Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I am unclear why you think that way about Montgomery at Baytown. It seems to me that he knew he was going in at a disadvantage, but went anyway.
I'm not really sure about the disadvantage.Operations Baytown and Buttress were designed as a two corps level invasion, but the British X Corps was reassigned from Eighth Army to Clark's Fifth Army and designated for Operation Avalanche (the Salerno landings). Montgomery's landings went from two corps down to a brigade sized operation, and Montgomery felt slighted (and legitimately so).From Montgomery's point of view, the most experience commander of the most experienced army in the theater were being assigned what was, at best, a supporting role (and what was, at worst, a diversionary role). Operation Baytown was an opportunity that cried out to Monty's vanity and his sense of place in history - leading British troops onto the continent of Europe on the fourth anniversary of the start of the war, and instead of leading the main effort, the biggest part of the operation went to an inexperienced army commander (Clark) and utlized two Corps commanders who had no amphibious landing experience. So, while it is understandable that he was upset, his performance was, in my opinion, inexcusable.While his advance up from Reggio Calabria was overly cautious - which was in keeping with his previous campaigns - his delays appear to be more focused on punishing Alexander for giving the main mission to Clark and in response to not having already been selected for a major command in the scheduled cross-Channel invasion (he would leave Italy for a command position for Overlord in December - four months after Baytown). Montgomery's initial invasion faced no more than three German battalions - yet his pre-invasion bombardment utilized every artillery piece in Eighth Army (some 600 guns firing over 400 tons of ammunition), four battleships, and one monitor (no doubt he was making a statement) -- and after a week, when Clark was calling for Eighth Army's presence to threaten the German flank and rear at the Salerno beachhead, Montgomery ordered his lead division (British 5th Infantry) to halt for three days of rest, despite only having faced minimal resistance. While Montgomery claimed that his forces could not safely advance to Salerno, war correspondents with Eighth Army were able to drive up the main Italian roads to within a few miles of the Salerno beachhead unmolested by German troops. Scout mentions attrition of commanders in previous wars, and that's kind of my point. When I was putting this together Montgomery remineded me of what Lincoln said about McClelland - that he had a bad "case of the slows." Even Montgomery's biographer, Nigel Hamilton, describes Montgomery's actions as being vindictive and insubordinate, stating that he "“…now deliberately decided to make Alexander pay for his mistakes. He would not undertake any further operations for the moment, merely sit and watch." He acted, in my opinion, like a petulant child and should have been sacked or reprimanded - but as the hero of Alamein, he was safe from censure from Alexander, who he characterized as being "weak willed."
Mine is a Kindle Fire and I've had it since Christmas – so far, so good. I have downloaded and read dozens of Kindle books and have used it to access e-books from the “e-brary” at AMU, as well as numerous PDF documents. With the exception of the PDF documents, it supports highlighting text as well as inserting “margin notes”. Just finished reading Mark W. Clark's Calculated Risk on it last week.Is it the best choice for that activity? I doubt it. Does it perform better than expected? Definitely.Am I satisifed reading e-books on it? Yes - whether it's a novel or a more scholarly work. It is definitely better than hauling my laptop or a bag of books through an airport - although I still carry a primary hardcover or softcover with me.
How is it on the eyes when reading something for a long time, like over an hour? Have you done that yet?
I haven't had any problem with mine -- I've read several e-books on my Kindle (including highlighting and note taking) and don't get the eye-fatigue that I can get sometimes reading the e-book on the computer screen.
Given the state of Congress, their approval rating, their level of civility, and their relative level of inaction, it is no wonder that we now have two senators running down this rabbit hole of distraction.Personally, I watched (and enjoyed) the historical fiction mini-series "Hatfields & McCoys." I grew up with a family of Hatfield descendents living just a few houses up the street, and listen with awed fascination (that only a 9 or 10 year old can have) of the stories they'd tell, especially after coming back from the summer "reunions".Also, from a personal viewpoint, I can't stand the History Channel's new reality shows - Swamp People, Mountain Men, Ax Men, Ice Road Truckers, et. al. HOWEVER, I can see where and how this fits into "history" from a much broader perspective (kind of like why they show poker tournaments on ESPN) - kind of the same way that some documentaries can serve as history. Whether it is "pop-culture" (which is, after all, a discipline in academic history) or we look at it from more of a sociological/antropological point of view there is some justification as well. Personally, not my cup of tea... but at this point, Michael Jackson, Elvis, and even Bruce Springsteen qualify as "history".I think what Grassley is saying, is that the history channel isn't giving him his dose of "comfortable" history. As a senator, I'm sure he sees himself through the lens of future historians, and he maybe he fears that he'll be upstaged by some modern day moonshiner.
Sorry about the “bazoomny” comment – I've been readiong Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange and was caught up in the dialect.The saddest part is that I had a teacher who could have been this woman's mother back in the 19 (cough, cough) 70s -- and we abused the crap out of her by taking control of the classroom by asking her questions that weren't in her class notes for that day (they were, more often than not, in the next week's notes - but since she spent each class by reading to us from the text, she didn't realize it).
I don't have my notes handy, since I am currently on the road, but there is a quote that I like that comes to mind here. This is a paraphrase, but I think it carries the meat of the message. Admiral James Bond Stockdale, medal of honor recipient, was once asked about the value of officers with an engineering degree from the Naval Academy vs. those officers with a liberal arts degree, and he replied with something along the lines of: “What does a destroyer skipper need to know about Kant? I say that an officer educated in the liberal arts and humanities approaches the unknown with curiosity and reason, while those with an illiberal education (I love that term) approaches the unknown with fear and trepidation.”Now, like I said, that is a paraphrase, and the Admiral is no longer around to defend his words, but the gist is that we "social scientists" know more of the human condition, and how people think, live, and react than do those who know the harder sciences. And, personally, I think that the Admiral nailed it. A world without the humanities, is a sterile and lifeless world - a world without reason, imagination, or for that matter, faith. A college education isn't intended to train us for a job, no matter what the small brained pundits say - a college education is to teach us to think, to think critically, to examine other points of view, to question, and to research and draw conclusions... and to admit that we don't know everything.But that's just my two cents...
