"So what was Hitler's motivation for attacking the Soviet Union?" Can't tell you.
"And the rebellion of the Scottish nobles against Mary, that was because..." Not allowed to say. Political.
"Are we going to learn about the Corn Laws, sir?" Who told you about that? We shouldn't even be talking about this..
This takes us back to the attempted ban on teaching about homosexuality. But the point was then that informing pupils about something is not the same as urging them to do it. It doesn't seem that difficult. It should be fine, indeed encouraged, for teachers to get pupils to take an interest in political affairs, but they should indicate different possible views. Would it have mattered if the teacher had said something like: "Some people feel that the PM shouldn't have been at parties during lockdown, others think it's all right because they were people relaxing during hard work. Write a letter to Mr Johnson to tell him what you think."
We couldn't possibly have said that bit about 'hard work.' For two reasons:
1) It would have been wrong as hard work is what @Foxy was doing and
2) It's an unfortunate double entendre where Johnson is concerned.
That's got me wondering about 'Johnson is standing up for Ukraine' now 😬
I can imagine if Elina Svitolina or Anastasia Lenna walked into the room he would rise to the occasion.
The speed with which Russia has been cut off from the world economy has been as stunning as the slowness with which Russian forces have advanced in Ukraine. But can Putin offset the de facto blockade by dealing with China? That would be harder than many imagine 1/
At risk of triggering the ERG, Krugman's first point is that Russia and China are too far apart to trade easily.
Its a bit disingenuous by Krugman. The most important trading asset for the Russians is their hydrocarbons. And most of that is in the East of the country nearest to China. Of course as mentioned yesterday by RCS and others, the issue there is pipeline capacity so it is certainly not a simple solution but the idea that the great distance from Western Russia to Eastern China is a big barrier is pretty poor thinking.
The speed with which Russia has been cut off from the world economy has been as stunning as the slowness with which Russian forces have advanced in Ukraine. But can Putin offset the de facto blockade by dealing with China? That would be harder than many imagine 1/
At risk of triggering the ERG, Krugman's first point is that Russia and China are too far apart to trade easily.
In a Zoom world, developed economy services like legal advice, creative work, consulting etc can be done at long distances relatively easily. Shipping natural gas down pipelines is a bit harder.
I find this very sad. The crew on the helicopter stood absolutely no chance. Yes, they shouldn't be there, but you probably just saw two or three people die.
Yet... yet I want their side to lose.
Russian soldiers are also victims of the war. Doubly so as they are not even fighting for a just cause.
Indeed. This monumental blunder by Putin is horrible for the average Russian, and will be fatal for many
My fear is that the humiliation of Russia, which is becoming profound and intense, will be of such magnitude Putin will launch nukes just because. Anything but this excruciating disgrace
One would hope that one of his Generals will think 'hmmm... global war... certain death... or take out the mad man and hopefully wear his crown... save humanity... become billionaire...'
It doesn't look like the world's most menacing military, either way
If I was going to guess, Russian soldiers where getting scared and local commander was worried they would not 'go forward' or would abandon there vehicles if they did. Decided to tell his men that if we cover them with logs then the enemy cant heart us. it a big 'Placebo' but placebos work if they help persuade there men to advance, at least in the short term.
Isn't it just a way to store firewood? There's a cold snap coming.
The speed with which Russia has been cut off from the world economy has been as stunning as the slowness with which Russian forces have advanced in Ukraine. But can Putin offset the de facto blockade by dealing with China? That would be harder than many imagine 1/
At risk of triggering the ERG, Krugman's first point is that Russia and China are too far apart to trade easily.
Its a bit disingenuous by Krugman. The most important trading asset for the Russians is their hydrocarbons. And most of that is in the East of the country nearest to China. Of course as mentioned yesterday by RCS and others, the issue there is pipeline capacity so it is certainly not a simple solution but the idea that the great distance from Western Russia to Eastern China is a big barrier is pretty poor thinking.
You know the industry better than me, but my understanding is that most of the marginal hydrocarbons were actually in the NORTH (east and west), which is a long way from China.
Turns out when you don't bribe people directly (because you can't) they find a way to get the money another way (at vastly greater cost).
The quote "There are ofc purely Russian projects with no Western investors/contractors. They just don't work and remain on paper" makes me wonder about their military high-tech projects. That tweet says it is the case for oil and gas. We know it is the case for space and rockets. It seems possible that military equipment suffers from the same malaise.
Have a lot of the very good, cutting-edge pieces of military kit they have be very few in number, and high on the bathtub curve?
If you want to take an entirely cynical - but probably fairly accurate - view of the Russian economy, it is that it was saved by Western oil & gas kit, that enabled it to refresh old fields at a time when prices were rising.
If you take the kit (and the skilled operators) away, Russia's oil and gas production will go in just one direction.
The speed with which Russia has been cut off from the world economy has been as stunning as the slowness with which Russian forces have advanced in Ukraine. But can Putin offset the de facto blockade by dealing with China? That would be harder than many imagine 1/
At risk of triggering the ERG, Krugman's first point is that Russia and China are too far apart to trade easily.
Its a bit disingenuous by Krugman. The most important trading asset for the Russians is their hydrocarbons. And most of that is in the East of the country nearest to China. Of course as mentioned yesterday by RCS and others, the issue there is pipeline capacity so it is certainly not a simple solution but the idea that the great distance from Western Russia to Eastern China is a big barrier is pretty poor thinking.
You know the industry better than me, but my understanding is that most of the marginal hydrocarbons were actually in the NORTH (east and west), which is a long way from China.
And better yet, the locations in between are interesting terrain, complete with extreme weather and are a long way from populations centres. Think building loooooong roads just to get your construction crews to the site for a pipeline etc.
I find this very sad. The crew on the helicopter stood absolutely no chance. Yes, they shouldn't be there, but you probably just saw two or three people die.
