffocating hug of Soviet Union and moving towards more democracy and freedom. It was also pointed by many that Dubcek as a well educated “aparatchnik” should have known better….. I do think that this approach: to feel what is realistic in the long run is more rewarding to humanity that just simply talking about humanistic ideals. It’s probably what makes politicians great when an evaluation of their deeds by the mirror of history is done. I did write these two articles because there is ongoing debate about the “crises in the Middle East” and “Bush and Kerry election”. I did just feel that I would like to look at some of the problems discussed in these two debates in more principled way. Without being obstructed by day to day events which sometimes draw ones focus away.

There are a lot of nice biographies written about John Kennedy. And there does exist more skeptical documents about his short presidency term. As a matter of fact one such was shown on Discovery Channel recently. Trying to give the watchers yet another, for Kennedy unfavourable background to Cuba Crise. When discussions about Kennedy’s careless involvement in Vietnam conflict came forward a couple of years ago the arguments and debate about this fact was confronted by some historians, as you rightly point out. Both of us know that these rather new interpretations are very hard to be proved as true or false. There are no documents left about Kennedy’s mind for Vietnam just hearsays and memoirs written by people who could for different reasons tried “a face saving” operations of themselves and Kennedy. Yesterday when reading Time Magazine did I find an essay named “Medals Don’t Make a President” written by Charles Krauthammer. TIME, February 23, 2004, page25) I ´m borrowing few of the last sentences from his article. “Kerry tells his campaign audiences how, as returning Vietnam vet, he stood up to the waste and carnage and injustice of what he calls “Nixon war”. All true, except for one inconvenient fact. The man who got America into Vietnam - committing what is arguably the most egregious presidential misjudgment of the 20th century - was not Nixon. It was Kerry’s political hero, John F. Kennedy: Ivy League, U.S. Navy, decorated officer whose wartime valor propelled him to Massachusetts Senator and then Democratic Candidate for President of United States. Sounds familiar? So much for biography.” My argument about Vietnam War did omission the role played by another democrat namely Lyndon Johnson. I should probably stress that he escalated the war when Nixon (after a terrible long period of savage fighting as you pointed out) ended it. What I was trying to say? You stated in the previous contributions two things when discussing Kerry versus Bush: - Their war experience or inexperience which guides them when dealing with a present war going on in Iraq. You choose Kerry as better qualified because of his Vietnam War experience. - Their “watching the John Wayne type movies” which make Bush according to you much more prone to go to war. I was just checking if the ones own war experience really did have these effects when looking at this factor historically ….. trying to compare democrat Kennedy and republican Nixon (omitting democrat Johnson …. sorry for that). When checking previous presidents movie experiences and matching that with the lust to march the nation into a war I did not find any substantial correlation yet.

What kind of threat do you talk about? Are you pointing at this sentence maybe? "He confronted Soviet Union when this land started to place deadly middle distance SS-20 missiles in Western parts of Russia and satellite countries of Central Europe aimed against the cities of Western Europe. " Probably not ....... Therefore I did ask for more opinions. I thought that maybe some other debaters would understand my point of view in a better way that you. I was simply talking about the dilemma between humanistic and realistic approaches towards the world affaires. Trying to discuss the obvious fact that politicians waiving with a document and bragging about “Peace in our time” like Chamberlain did in 1938 are far worst in the world of politics than Churchill who knew that the Empires of Evil have to be fight against. Even if it costs. Of course I did my comparison with the help of another pair of politician’s Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan mainly because I didn’t want to hurt British feelings.

