BBC Ignorance test

[Zoraptor]

Whatever criticism you make about their operational nous (which battles they fought) they were tactically way above par (how they fought their battles). And their latter strategic idiocy doesn't come close to marring that.

 

I'd also add that in the last War their procurement could be absolutely amazing. Or basically wherever Hitler, Goering, or Himmler didn't shove a swivel-eyed oar in.

 

I'll admit that WW2 is a bit of an odd war in many ways in that the germans won just about everything for three years then lost just about everything for the next three, so it really depends upon which part you put the emphasis on.

 

But in the end what happened happened. They lost, badly. We cannot separate off the bad bits and say "well, if they'd just done that..." or pretend that Hitler didn't asterisk up the strategy. If you do that then you have to do the same for everyone- and have the french using proper doctrine, the western allies actually attacking when Poland was attacked, Stalin not having his purges or deploying his army like an ass, or even Chamberlain not folding in Munich. And if you do that then WW2 probably doesn't happen or unfolds completely differently. People tend to excuse the german's poor performance in the latter years with a lot of 'external' factors which do not detract from their martial prowess, but do not do the same for the allies' poor performance in the first years, in effect attributing every german success to intrinsic brilliance and every loss to Hitler or superior numbers.

 

Napoleon's similar. Clearly an excellent general with a lot of innovations- up to a point- and if he'd stopped in 1808 he'd probably have deserved his reputation. But he didn't stop then, and people still make excuses for what came later.

[HoonDing]

They obviously lost because of America.

[Rosbjerg]

They obviously lost because of America.

 

They lost because of Russia and then America swept up the remains in the west. Without Germany breaking their backs in the east the Allies would never had gotten a foothold so easy and the fighting would've been hard and bitter. That being said, in the end the allies would've won for the same reason Russia did.. They could simply out produce Germany and replace what was lost a lot easier.

[BruceVC]

To be fair to the French they only capitulated so relatively easily in WW2 was because there so called omnipotent defence line the Maginot Line was bypassed with almost  no effort but the main reason was they had not recovered psychologically from the horrors they had suffered in WW1. You need to read books like " The Price of Glory Verdun  1916" to understand what the French really lost in the Great War.

 

Add to that leaders who just weren't prepared to go through another war and you have a subdued nation. But they are coming back to own nowadays from a military perspective. In the last 10 years they have actively successfully  involved in several conflicts like Libya and Mali. So they are building back the pride in there armies

[Gromnir]

and completely got the women's average number of years in postsecondary education wrong, (3 instead of 7). 

 

...

 

if average post-secondary education years were 7, your typical pair o' nike shoes would cost ~$400 'cause the women working in sweatshops in thailand and indonesia would be having masters and doctorate degrees. 'course the shoes would be made less well, but you gotta pay for all that snooty self-importance that comes with advanced degrees, no?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Mr. Gromnir esq. BS BFA MFA JD

[Walsingham]

Does the JD stand for Jack Daniels?