Yet... yet I want their side to lose.
Russian soldiers are also victims of the war. Doubly so as they are not even fighting for a just cause.
Indeed. This monumental blunder by Putin is horrible for the average Russian, and will be fatal for many
My fear is that the humiliation of Russia, which is becoming profound and intense, will be of such magnitude Putin will launch nukes just because. Anything but this excruciating disgrace
One would hope that one of his Generals will think 'hmmm... global war... certain death... or take out the mad man and hopefully wear his crown... save humanity... become billionaire...'
One would hope that.
After they decided to keep shelling a nuclear power station, I would however gently suggest it is a very forlorn hope.
The speed with which Russia has been cut off from the world economy has been as stunning as the slowness with which Russian forces have advanced in Ukraine. But can Putin offset the de facto blockade by dealing with China? That would be harder than many imagine 1/
At risk of triggering the ERG, Krugman's first point is that Russia and China are too far apart to trade easily.
Its a bit disingenuous by Krugman. The most important trading asset for the Russians is their hydrocarbons. And most of that is in the East of the country nearest to China. Of course as mentioned yesterday by RCS and others, the issue there is pipeline capacity so it is certainly not a simple solution but the idea that the great distance from Western Russia to Eastern China is a big barrier is pretty poor thinking.
You know the industry better than me, but my understanding is that most of the marginal hydrocarbons were actually in the NORTH (east and west), which is a long way from China.
The big centre these days is Sakhalin Island and the waters around there. But even the stuff in the centre and North is a lot closer to China than it is to Western Europe.
The speed with which Russia has been cut off from the world economy has been as stunning as the slowness with which Russian forces have advanced in Ukraine. But can Putin offset the de facto blockade by dealing with China? That would be harder than many imagine 1/
https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1500159184389787659 "In the last 24hrs, #Ukraine has *definitely* downed x10 #Russia aircraft: - 1 Su-30SM jet - 2 Su-34 jets - 2 Su-25 jets - 2 Mi-24/35 attack helicopters - 2 Mi-8 transport helicopter - 1 Orlan-10 drone Per @oryxspioenkop, who’s the best there is on visually confirmed data."
I'm starting to understand why RuAF were so hesitant to join in.
I find this very sad. The crew on the helicopter stood absolutely no chance. Yes, they shouldn't be there, but you probably just saw two or three people die.
Yet... yet I want their side to lose.
Russian soldiers are also victims of the war. Doubly so as they are not even fighting for a just cause.
Indeed. This monumental blunder by Putin is horrible for the average Russian, and will be fatal for many
My fear is that the humiliation of Russia, which is becoming profound and intense, will be of such magnitude Putin will launch nukes just because. Anything but this excruciating disgrace
One would hope that one of his Generals will think 'hmmm... global war... certain death... or take out the mad man and hopefully wear his crown... save humanity... become billionaire...'
One would hope that.
After they decided to keep shelling a nuclear power station, I would however gently suggest it is a very forlorn hope.
After examining the data I have come to the conclusion that the Russian Military is less competent than the DfE.
The DfE is probably 80,000 μUVDL
The Russian Military is clearly in 150,000-200,000 μUVDL range
Another 30 vehicles caught in depo near Kharkiv. Looks like the counter offensive is going well.
What are the Ukrainians doing with all this captured kit? Some of it may be usable, but some may not - e.g. SAM missile batteries is little good without missiles. If it is usable and retrievable, do you take it to a depot somewhere safe, where it may later get recaptured, or do you destroy/disable-in-place?
I'd *guess* you take things you cannot use immediately, but may be of use, west for servicing, training and equipping. Anything else shove off the road (or use as road blocks) and disable in a way that they might be usable after the war - say, destroying a part of the transmission that won't be easy to replace during the war. That way, if the Russians retake the area, it can't just be reused.
Just a WAG...
A late friend of mine was a US army captain in an armoured regiment. In his later years he worked at a US base in California whose job was to acquire and assess foreign equipment. Everything from typewriters to ballistic missiles. His speciality unsurprisingly was armour - both tanks and APCs as well as other soft skinned vehicles. They would get a vehicle and strip it down to the nuts and bolts looking at every aspect of its construction, its strengths and its weaknesses. Then they would put it back together and spend weeks using it on the ranges again looking at every aspect of its handling, lines of sight, reliability and any other quirks and unique features.
A fascinating job and I can imagine he would have been drooling about some of the kit now becoming available in Ukraine.
I've mentioned this before, but somewhere, many decades ago (I *think* I was at uni), I read/heard something that we - the allies - had a couple of people in each others' forward maintenance bases. So we'd have a Russian expert with our people, and when an unusual German tank or vehicle was found, it would be bought in and they would get to see it as well. The idea being both sides needed to know what Germany was using in the field ASAP.
The same was true of the Russians - we had a handful of people near their front doing the same role.
It's another of these where I cannot remember the details, or whether it was fiction, non-fiction, whatever. It seems plausible, but also all the allies were quite secretive as well.
Would love to have it confirmed. If so, it would have been one heck of a job.
I find this very sad. The crew on the helicopter stood absolutely no chance. Yes, they shouldn't be there, but you probably just saw two or three people die.
Yet... yet I want their side to lose.
Russian soldiers are also victims of the war. Doubly so as they are not even fighting for a just cause.
Indeed. This monumental blunder by Putin is horrible for the average Russian, and will be fatal for many
My fear is that the humiliation of Russia, which is becoming profound and intense, will be of such magnitude Putin will launch nukes just because. Anything but this excruciating disgrace
One would hope that one of his Generals will think 'hmmm... global war... certain death... or take out the mad man and hopefully wear his crown... save humanity... become billionaire...'
One would hope that.
