History is compulsory up to the age of 14; by the time I made it that far I had studied Nazi Germany and the Second World War in primary school, part of year eight and most of year nine. I chose history as a GCSE and spent a further two years on the subject. I got an A and chose history as an AS-level, with the hope of continuing at university. But I was in for another year of "The Rise of Nazi Germany".

At college, I attended about six lessons and dropped the subject quicker than the proverbial hot potato. And what a shame. Now, in my twenties, I am scanning the internet to round out my historical knowledge – and this is the danger. "Wiki-learning" is so reliant on the whims of the contributors that children and young adults are receiving only part or skewed information on the subjects that interest them. It's surely better to encourage learning in the classroom than send them to dubious web pages.

Hannah Gradwell

Leeds

Niall Ferguson doubts schoolchildren enjoy or care for history He couldn't be further from the truth. Almost 70% enjoy their history and it is, according to Ofsted, the best taught subject. Rather than berate the teachers, the curriculum or the examination syllabuses, he might look at why only 30% of those who enjoy the subject continue to study it at GCSE. He might spend time understanding the pressures the subject faces at Key Stage 3 in schools where senior managers undervalue history and give it little curriculum time.

At the Historical Association, an organisation that represents more than 6,000 teachers, we would like a debate on the importance of history in educationm not "whose history is best".

Rebecca Sullivan

The Historical Association

London SE11

Dresden was no crime

Peter Beaumont writes of "those on the far right who seek to establish a moral equality between the crimes of Nazi Germany and 'allied crimes'" ("In Dresden or in Darfur, the numbers are still vitally important" (Seven Days). In fact, the paper that seized on David Irving's Destruction of Dresden with most delight was none other than the Observer, which published extracts over several pages. Other liberals, such as Richard Crossman in the New Statesman, explicitly equated the raids to Nazi war crimes. What these liberal commentators wanted was British war crimes against Germany – they had no interest in genuine British crimes such as the "man-made famine" that killed about six million people in British-ruled Bengal in 1942-3.

Beaumont himself seems to have a problem acknowledging German responsibility, when he allows the possibility that the Dresden raid was a "crime". Surely it's obvious that whatever the German people might have suffered under allied bombing, they had no one to blame but their own leaders and themselves for following them.

John Wilson

London NW3

Inequality under Labour

John Dean

Westerham, Kent

Play up, play the game

Jacob Knowles

Whitstable, Kent

Wonderful Watsons

Readers of the Strand magazine and the Baker Street cognoscenti will, I am sure, join me in congratulating Vanessa Thorpe on her splendid article "It's elementary: send Holmes and Watson into the 21st century" (News). Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock Holmes) and Martin Freeman (Dr Watson) also deserve our unstinting applause for their elevation to two of the great roles. Watson is just as important as his illustrious friend. There have been many formidable Watsons, including David Burke, quick-witted and blessed with a sense of humour; Edward Hardwicke, brave and loyal; the sound and steady Nigel Stock. He is not be confused with Nigel Bruce, whose bumbling was "unfortunate" – how could Holmes possibly have tolerated this caricature? The very question is absurd.

We offer our felicitations to Messrs Cumberbatch and Freeman. May all their endeavours come to a successful conclusion.

Clive Porter

Maidstone