I don't think it's that, I think it's a clear case of indoctrination. Glad it failed on this particular student.
Yes, it is attempted indoctrination. But, if you listen objectively, put the politics aside, you'll see it's the kids that are in control of the classroom. That woman is WAY out of her element and in way over her head. The brighter students in the class are manipulating her into a bazoomny rage. Those students are running circles around her. Makes me wonder what kind of class it is; government, civics, social studies, math?
A clear case where the students are brighter than the teacher – and she doesn't know how to handle it.
For what it's worth, I find that part of the value in being educated and trained as a historian (or at least the more marketable part) is that we have learned how to think as historians. That means that: 1) we are naturally skeptical of the material presented2) we know how to wade through massive amounts of material and find what is important, as well as identifying threads and themes3) we know how to analyze4) we know how to write (some more succinctly than others)5) we know something about the human condition and how people will act and react in certain situations6) we know how to ask questions7) we know how to researchSo, while we may not necessarily be able to make our living as a historian, we can put those skills to use in the business world. We just need to be able to sell them to our future employers, but THAT is a whole 'nother kettle of fish!Good luck!
Okay, hot button issue for me. A few things to consider:1. Schools do not control how much a student takes out in student loans. The amount of the loan can cover tuition, fees, books, and living expenses. So a student going to school with, let’s say, $30,000 in tuition, $8000 in books, $3000 in fees, $20,000 in room & board ($61,000) can take out loans in excess of $100,000. 2. The federal student loan process is broken, to say the least. We, as a society, encourage students to go into debt to go to school by making financial aid easier and easier to get. The unintended result is what is becoming known as the “Bennett Hypothesis” – public schools lose state tax funding, so they raise tuition rates and fees, federal student aid covers the increase, so budgets are met, and excess funds are fed back into the university. Since all excess funds are poured back into the university, and state tax supported funds are not increased, tuition and fees are increased again, federal student aid makes up the difference, and again, schools meet budgets, pouring excess funds back into the school. It’s a vicious cycle that brings in more tuition revenue that is used less and less in actually educating the student.3. For state schools, it is a mix of tuition and fee increases (covered by federal student aid) and increasing the number of out-of-state students who pay higher rates (which again is covered by federal student aid). (See where this is going?)4. I think that it is also the result of the stigma associated with higher education – yes, stigma. Students are pushed into schools they cannot afford, and are taught that it is okay (if not expected) to go into debt to go to school. Students are encouraged to attend the best school that they can get into – without regard to what it costs, and are then deemed to have “settled” if they have the temerity to actually attend a “lesser” school that they (or their parents) can actually afford.5. Higher education is an investment in our (and our children’s) futures, but how much have we failed if we still have people going into debt not knowing the terms of their loans or how it will be repaid?I think that the matter is further complicated by the growing perception that the purpose of going to college is to get a job. More and more, students and their parents seem to believe that a college degree should be come with a guarantee of a job – and likewise, it seems that more and more, employers are expecting colleges to train graduates for a particular job. This is quite a paradigm shift from what I remember – which is for a college to provide an education and produce well rounded citizens who are capable of learning, researching, and making well informed decision. When I hear someone ask, “If I get a degree ____, will it get me job as a ____?” My reply is always a simple and emphatic “No.” A college degree will not get you a job, that’s not what it is designed to do – just like a new suit won’t get you a job. A college degree may help you get a job, but it is the full package of “YOU” that the company is hiring – what else do you bring to the table other than this degree?I think the issue is that people are seeking a college degree as some sort of panacea, when instead they should be seeking a college education.Sorry, I think my “old fogey” is showing.
I took a speed reading course in college, and seriously, it doubled my reading speed… which was necessary, since I had to read everything twice in order to retain any of it!
Unprecedented? No, but rare — I grew up in Central Virginia, went to college in NC, joined the Marine Corps and ran away for about 20 years, and I've been back for a decade now, so in the 30 or so years that I have consistently lived in Virginia I can recall two other temblors – but nothing like the last one.I do remember as a kid living in irrational fear of an earthquake on the very faultline where this last one was -- that's because back when they build the North Anna Nuclear facilities and built Lake Anna I had visions of an earthquake followed by a mushroom cloud off to the east. Like I said, the irrational fear of a little kid - now that I'm much older, wiser, and more mature, I realize that a mushroom cloud coming from Lake Anna is absurd... it would be a large cloud of radio-active steam!
Forgot to add a comment. The World War ll generation has always been known as the greatest generation of heroes. Could this GWOT change that? Only history will tell.
Several years ago I did an oral history project with a retired 3-star admiral. I specifically documented his experience prior to World War II as a Navy enlisted man, his entry into the enlisted flight training program, his subsequent commissioning as an ensign and his 1944 war tour on the USS ESSEX flying SB2Cs and F6Fs.That's neither here nor there in relation to this thread -- but at one point I asked him about the type of young man it took to fly fighters and dive bombers off a carrier in 1944 and the type of young men flying F-18s off of carriers supporting operations in Iraq. His reply was something along the lines of: "They called us the greatest generation, but I don't agree when I look at what these young service members are doing today. We were, arguably, the greatest part of our generation, and these young men and women are arguably the greatest part of their generation."Personally, I can't think of a better way to express it.