After they decided to keep shelling a nuclear power station, I would however gently suggest it is a very forlorn hope.
But they did stop doing this didn't they? I read it as inexperienced troops doing it and then people who knew what they were doing suddenly intervened once it became clear.
I find this very sad. The crew on the helicopter stood absolutely no chance. Yes, they shouldn't be there, but you probably just saw two or three people die.
Yet... yet I want their side to lose.
Russian soldiers are also victims of the war. Doubly so as they are not even fighting for a just cause.
Indeed. This monumental blunder by Putin is horrible for the average Russian, and will be fatal for many
My fear is that the humiliation of Russia, which is becoming profound and intense, will be of such magnitude Putin will launch nukes just because. Anything but this excruciating disgrace
One would hope that one of his Generals will think 'hmmm... global war... certain death... or take out the mad man and hopefully wear his crown... save humanity... become billionaire...'
One would hope that.
After they decided to keep shelling a nuclear power station, I would however gently suggest it is a very forlorn hope.
After examining the data I have come to the conclusion that the Russian Military is less competent than the DfE.
The DfE is probably 80,000 μUVDL
The Russian Military is clearly in 150,000-200,000 μUVDL range
Fuck me, they must be so useless that their enemies would want to keep them alive.
Putin’s taken Kyiv, capturing two million Ukrainians.
It’s okay, says Putin, this is a peace keeping operation, we came to free you. you can all live. I only want Zelenskyy.
I am Zelenskyy, someone calls. No I am Zelenskyy, someone else calls. I’m Zelenskyy. No. I’m Zelenskyy. I’m Zelenskyy. I’m Zelenskyy. I’m Zelenskyy I’m Zelenskyy I’m Zelenskyy….
That would look good in a film, somebody should make it!
The end of that, not so good. The Romans adopted the simple fix for that problem.
'cept the Russians would run out of wood supplies after they'd nailed half a dozen up.....
The Romans must have had some pretty awesome logistics, for their time. The Roman army seems to have been a band of very aggressive builders, much of the time...
I've always been impressed with the Normans. They brought flat-pack castles with them, to hold the territory they gained.
It would make a great name for a tradesman. Imagine painting that on the side of your van. "Norman Castle, Painter and Decorator..."
Where do you think the "Castle" surname came from?
You're a Babylon 5 fan.
I was wondering last night, whether Putin has gone full Emperor Mollari on us.
(For those unfamiliar, the Centauri Republic launches a pointless and provocative attack on the League of non-aligned worlds, causing the international community to counterstrike against the Centauri homeworld and demand reparations. This leads the Centauri people to turn their backs on the international community and embrace autarky, as a beaten, broken and resentful empire.)
Perhaps someone should check whether or not Putin has a keeper on him...
I find this very sad. The crew on the helicopter stood absolutely no chance. Yes, they shouldn't be there, but you probably just saw two or three people die.
Yet... yet I want their side to lose.
Russian soldiers are also victims of the war. Doubly so as they are not even fighting for a just cause.
Indeed. This monumental blunder by Putin is horrible for the average Russian, and will be fatal for many
My fear is that the humiliation of Russia, which is becoming profound and intense, will be of such magnitude Putin will launch nukes just because. Anything but this excruciating disgrace
One would hope that one of his Generals will think 'hmmm... global war... certain death... or take out the mad man and hopefully wear his crown... save humanity... become billionaire...'
One would hope that.
After they decided to keep shelling a nuclear power station, I would however gently suggest it is a very forlorn hope.
But they did stop doing this didn't they? I read it as inexperienced troops doing it and then people who knew what they were doing suddenly intervened once it became clear.
Well, I hope you are right and I am wrong. But while my knowledge isn't complete I'm at a loss to understand how anyone at all could even think of shelling the area around a nuclear reactor. All bets are as far as I am concerned off on the rationality of the Russian military.
The speed with which Russia has been cut off from the world economy has been as stunning as the slowness with which Russian forces have advanced in Ukraine. But can Putin offset the de facto blockade by dealing with China? That would be harder than many imagine 1/
At risk of triggering the ERG, Krugman's first point is that Russia and China are too far apart to trade easily.
Logistics still matter, for the foreseeable. Brexiters never really did get to grips with that point, did they?
The majority of UK exports were outside Europe even before Brexit.
But you don't just replace one market with another overnight, not without greatly increasing capacity and reorganising your freight systems, even if demand is the same (which it's not). E.g. you can get stuff to Denmark in a day by road, but not to New Zealand.
I find this very sad. The crew on the helicopter stood absolutely no chance. Yes, they shouldn't be there, but you probably just saw two or three people die.
Yet... yet I want their side to lose.
Russian soldiers are also victims of the war. Doubly so as they are not even fighting for a just cause.
Indeed. This monumental blunder by Putin is horrible for the average Russian, and will be fatal for many
My fear is that the humiliation of Russia, which is becoming profound and intense, will be of such magnitude Putin will launch nukes just because. Anything but this excruciating disgrace
One would hope that one of his Generals will think 'hmmm... global war... certain death... or take out the mad man and hopefully wear his crown... save humanity... become billionaire...'
One would hope that.
After they decided to keep shelling a nuclear power station, I would however gently suggest it is a very forlorn hope.
But they did stop doing this didn't they? I read it as inexperienced troops doing it and then people who knew what they were doing suddenly intervened once it became clear.
Reportedly Russian troops have now also retreated from the plant, and the town to its' south.
I find this very sad. The crew on the helicopter stood absolutely no chance. Yes, they shouldn't be there, but you probably just saw two or three people die.
Yet... yet I want their side to lose.
Russian soldiers are also victims of the war. Doubly so as they are not even fighting for a just cause.