 

~~~
 

I think on this of all days it behooves us to remember the sacrifices made by French men at arms without resort to comedy.

 

As Bruce pointed out, French losses in the Great war were quite incredible. Despite losing the battle for France in WW2, over half a million French forces continued fighting in other theatres, and participated in the liberation.

 

The errors which lead to their lost battles were hardly theirs alone. Britain was fighting alongside them, we picked the same ground, and similar weapons. And when France was losing in the field the United States and Russia were too scared to even take the field.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Walsingham

[Agiel]

Should be noted that the idea that the French aren't grateful for the US couldn't be further from the truth: Some French paratroopers put 101st and 82nd Airborne patches on their personal effects to pay homage to the units that were so critical to the liberation of France, as well as the paratrooper outfit they owe their lineage to.

[Bartimaeus]

 

and completely got the women's average number of years in postsecondary education wrong, (3 instead of 7). 

 

...

 

if average post-secondary education years were 7, your typical pair o' nike shoes would cost ~$400 'cause the women working in sweatshops in thailand and indonesia would be having masters and doctorate degrees. 'course the shoes would be made less well, but you gotta pay for all that snooty self-importance that comes with advanced degrees, no?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Mr. Gromnir esq. BS BFA MFA JD

 

 

The exact question: "In the world as a whole, men now aged 25-34 years spent a total of eight years at school. How long did women in the same age group spend at school?"

 

The question is kind of vague, but I think it assumes that the group of women were getting postsecondary education to begin with - not that the average woman, regardless of location, actually spends 7 years doing so, but that the average college/university-goer that is also a woman does. Unless somebody else has a different interpretation?

[Gromnir]

primary school is occurring after pre-school and up to middle-school... or possible high school. 

 

secondary school is middle-school and high school... or maybe high school alone. our secondary education were so long ago that am not recalling what were the line o' demarcation.

 

post-secondary is education After high school--is University or college education. 7 years o' college education for women and 8 for men would be equal parts impressive and disturbing. so many folks in population not contributing anything useful to the economy til they hits mid 20s? bus or subway rides would become interminable as average joes would be soberly discussing the merits o' proust or debating why the field o' physics hasn't had a major advancement since the development o' quantum mechanics. to gets assistant night manager job at local motel would no doubt be requiring an mba from applicants just to be considered. on the positive side, am also suspecting that reality TV would disappear completely. so, call it a wash.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Walsingham]

Should be noted that the idea that the French aren't grateful for the US couldn't be further from the truth: Some French paratroopers put 101st and 82nd Airborne patches on their personal effects to pay homage to the units that were so critical to the liberation of France, as well as the paratrooper outfit they owe their lineage to.

 

I did not know that. Thanks.

[JFSOCC]

After having seen the programme, I ha some comments on it. It seems the organisation I support [population matters] did as well:

 

Dear supporter,

 

Below is the text of a press release sent out by Population Matters in response to 'Don't Panic - The Truth about Population', broadcast on BBC Two, 11:20PM Thu, 7 Nov 2013; available on BBC iPlayer until 9:59PM Thu, 14 Nov 2013 Duration 60 minutes.

 

If you would like to be added to the mailing list for our press releases, please email supporters@populationmatters.org, with Press Releases in the subject line.

 

 

Hans Rosling is Ecologically illiterate

 

This widely publicised programme is introduced as follows:

 

‘Using state-of-the-art 3D graphics and the timing of a stand-up comedian, world-famous statistician Professor Hans Rosling presents a spectacular portrait of our rapidly changing world. With seven billion people already on our planet, we often look to the future with dread, but Rosling's message is surprisingly upbeat. Almost unnoticed, we have actually begun to conquer the problems of rapid population growth and extreme poverty.

 

Across the world, even in countries like Bangladesh, families of just two children are now the norm - meaning that within a few generations, the population explosion will be over. A smaller proportion of people now live in extreme poverty than ever before in human history and the United Nations has set a target of eradicating it altogether within a few decades. In this as-live studio event, Rosling presents a statistical tour-de-force, including his 'ignorance survey', which demonstrates how British university graduates would be outperformed by chimpanzees in a test of knowledge about developing countries.’

 

To that, we respond as follows:

 

Yes, the UN projects that the human population may well peak at around 11 billion in around 100 years, time. Yes, the UN is seeking to end extreme poverty.

 

We in Population Matters are not reassured.

 

That is because the programme failed to consider in any detail resource scarcity and depletion, environmental degradation and climate change.

 

The Global Footprint Network, in association with the WWF and the Zoological Society of London, tell us that humanity is already consuming renewable ecological resources at a rate 50% higher than can be produced sustainably, while non-renewables are steadily depleted. The consequences, which are already with us, are rising resource prices, and environmental degradation. These will of course be increased by a world population some 60% higher than the current level, as well as by rapid industrialisation of countries which have not yet done so.

 

We cannot be sure to what extent the consequences will be a gradual decline in living standards and quality of life or a series of economic and environmental crises. However, we can be reasonably sure that changes in technological use or affluent lifestyles will be insufficient to avoid one or both of these in the absence of early stabilisation in human numbers.

 

The programme reported a widespread fall in the birth rate and seemed to leave it at that. In fact, birth rates are increasingly diverse, both between and within countries. The programme acknowledged that birth rates are a variable, not a given - they are affected by a wide range of factors, including the provision of family planning services and clear messages that smaller families are better. Consequently, if we act now, we can reduce that population peak to the enormous benefit of mankind, other species and future generations.

 

Rosling may be a good statistician, but he is an ecological illiterate. He assumes that ‘demography is destiny’ – that all current trends will continue. He ignores the facts that: while the proportion of people in poverty is shrinking, the actual number of such people in the high fertility countries is rising; the fertility decline he celebrates has recently stalled – the UN increased their 2050 projections by 300 million this year; the danger of discontinuities or ‘tipping points’, leading to a sharp increase in mortality, is visibly approaching (cf the ‘perfect storm’ foreseen by the last UK Chief Scientist); the reduction in fertility rates does not happen automatically, but has taken years of effort, resources and priority to achieve in developing countries; no non-oil country has achieved economic take-off until it reduced its fertility to three births per woman or lower; and the timing of countries’ achievement of replacement fertility radically affects their eventual population equilibrium number, which means there is great urgency in achieving it as quickly as possible.

 

It is also unclear what Rosling, like Fred Pearce and Danny Dorling, aims to achieve with his complacent message “The population problem is solved – don’t worry about it”. If he succeeded in persuading governments, both donors and recipients, to reduce the still inadequate priority they give to family planning and women’s empowerment programmes, the effects would be: to increase the number of unwanted births, unsafe abortions, maternal deaths, and stunted children; to increase the rate of planetary degradation and the probability of crossing a tipping point, with a rapid increase in premature deaths; to reduce the number of people, the Earth can sustain in the long-term; and to reduce the likelihood of all our children enjoying a decent quality of life. Why does he do it?

 

For us, the lesson of the programme is not that the population problem is solved but that it is soluble if we take the actions required.

[Walsingham]

Strong message, well worded.