Alexander Dubcek rose to the power during the first month of the year 1968. He became the first Secretary of Communist party of Czechoslovakia in January succeeding the conservative communist Antonin Novotny. In March Novotny lost the presidency of Czechoslovakia and retired from the public life. Alexander Dubcek was a new kind of communist. He seemed to be profoundly humanistic in his way to deal with people and political business of the country. And people of Czechoslovakia profoundly felt that Dubcek was a new politician the country didn’t have for a long time. To mark his new approach he never let himself to be elected for president thus holding two highest political posts as was a common policy in other communist countries. Under his power the people slowly started to be glad to see the back of a twenty years long rule of harsh communist regime. The censorship which plagued newspapers television radio books films was gradually taken away thus creating the atmosphere of normality. The debates about a just and equal society a “communism with a human face” was never ending. Quite often newspapers reprinting debates and comments from the day before were hard to buy if people didn’t wake up early before they were sold out. Everybody wanted to know the latest news. The news were suddenly essential for a life of the people. The other political parties up till then totally dominated by communist started to express themselves thus giving the people of the country choices to choose between. Embryos of new parties emerged; notably “The club for engaged non communist” (KAN) and a confederation which mostly consisted of previous political prisoners living up till then a marginalized life. With approaching summer people find it suddenly easier to go for holiday to other countries. A luxury seldom heard of during the last twenty years. Of course it was mostly other communist countries Czechs went to for a trip, the “West” was still closed but people kept in country which looked like a huge prison was immensely gracious even for a little improvement of their life. These were the seven long (or short?) months of hope. The election was approaching and people sifted between candidates though only few could possibly think about not voting smiling Dubcek for the office again. The only clouds on the clear sky were a steadily rising background thunder of critics from communist parties from the communist neighbour countries. On the night between 20th to 21st of August Czechoslovakia was invaded by the armies from East Germany, Poland, Hungary Bulgaria under the leadership of Soviet army. Alexander Dubcek was arrested at that night. No information about his fate reached the people for four days. Then a trickle of unconfirmed news broke out: he was first taken to somewhere in Ukraine then to Moscow, he was forced to denunciate his policy, he will be back in the country soon. Nevertheless this was the end of “Prague Spring”. Alexander Dubcek did not loose his life in contrary to such politicians as Pal Maleter and Imre Nagy, executed by Soviets after Hungary uprising 1956. His following life was orchestrated by Czech communist party with Kafkas like scenario. Dubcek was send as Czech ambassador to Turkey than soon called back home again to be stripped of membership in communist party and sent to work as a minor clerk in state owned forest company. Thus he became a non person for most of his remaining life. Did Dubceks humanistic approach towards the art of politics serve his country well? My friend from the high school we together studied at 1964-1968 wrote to me a bitter letter a couple of years after Prague spring was crushed. He stayed behind I left Czechoslovakia for Sweden. The essence of his writing was “never again should we be lured by careless promises made by careless politicians” thus pointing a fingers at Dubcek and his fellows politicians. Did he want to tell me that acting well and in a humanistic way can lead to the road to hell? Today I can’t think otherwise than Alexander Dubcek was a well meaning but not enough realistic politician. How could he misjudge the tensions his policy created? He played roulette with the whole nation. And he lost. The Czech people lost the freedom for another twenty years. The whole generation was robbed of their lives. I think that it was not so few Czechoslovaks who wished during the occupation period to be lead by a more realistic politician during The Prague Spring. Late in the evening on December 11, 1981 the father of my cousin’s wife knocked on the door to their flat in Warszawa, Poland. In his hand he held tickets for the night express train with destination for Zurich, Switzerland. Father of my cousin’s wife was high officer of Polish army working at the High command. The next day the general Vojciech Jaruzelski proclaimed a martial law over the Poland with the help of military coup thus probably preventing the invasion of Poland by the Soviet Army. My cousin lives with his family in Winterthur, Switzerland since December 12, 1981. Was general Jaruzelski more realistic politician than Alexander Dubcek was? Did he “save” Poland from a complete Soviet occupation? Did his military coup saved Poland from a civil war between forces supporting “Solidarnosc” and forces fighting for continuing domination of communist in politic of Poland? I’m not saying that Jaruzelski was right or that Dubcek was completely wrong. After all the spring time of 1968 was full of hope. And days of sorrow followed Jaruzelski coup d´etat. What I’m trying to say is that we judge sometimes looking mostly at the means and next time looking at the ends. Sometimes we do use short perspective next time long perspective is used for judgments. These make the truth in the art of politics rather hard to catch. What kind of politicians would we like to have? These with humanistic or realistic approach towards world affairs and towards their own people?