Indeed. This monumental blunder by Putin is horrible for the average Russian, and will be fatal for many
My fear is that the humiliation of Russia, which is becoming profound and intense, will be of such magnitude Putin will launch nukes just because. Anything but this excruciating disgrace
One would hope that one of his Generals will think 'hmmm... global war... certain death... or take out the mad man and hopefully wear his crown... save humanity... become billionaire...'
One would hope that.
After they decided to keep shelling a nuclear power station, I would however gently suggest it is a very forlorn hope.
But they did stop doing this didn't they? I read it as inexperienced troops doing it and then people who knew what they were doing suddenly intervened once it became clear.
Reportedly Russian troops have now also retreated from the plant, and the town to its' south.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebacc eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Another 30 vehicles caught in depo near Kharkiv. Looks like the counter offensive is going well.
Interesting that it looks like a riot shield in that video - so presumably that would be a vehicle from the riot police that were intended to subdue the civilian population.
Turns out when you don't bribe people directly (because you can't) they find a way to get the money another way (at vastly greater cost).
The quote "There are ofc purely Russian projects with no Western investors/contractors. They just don't work and remain on paper" makes me wonder about their military high-tech projects. That tweet says it is the case for oil and gas. We know it is the case for space and rockets. It seems possible that military equipment suffers from the same malaise.
Have a lot of the very good, cutting-edge pieces of military kit they have be very few in number, and high on the bathtub curve?
If you want to take an entirely cynical - but probably fairly accurate - view of the Russian economy, it is that it was saved by Western oil & gas kit, that enabled it to refresh old fields at a time when prices were rising.
If you take the kit (and the skilled operators) away, Russia's oil and gas production will go in just one direction.
The West has discovered that we have far more leverage over autocratic regimes than we ever believed. A big problem in betting is that people tend to chase losses and cut short their gains. We should press advantage here. Imagine the revolution in geopolitics if Russia became like Ukraine, still flawed and struggling with corruption but liberalizing and wanting to be part of the Democratic West. Aspiring autocrats like Orban, Le Pen and Trump would be cut off at the knees. China would be completely isolated. Across Africa and Asia, a new wind of democracy could be in the air.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebac eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Should that include a ban on teaching about Marxism?
Another 30 vehicles caught in depo near Kharkiv. Looks like the counter offensive is going well.
What are the Ukrainians doing with all this captured kit? Some of it may be usable, but some may not - e.g. SAM missile batteries is little good without missiles. If it is usable and retrievable, do you take it to a depot somewhere safe, where it may later get recaptured, or do you destroy/disable-in-place?
I'd *guess* you take things you cannot use immediately, but may be of use, west for servicing, training and equipping. Anything else shove off the road (or use as road blocks) and disable in a way that they might be usable after the war - say, destroying a part of the transmission that won't be easy to replace during the war. That way, if the Russians retake the area, it can't just be reused.
Just a WAG...
A late friend of mine was a US army captain in an armoured regiment. In his later years he worked at a US base in California whose job was to acquire and assess foreign equipment. Everything from typewriters to ballistic missiles. His speciality unsurprisingly was armour - both tanks and APCs as well as other soft skinned vehicles. They would get a vehicle and strip it down to the nuts and bolts looking at every aspect of its construction, its strengths and its weaknesses. Then they would put it back together and spend weeks using it on the ranges again looking at every aspect of its handling, lines of sight, reliability and any other quirks and unique features.
A fascinating job and I can imagine he would have been drooling about some of the kit now becoming available in Ukraine.
I've mentioned this before, but somewhere, many decades ago (I *think* I was at uni), I read/heard something that we - the allies - had a couple of people in each others' forward maintenance bases. So we'd have a Russian expert with our people, and when an unusual German tank or vehicle was found, it would be bought in and they would get to see it as well. The idea being both sides needed to know what Germany was using in the field ASAP.
The same was true of the Russians - we had a handful of people near their front doing the same role.
It's another of these where I cannot remember the details, or whether it was fiction, non-fiction, whatever. It seems plausible, but also all the allies were quite secretive as well.
Would love to have it confirmed. If so, it would have been one heck of a job.
We certainly had an exchange system with the Soviets whereby each side had specialist units which were allowed to cross the border and wander supposedly at will. They were known on the NATO side as BRIXMIS. They travelled in uniform and in clearly marked vehicles and were not supposed to be stopped by anyone and were able to go pretty much anywhere (outside of certain notified restrictive zones) to observe military operations. The idea was that this was to reassure the other side that no one was planning a secret buildup as a precursor to a surprise attack
Again a friend of mine (my neighbour in fact) who was a long serving RAF officer specialising in intelligence operations told me they never had any trouble from the Russians but that on occasion they would get beaten up by the East Germans who absolutely hated them.
Another 30 vehicles caught in depo near Kharkiv. Looks like the counter offensive is going well.
What are the Ukrainians doing with all this captured kit? Some of it may be usable, but some may not - e.g. SAM missile batteries is little good without missiles. If it is usable and retrievable, do you take it to a depot somewhere safe, where it may later get recaptured, or do you destroy/disable-in-place?
I'd *guess* you take things you cannot use immediately, but may be of use, west for servicing, training and equipping. Anything else shove off the road (or use as road blocks) and disable in a way that they might be usable after the war - say, destroying a part of the transmission that won't be easy to replace during the war. That way, if the Russians retake the area, it can't just be reused.
Just a WAG...
Missiles without the SAM battery actually OK, IEDs can be made from existing munitions.
INTELLIGENCE UPDATE Russia's proposed ceasefire in Muriupol was likely an attempt to deflect international condemnation while resetting its forces for renewed offensive activity. By accusing Ukraine of breaking the agreement, Russia is likely seeking to shift responsibility for current and future civilian casualties in the city
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebac eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Should that include a ban on teaching about Marxism?
You can teach about the Russian revolution and the Cold War but history is not philosophy.
