That doing well in school means you will be prepared for the workforce...HA



That doing well in school means you will be prepared for the workforce...HA



That I could be ANYTHING I wanted to be. No more upward mobility in the U.S.
![]()





^^^ arguably there is still upward mobility in the US ... but it now appears to require new 'channels' that don't necessarily involve 'hard work' or 'high skill' !!!
The French soldiers did well in W.W. I. The problem was that most of their generals were terrible. They refused to revise their tactics to the realities of modern war.
French artillery was actually rather good. It was German machine guns and tactics that were superior. Your other points are spot on.
The Bonhomme Richard sank shortly after the captain of the Serapis struck his colors.
I just read an interesting article on the volume and types of Lend - Lease we gave the Russians during W.W. II. The numbers and tonnage are staggering BUT are dwarfed by the Russians own production. Nonetheless it was enough to make a difference and help them win SOONER than they otherwise would have.
The Russians did fight a far larger part of the German Wermacht that the U.S. and British did. They also inflicted about four times as many casualties.
The average German soldier fought harder than the average Allied soldier. He fought longer and with a lot less than the average American. He had to. If he didn't he would have been shot. After the war , many German soldiers said how much they envied the Allied superiority in supply and materiel and the consensus among them was that was the prime reason why we won. The German OKW respected and feared Patton. Montgomery , not so much.





From what I've read, both sides tried to keep the conflict secret, so the Germans might not have been able to find out much. The Japanese didn't want anyone to know how badly they were defeated and the Soviets kept everything secret at the time.
Good point. I think you might be right.





The French generals were no worse than the British. The French artillery was certainly inferior to the German, particularly in heavy artillery, and particularly during the early years of the war. This had a great deal to do with the German initial success, defending against Allied attacks for the next years, and the near success of the 1918 offensive--though of course the development of stosstruppen infiltration tactics was the crucial improvement there--and was the genesis of blitzkrieg. Training and tactics were superior to those of the Allies as well, but the advantage superior artillery gave the Germans was immense.
The much vaunted French 75s were fine guns when they were developed in 1897, but were field guns, and had too flat a trajectory--the German 105 mm howitzer was a much better weapon. The Germans had many more howitzers in the beginning of the war. Whereas a French army corps had 120 75s, the German divisions alone had 54 77 mm field guns each, and an additional 18 105 mm howitzers. The German army corps also had 16 150 mm howitzers. Howitzers fired a heavier explosive payload at all calibers. At 2-3,000 yards, 4 105s could do the same damage as 10 75s, at considerable relative ease in transport and manpower. The 75 weighed about 1500 kilograms. The German 150 mm howitzer weighed only 2600 kilograms. The amazingly potent 210 mm howitzers completely outclassed anything the Allies possessed. Not to mention the minenwerfers.
Seven out of ten British and 75 (ETA had it at 70 before) out of 100 French casualties were caused by German artillery. Germans suffered well over half, but not so great a proportion as the Allies. The French and British also had disproportionate casualties overall compared to the German, just as in WW II.
Last edited by Djoser; 09-24-2013 at 03:35 AM.
You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
George Clinton
______________________________________





Yes, the Bonhomme Richard sank. One of my ancestors served on her.
The Russians produced 200,000 trucks, but received 400,000 jeeps and trucks via Lend Lease. This enabled them to really concentrate on tank production (about 100,000). But without those trucks, the Russians would not have been able to supply the tanks or back them with mechanized infantry, and thus adapt the German blitzkrieg tactics with nearly so much efficiency.
The average German infantry fought much more effectively long before they started shooting their own men, or they never would have dominated most of Europe for so long.
They didn't have to watch and pay attention to Zhukov at Khalkhin Gol, they were already masters of the art. They beat the living shit out of the Russians--despite anything Zhukov did--until overextended supply and climatic conditions brought them to a halt in the winter of 41, and he was finally able to counterattack the greatly weakened Wehrmacht. Manstein still handily kicked the shit out of the Russians after Stalingrad at the 3rd battle of Kharkov ('The Backhand Blow'), when he was finally given freedom of action. The Russians had immense superiority in tanks and aircraft in the later years, or Zhukov would not have such stunning success. Though he was a damned good general, the Germans had several in his caliber, and after the winter of '41 they were certainly paying attention. If they had possessed numerical parity--or even close--it would have been a totally different ballgame.
You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
George Clinton
______________________________________





But we are venturing into territory outside the scope of the thread, and close to the realm of military trivia.
You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
George Clinton
______________________________________
All true but the fact remains that French and British infantry tactics were awful compared to the Germans. They suffered casualties in far greater numbers than the Germans.
Also , except for Verdun ( late 1915 to mid 1916 ) and the St. Michael's offensive of March, 1918 the Germans were primarily on the defensive.