Anybody else who does have the same interpretation of my contribution as Andy Walker have? Is this a final and only interpretation? Or could all my words be interpreted in a different way than Andy Walker showed? After all this is a place for debate! And the debate starts very often when we disagree about something ……

Your contribution, in a strangely beautiful way, speaks for itself. Thank you, Andy.

Send this message to the Virtual school coordinator Anne Gilleran (anne.gilleran@eun.org). I know that you feel frustrated. I’m “head” of History department. Most of the members from History department deserted Community for example to create instead this debate Forum. Largely because the Virtual school project do not function very well. Is the idea of cooperation of European teachers dead? Or does there exist new forms of cooperation’s based on a new ways of thinking? You have to find out:……

Jo jag, respektive vi, historialärare på skolan är medvetna om detta. Vi vänder och vrider på beslutet som känns inte lätt att ta. Vi har nog fyra eller fem läroböcker på skolan som vi tittar igenom. Det är mycket möjligt att det blir återigen "Alla tiders historia" vi kommer att välja. Denna lärobok känns minst dålig.

All three documents, application, detailed description and final words are printed in front of me. I will send it to “Programkontoret” immediately right now. Thanks again.

As far as I’m able to recollect was the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte the last one of the head of states who went to the field with his soldiers. Since then there have been a lot of politicians who participated or who didn’t participated during their youths in different wars. I wouldn’t dare to draw the conclusions that their participation made them more sensible or human in respect of marching the nation into wars under their leadership or that the lack of this kind of knowledge made them reckless when sending others into the melee of fighting. There have been many politicians who had very dim own experience of war nevertheless let the nation to fight the war during their mandate with bravery, endurance and imagination. Wasn’t Franklin D. Roosevelt one of them? When comparing war policy of democrat John F. Kennedy, loved by many for bringing the freshness into the politics, with his successor republican Richard Nixon the facts look as follows: Kennedy despite the war experience (commanding a boat like Kerry!) gave the mankind the invasion of Cuba, the Cuba crises when the world balanced on the brink of nuclear war plus on top of that senseless escalation of the Vietnam conflict which subsequently became the Vietnam War. Nixon whose war experience is much less glorified than Kennedy’s ( a Navy lieutenant commander in Pacific) promised to end the war in Vietnam and actually kept his word and ended it. He stood also behind the detente with China. To compare war experience of Bush and Kerry is in the retrospective look of no importance at all. But of course if someone is waging a crusade against a person he does not like all kinds of argumentation seem to be permitted. I can easily imagine the situation which looks like this: Kerry is challenged by Bush. Bush have war flight merits from Vietnam, Kerry doesn’t. Are the debaters impressed by the merits? Not for a minute! Instead the debate is about: How many innocent women and children Bush’s bombs killed on the ground? What kind of targets in Hanoi and Haiphong did he bomb? Weren’t it after all hospitals, schools and day centers for kids? How much Agent Orange did he spill over the forest of Vietnam? Am I unjust? No, sadly enough I do not think so. This shouldn’t be a debate about the Vietnam War or about war experiences. I know that. This should be a debate about an ALTERNATIVE in 2004 election. I promises, I will try in my next contribution to talk about the alternative.

The “Aviation” has been placed by Virtual school webmaster Young Chui Hsia at History department at my request. It can be view at: http://vs.eun.org/eun.org2/eun/en/vs-histo...ang=en&ov=33080 Juan Carlos sent me his contribution before my winter holiday and asked me to add it to others. I will do this asap. (Why “The Olympic games project” is not visible at History department is a puzzle for me. I will look into this matter right now.)