In politics or philosophy there may be a case to teach it but downsides to it as well eg totalitarianism and frequent mass poverty
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
That's part of the fun of reading history. You can spend years studying something, and then come across something that makes you realise how little you actually know, and which transforms your outlook.
I can say with some confidence that I know more about the Roman Empire than 98% of the population - meaning that I know very little in reality.
A fair few incidents were hushed up during the war, and under-reported afterwards, for various reasons. How many know, for example, about the hundreds of Americans who died on Slapton Sands in Devon?
The speed with which Russia has been cut off from the world economy has been as stunning as the slowness with which Russian forces have advanced in Ukraine. But can Putin offset the de facto blockade by dealing with China? That would be harder than many imagine 1/
At risk of triggering the ERG, Krugman's first point is that Russia and China are too far apart to trade easily.
Logistics still matter, for the foreseeable. Brexiters never really did get to grips with that point, did they?
The majority of UK exports were outside Europe even before Brexit.
But you don't just replace one market with another overnight, not without greatly increasing capacity and reorganising your freight systems, even if demand is the same (which it's not). E.g. you can get stuff to Denmark in a day by road, but not to New Zealand.
Sometimes the old and new markets are not so far apart:
“According to statistics released by UK’s HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), and compiled by Fruit and Vegetable Facts, imports of Moroccan produce for January 2021 have grown by 51% compared to January 2020.
The biggest growth, by far, can be observed in the import of Moroccan courgettes, which saw an increase from 95 tons imported in January 2020, to 878 tons imported in January 2021, an increase of 822%. Demand for Moroccan strawberries also saw a marked increase, from 231 tons in January 2020, to 1,292 tons the following year, a growth of 459%”
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
That's part of the fun of reading history. You can spend years studying something, and then come across something that makes you realise how little you actually know, and which transforms your outlook.
I can say with some confidence that I know more about the Roman Empire than 98% of the population - meaning that I know very little in reality.
A fair few incidents were hushed up during the war, and under-reported afterwards, for various reasons. How many know, for example, about the hundreds of Americans who died on Slapton Sands in Devon?
I did. Very sad, but as my Dad would have said, 'Lot of sad things happen in war, son.'
Turns out when you don't bribe people directly (because you can't) they find a way to get the money another way (at vastly greater cost).
The quote "There are ofc purely Russian projects with no Western investors/contractors. They just don't work and remain on paper" makes me wonder about their military high-tech projects. That tweet says it is the case for oil and gas. We know it is the case for space and rockets. It seems possible that military equipment suffers from the same malaise.
Have a lot of the very good, cutting-edge pieces of military kit they have be very few in number, and high on the bathtub curve?
If you want to take an entirely cynical - but probably fairly accurate - view of the Russian economy, it is that it was saved by Western oil & gas kit, that enabled it to refresh old fields at a time when prices were rising.
If you take the kit (and the skilled operators) away, Russia's oil and gas production will go in just one direction.
Yep and it is those skilled operators that make the real difference. As I said a few days ago this is why the Oil service companies don't worry too much about the Chinese nicking their IP. You can't just sell a knock off version of a directional drilling tool or a down hole testing tool to an oil company because they need the specialists to operate it and interpret it.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
That's part of the fun of reading history. You can spend years studying something, and then come across something that makes you realise how little you actually know, and which transforms your outlook.
I can say with some confidence that I know more about the Roman Empire than 98% of the population - meaning that I know very little in reality.
A fair few incidents were hushed up during the war, and under-reported afterwards, for various reasons. How many know, for example, about the hundreds of Americans who died on Slapton Sands in Devon?
I do, but then I’m a history geek. Actually though it has been on tv on a number of programmes, such as coast etc, so maybe more than you think.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebac eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Should that include a ban on teaching about Marxism?
You can teach about the Russian revolution and the Cold War but history is not philosophy.
In politics or philosophy there may be a case to teach it but downsides to it as well eg totalitarianism and frequent mass poverty
Which Russian revolution? And how can it even make sense to teach about a revolution without understanding the ideological justifications the MANY different parties used for driving or opposing change? It's a total nonsense, and a powerfully stupid thing for a minister to do.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebacc eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
But surely insisting on teaching Our Island Story while banning Marxism or all other 'politics' is itself the complete contrary of what you are claiming.
https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1500159184389787659 "In the last 24hrs, #Ukraine has *definitely* downed x10 #Russia aircraft: - 1 Su-30SM jet - 2 Su-34 jets - 2 Su-25 jets - 2 Mi-24/35 attack helicopters - 2 Mi-8 transport helicopter - 1 Orlan-10 drone Per @oryxspioenkop, who’s the best there is on visually confirmed data."
I'm starting to understand why RuAF were so hesitant to join in.
I wonder if the call for a no fly zone was staged.
It isn't as if Zelenskyy hasn't been talking to NATO throughout. The response was already known.
He pretends to be desperate, and meanwhile we've been shipping in some proper anti-aircraft kit which will effectively turn the place into a no fly zone for Russians without any Eurofighters required.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
That's part of the fun of reading history. You can spend years studying something, and then come across something that makes you realise how little you actually know, and which transforms your outlook.
I can say with some confidence that I know more about the Roman Empire than 98% of the population - meaning that I know very little in reality.
A fair few incidents were hushed up during the war, and under-reported afterwards, for various reasons. How many know, for example, about the hundreds of Americans who died on Slapton Sands in Devon?
I did - I met Ken Small once, the man who retrieved the tank from the seabed, at the memorial. He was quite an interesting chap, and his book went into his depression, and how beachcombing helped.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
That's part of the fun of reading history. You can spend years studying something, and then come across something that makes you realise how little you actually know, and which transforms your outlook.
I can say with some confidence that I know more about the Roman Empire than 98% of the population - meaning that I know very little in reality.