If we're beyond a discussion of military trivia, how about we return to my point that Bretton Woods ... and its outgrowths ... receive essentially zero attention in US public school curricula. After all ...
The Bretton Woods system essentially conferred on the US Federal Reserve the ability to 'print' gold. This lasted until US Vietnam war borrowing and 'great society' spending forced an abandonment of the official linkage between US dollars and gold, at which point new agreements essentially conferred on the US Federal Reserve the ability to 'print' oil instead.
The outgrowths of Bretton Woods i.e. the World Bank and IMF conferred on the US Gov't a disproportionate ability to practice 'economic colonialism' via control / 'veto power' over loans to developing countries.
Mel - Bretton Woods was a variant of the "Golden Rule " i.e. "he that has the gold makes the rules ". The fact is that at the end of W.W. II the U.S. was rich and the British and French were broke. Britain had long before exhausted it's gold reserves paying the U.S. for weapons. The French had their gold stolen by the Germans during the occupation. What other currency in wide circulation was worth anything remotely approaching the U.S. Dollar ?
Loans to developing countries are a tricky area. In the 1970's and early 80's especially , the Fed and other agencies of the U.S. government let our major commercial banks make a LOT of high interest loans to the 3rd World. Then when those economies hit the skids and they couldn't pay them back, those same agencies permitted those loans to be carried as assets on the books of those banks. Gee , just like Ben and Hank did with non-performing loans and bad securities just a few years ago.
In any event you are correct - next to nothing about this is taught in high school. In college somewhat but for most people Bretton Woods gets taught in grad school , if at all.
Last edited by Eric Stoner; 10-30-2013 at 09:48 AM.




I've hesitated to jump in since I've forgotten so much of what I "learned" in school. Thus, I cannot pinpoint exactly when the "lie" was told, and who told it. What the latest posters seem to be harping on is that education system is commiting "sins of omission" vs. sins of commission. (Leaving things out, skipping over things vs telling outright lies). Like many "hobbyist historians", I've enjoyed delving deeper into historical events, biographies of historical figures, weaponry/machinery employed by nations, etc. that schools glossed over/ignored.
To touch on 2 points: A) "Columbus Discovered America"- I actually recall a Jr High History teacher pointing out that Columbus really didn't, but that Leif Ericson did a few centuries earlier. But, we got the "big picture" that Columbus voyage served as a springboard for European migration to the Americas, and eventually the birth of the USA.
B) WW2- One could easily spend countless time micro-analyzing several battles, military commanders, and weaponry. But we got the point that USA was initially ill prepared for WW2. Pearl Harbor awakened the sleeping giant so that USA pulled itself up and won a "2 ocean war."
I've assumed that by "school", most posters mean K-12. I'm sure many have a laundry list of subjects they'd like to be covered more. Myself, I see school as building a foundation for learning, much like the foundation of the house. Several "wishlist" things are like gold plated faucets, or mint under the pillow items vs the concrete foundation. Much like drivers ed is supposed to teach students to be a functional driver on our roadways. I'm sure some people would love to be taught how to build up a car from a pile of junk, but does every driver really have to do that ? I'll agree there are some deficiencies in our educational system, but some perspective needs to be maintained in putting forth curriculum changes.
I hope I haven't strayed too far from OP. In the meantime, I think Mel should start a thread, or blog about Bretton Woods, and I'll still occasionally PM Eric on various aspects of WW2 hardware/strategy.
I'm right 96% of the time.I don't sweat
the other 5% .......................




Not in any order.
1. When you get into the "real world" - school was in the real world.
2. If you don't do well now, you won't get into college - yes, you can community college.
3. Graduate from high school makes you better (more so from family) ---- I was 19 years old when I finally graduated, and I should had drop out, get my GED, do something else. I am still getting lame jobs that people that drop out, or can't even read in English do. I regret wasting 2.5 extra earning years for something that was a waste of time, COLLEGE YES, HIGH SCHOOL NO. High school only helps if you get into good schools.
Hmmm. I'm sorry but the stats say that if you want to avoid being poor you should stay out of jail , not get married before age 21 , not get pregnant if you are not married and finish high school. Those that follow those basic guidelines have at least a 50 to 1 chance of not being poor. Those that break one of those rules more than double their chances of being poor and those that do two or more are virtually guaranteed a lifetime of poverty.
I think the consensus is that most things taught that are just not so ( untrue , incomplete , heavily biased etc. ) are taught in K - 12. That doesn't mean that colleges are immune so if anyone was taught something that wasn't true in college or grad school, please feel free to share it. We've gotten a wide variety of examples from the posters ranging from simple misstatements of fact to the spouting of shibboleths and the like. Afaic they qualify as "lies" for the purposes of this thread if they can be shown to be anything from questionable to totally untrue. Obviously it is a subjective test so the posters get a lot of latitude. I have only questioned one or two responses that imho are just simply not true.




OK, Eric, I suppose "in school" could mean stuff learned outside the classroom while still in school, but at an activity withhin the auspices of the school. In my case, US was in the middle of a recession when an eminent, highly regarded professional came over for an informal talk on university property. Of course, the subject of job prospects after graduation arose. Speaker said that he expected that "things would open up in a few years", and that prospects for his company hiring graduates would be more likely than in the past. It did take a few years for industry wide hiring to open up, but the time window turned out to be narrow before another recession hit. The speakers company didn't take on any new hire professionals for another decade, and ended up going out of business in 17 years.
IMO, speaker wasn't deliberately trying to deceive us, but even then I thought he was engaging in a bit of wishful thinking.
I'm right 96% of the time.I don't sweat
the other 5% .......................
^^^ I dunno about stuff like that. At worst it was wishful thinking. Prognosticating about something that doesn't come to pass is not what I would call a "lie" or "untruth".
It's not like he misstated the hiring history of his company.





since you asked ... Keynesian Economic Theory, where ...That doesn't mean that colleges are immune so if anyone was taught something that wasn't true in college or grad school, please feel free to share it.
- the production of actual goods and services are the functional equivalent of the Fed printing money
- the spending of borrowed money is the functional equivalent of spending money that was previously earned via the production of actual goods and services.
Bookmarks