A fair few incidents were hushed up during the war, and under-reported afterwards, for various reasons. How many know, for example, about the hundreds of Americans who died on Slapton Sands in Devon?
I do, but only because I've spent several holidays down there.
The speed with which Russia has been cut off from the world economy has been as stunning as the slowness with which Russian forces have advanced in Ukraine. But can Putin offset the de facto blockade by dealing with China? That would be harder than many imagine 1/
At risk of triggering the ERG, Krugman's first point is that Russia and China are too far apart to trade easily.
Logistics still matter, for the foreseeable. Brexiters never really did get to grips with that point, did they?
The majority of UK exports were outside Europe even before Brexit.
But you don't just replace one market with another overnight, not without greatly increasing capacity and reorganising your freight systems, even if demand is the same (which it's not). E.g. you can get stuff to Denmark in a day by road, but not to New Zealand.
Yes, it is a 10 to 20 yesr effect. Which could work for Brexit but not really to maintain a war in Ukraine.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebac eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Should that include a ban on teaching about Marxism?
You can teach about the Russian revolution and the Cold War but history is not philosophy.
Fucking hell...
Incidentally the 'history is dying' bit is linked to this;
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
That's part of the fun of reading history. You can spend years studying something, and then come across something that makes you realise how little you actually know, and which transforms your outlook.
I can say with some confidence that I know more about the Roman Empire than 98% of the population - meaning that I know very little in reality.
A fair few incidents were hushed up during the war, and under-reported afterwards, for various reasons. How many know, for example, about the hundreds of Americans who died on Slapton Sands in Devon?
I did - I met Ken Small once, the man who retrieved the tank from the seabed, at the memorial. He was quite an interesting chap, and his book went into his depression, and how beachcombing helped.
Ooh, that's interesting, you meeting Ken Small. In both cases I think the new memorials helped manu people realise what had happened - the Slapton one being that M4 retrieved from the sea bed as you say, and put on a plinth on the shore where it happened.
Edit: sure catches the eye on the coast road to south Devon.
https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1500159184389787659 "In the last 24hrs, #Ukraine has *definitely* downed x10 #Russia aircraft: - 1 Su-30SM jet - 2 Su-34 jets - 2 Su-25 jets - 2 Mi-24/35 attack helicopters - 2 Mi-8 transport helicopter - 1 Orlan-10 drone Per @oryxspioenkop, who’s the best there is on visually confirmed data."
I'm starting to understand why RuAF were so hesitant to join in.
I wonder if the call for a no fly zone was staged.
It isn't as if Zelenskyy hasn't been talking to NATO throughout. The response was already known.
He pretends to be desperate, and meanwhile we've been shipping in some proper anti-aircraft kit which will effectively turn the place into a no fly zone for Russians without any Eurofighters required.
Also, sometimes you make a request knowing it will be turned down, in order to get a lesser request granted.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
The Smolensk plane crash that killed the Polish head of state was when they were travelling to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Katyn massacre.
https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1500159184389787659 "In the last 24hrs, #Ukraine has *definitely* downed x10 #Russia aircraft: - 1 Su-30SM jet - 2 Su-34 jets - 2 Su-25 jets - 2 Mi-24/35 attack helicopters - 2 Mi-8 transport helicopter - 1 Orlan-10 drone Per @oryxspioenkop, who’s the best there is on visually confirmed data."
I'm starting to understand why RuAF were so hesitant to join in.
I wonder if the call for a no fly zone was staged.
It isn't as if Zelenskyy hasn't been talking to NATO throughout. The response was already known.
He pretends to be desperate, and meanwhile we've been shipping in some proper anti-aircraft kit which will effectively turn the place into a no fly zone for Russians without any Eurofighters required.
Also, sometimes you make a request knowing it will be turned down, in order to get a lesser request granted.
Yes, it could just be he was trying to get more kit shipped. Probably the simplest explanation.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebac eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Should that include a ban on teaching about Marxism?
You can teach about the Russian revolution and the Cold War but history is not philosophy.
Fucking hell...
Incidentally the 'history is dying' bit is linked to this;
All post 1992 non Russell Group universities, if they want to focus more on vocational courses which they can attract more fee paying students for that is up to them.
The best history courses ie at Oxbridge and the Russell Group in particular are generally still doing well.
At school level every pupil has to study history until at least 14 anyway whether they like it or not so they get a basic overview of our island's story and global history
First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me
https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1500159184389787659 "In the last 24hrs, #Ukraine has *definitely* downed x10 #Russia aircraft: - 1 Su-30SM jet - 2 Su-34 jets - 2 Su-25 jets - 2 Mi-24/35 attack helicopters - 2 Mi-8 transport helicopter - 1 Orlan-10 drone Per @oryxspioenkop, who’s the best there is on visually confirmed data."
I'm starting to understand why RuAF were so hesitant to join in.
I wonder if the call for a no fly zone was staged.
It isn't as if Zelenskyy hasn't been talking to NATO throughout. The response was already known.
He pretends to be desperate, and meanwhile we've been shipping in some proper anti-aircraft kit which will effectively turn the place into a no fly zone for Russians without any Eurofighters required.
A de facto NFZ was always at risk of being partial from high flying jets with smart weapons, but as they appear to have mostly used those up on the timetable for a 5 day win, it may well be good enough to keep their choppers and fixed wing on the floor.
They do seem to be pinning their hopes on artillery.
The point has been made before, but it is perhaps worth repeating. The trouble here is that everyone is getting their news on this conflict from one side. I may be wrong, but I think it is a big error to start believing that Ukraine are pushing back Russia. They are perhaps delaying the advance, but in response the Russians are resorting to more destructive forms of attack, and are unconcerned about incurring significant losses in doing so. The real fight will take place after Russia have 'won', and attempt to implement its goal of a subservient regime in Ukraine. It is likely to be a terrible war that involves a lot of death, and lasting for years. Better to be prepared for that, than hold on to the hope that the victory will happen next week, however seductive that idea is.
Britain has frozen more Russian bank assets than any other country as part of international wave of sanctions against Putin’s Kremlin — £258.8 billion of bank assets, versus £240 billion by the US and £33.8 billion by the EU. Still needs to hit many more oligarchs.
Britain has frozen more Russian bank assets than any other country as part of international wave of sanctions against Putin’s Kremlin — £258.8 billion of bank assets, versus £240 billion by the US and £33.8 billion by the EU. Still needs to hit many more oligarchs.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebac eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Should that include a ban on teaching about Marxism?
You can teach about the Russian revolution and the Cold War but history is not philosophy.
Fucking hell...
Incidentally the 'history is dying' bit is linked to this;
All post 1992 non Russell Group universities, if they want to focus more on vocational courses which they can attract more feepaying students for that is up to them.
The best history courses ie at Oxbridge and the Russell Group in particular are generally still doing well.
At school level every pupil has to study history until at least 14 anyway whether they like it or not so they get a basic overview of our island's story and global history
It's not just post 92, or were you unaware that Aber has lost its history department too?
History numbers have dropped off a cliff at A-level and as a result at degree level. That's the issue, far more than third rate unis* claiming superiority and cramming undergraduates onto courses they can't staff adequately.
This is going to make it worse.
It's sad you can't see that, but not unexpected given your avowed tribalism.
*Your previous absolutely asinine post drawing a false distinction confirms the view of a friend of mine who taught there that Warwick's history department is at best third rate.
First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me
First they put troops on the border and you said "Putin won't invade" Then he invaded and you said "he will stop at the Donets Basin" Then he bombed Kyiv and you said "this was bound to happen because of the West's actions over a number of years"
And then there was no one left to speak up for you, because you showed yourself to be a cretin.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
That's part of the fun of reading history. You can spend years studying something, and then come across something that makes you realise how little you actually know, and which transforms your outlook.
I can say with some confidence that I know more about the Roman Empire than 98% of the population - meaning that I know very little in reality.
A fair few incidents were hushed up during the war, and under-reported afterwards, for various reasons. How many know, for example, about the hundreds of Americans who died on Slapton Sands in Devon?
I do, but then I’m a history geek. Actually though it has been on tv on a number of programmes, such as coast etc, so maybe more than you think.
My wife is currently writing a Sunday night 6-part drama series that is kind of Downton Abbey meets Band of Brothers, all about the Yanks and the preparations for D-Day and Operation Tiger. She has done a hell of a lot of research. Living in a house within the exclusion zone that was requisitioned by the officers helps.
One of our neighbours told of a farm over the hill that was used by GIs - it supposedly had a hunting scene in one of the bedrooms, painted with camo paint. A couple of years ago, the building was renovated - and part of that mural was discovered.
It is also tricky to cut down trees round here - so many bullets to trash your chainsaw....
There was footage of a Russian soldier struggling to kick a door in the other door. To give him credit, he did have a number of attempts, but looked funny.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
The Smolensk plane crash that killed the Polish head of state was when they were travelling to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Katyn massacre.
I suspect that fact was mentioned at the time, but it obviously passed me by.
The point has been made before, but it is perhaps worth repeating. The trouble here is that everyone is getting their news on this conflict from one side. I may be wrong, but I think it is a big error to start believing that Ukraine are pushing back Russia. They are perhaps delaying the advance, but in response the Russians are resorting to more destructive forms of attack, and are unconcerned about incurring significant losses in doing so. The real fight will take place after Russia have 'won', and attempt to implement its goal of a subservient regime in Ukraine. It is likely to be a terrible war that involves a lot of death, and lasting for years. Better to be prepared for that, than hold on to the hope that the victory will happen next week, however seductive that idea is.
I have made that point as well, but as every day passes, it seems like Russia is in a slightly worse position. They do not seem to be making massive progress, and international sanctions are biting. Worse, their reputation is going down the gutter.
If there's a plan behind Russia's attack, then it must have been developed my Mr Bean (no, not GB). There doesn't seem to be much sense to it. Therefore it's fair to assume it is nowhere near going to plan for them. Could be wrong, though.
If they'd 'won' after the first few days, they could probably have divided-and-conquered the sanctions away. The longer this mess goes on, the greater the number of pictures of destroyed cities and dead civilians, the worse it is for them.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
That's part of the fun of reading history. You can spend years studying something, and then come across something that makes you realise how little you actually know, and which transforms your outlook.
I can say with some confidence that I know more about the Roman Empire than 98% of the population - meaning that I know very little in reality.
A fair few incidents were hushed up during the war, and under-reported afterwards, for various reasons. How many know, for example, about the hundreds of Americans who died on Slapton Sands in Devon?
I did. Very sad, but as my Dad would have said, 'Lot of sad things happen in war, son.'
And one of the greatest fish and chips pubs is right there on the sands next to the war memorial to the victims.
However, there is a bit of difference in scale and nature between that (Eboats amongst training landing and friendly fire, with a 948 dead) and Katyn (as massacre of unarmed prisoners, with 22,000 or so dead
Britain has frozen more Russian bank assets than any other country as part of international wave of sanctions against Putin’s Kremlin — £258.8 billion of bank assets, versus £240 billion by the US and £33.8 billion by the EU. Still needs to hit many more oligarchs.
The point has been made before, but it is perhaps worth repeating. The trouble here is that everyone is getting their news on this conflict from one side. I may be wrong, but I think it is a big error to start believing that Ukraine are pushing back Russia. They are perhaps delaying the advance, but in response the Russians are resorting to more destructive forms of attack, and are unconcerned about incurring significant losses in doing so. The real fight will take place after Russia have 'won', and attempt to implement its goal of a subservient regime in Ukraine. It is likely to be a terrible war that involves a lot of death, and lasting for years. Better to be prepared for that, than hold on to the hope that the victory will happen next week, however seductive that idea is.
Definitely a valid point, and seeing who the realists were on days 1-3 of the invasion was useful, but almost all of them have revised down their expectations from a certain Russian win to a probable one. Most developments in this was since the early days has been positive for Ukraine beyond expectations.
Britain has frozen more Russian bank assets than any other country as part of international wave of sanctions against Putin’s Kremlin — £258.8 billion of bank assets, versus £240 billion by the US and £33.8 billion by the EU. Still needs to hit many more oligarchs.
First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me
First they put troops on the border and you said "Putin won't invade" Then he invaded and you said "he will stop at the Donets Basin" Then he bombed Kyiv and you said "this was bound to happen because of the West's actions over a number of years"
And then there was no one left to speak up for you, because you showed yourself to be a cretin.
There was footage of a Russian soldier struggling to kick a door in the other door. To give him credit, he did have a number of attempts, but looked funny.
How long have the Russians been putting three Adidas stripes down the arms of their military uniforms?
Turns out when you don't bribe people directly (because you can't) they find a way to get the money another way (at vastly greater cost).
The quote "There are ofc purely Russian projects with no Western investors/contractors. They just don't work and remain on paper" makes me wonder about their military high-tech projects. That tweet says it is the case for oil and gas. We know it is the case for space and rockets. It seems possible that military equipment suffers from the same malaise.
Have a lot of the very good, cutting-edge pieces of military kit they have be very few in number, and high on the bathtub curve?
If you want to take an entirely cynical - but probably fairly accurate - view of the Russian economy, it is that it was saved by Western oil & gas kit, that enabled it to refresh old fields at a time when prices were rising.
If you take the kit (and the skilled operators) away, Russia's oil and gas production will go in just one direction.
Yep and it is those skilled operators that make the real difference. As I said a few days ago this is why the Oil service companies don't worry too much about the Chinese nicking their IP. You can't just sell a knock off version of a directional drilling tool or a down hole testing tool to an oil company because they need the specialists to operate it and interpret it.
Exactly:
And I don't think people realise how complex and interconnected modern oil & gas drilling is. You need to get the right seismic shot and you need core samples. And then you do a hell of a lot of analysis to understand exactly where you should drill the hole. And at what angle. And if you're fracking what kind of bore spacing there should be. And what the optimal fracking solution is for the hydrocarbons and rock formation.
This isn't just 'stick a pipe in the ground and expect oil to come flooding out' any more.
Take just one part away, and your ability to economically extract oil & gas disintegrates.
https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1500159184389787659 "In the last 24hrs, #Ukraine has *definitely* downed x10 #Russia aircraft: - 1 Su-30SM jet - 2 Su-34 jets - 2 Su-25 jets - 2 Mi-24/35 attack helicopters - 2 Mi-8 transport helicopter - 1 Orlan-10 drone Per @oryxspioenkop, who’s the best there is on visually confirmed data."
I'm starting to understand why RuAF were so hesitant to join in.
I wonder if the call for a no fly zone was staged.
It isn't as if Zelenskyy hasn't been talking to NATO throughout. The response was already known.
He pretends to be desperate, and meanwhile we've been shipping in some proper anti-aircraft kit which will effectively turn the place into a no fly zone for Russians without any Eurofighters required.
A de facto NFZ was always at risk of being partial from high flying jets with smart weapons, but as they appear to have mostly used those up on the timetable for a 5 day win, it may well be good enough to keep their choppers and fixed wing on the floor.
They do seem to be pinning their hopes on artillery.
Artillery without air cover shouldn't last very long, although I don't suppose you need much of it to create mayhem in an urban area if you don't care what you hit.
I fear we will soon be at the most dangerous stage. I hope the Israelis can talk the Kremlin into de-escalating somehow, because the alternative is, well, not good.
Britain has frozen more Russian bank assets than any other country as part of international wave of sanctions against Putin’s Kremlin — £258.8 billion of bank assets, versus £240 billion by the US and £33.8 billion by the EU. Still needs to hit many more oligarchs.
Comments
If you take the kit (and the skilled operators) away, Russia's oil and gas production will go in just one direction.
Things the Russian Ministry of Defence can't handle:
Ukrainians with Javelins, NLAWs, and Stingers.🇺🇦
And people being mean to them on Twitter.😢
P.S. do we have a running total of Russian planes shot down by type?
After they decided to keep shelling a nuclear power station, I would however gently suggest it is a very forlorn hope.
"In the last 24hrs, #Ukraine has *definitely* downed x10 #Russia aircraft:
- 1 Su-30SM jet
- 2 Su-34 jets
- 2 Su-25 jets
- 2 Mi-24/35 attack helicopters
- 2 Mi-8 transport helicopter
- 1 Orlan-10 drone
Per @oryxspioenkop, who’s the best there is on visually confirmed data."
I'm starting to understand why RuAF were so hesitant to join in.
The DfE is probably 80,000 μUVDL
The Russian Military is clearly in 150,000-200,000 μUVDL range
The same was true of the Russians - we had a handful of people near their front doing the same role.
It's another of these where I cannot remember the details, or whether it was fiction, non-fiction, whatever. It seems plausible, but also all the allies were quite secretive as well.
Would love to have it confirmed. If so, it would have been one heck of a job.
"Russian troops leave Energodar. ⚡️Zaporizhia nuclear power plant back under Ukrainian control"
https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1500153084017877003
"❗️The invaders left #Energodar. The city is under the control of local authorities."
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1500160390805831681
Also helpful if stuck in mud or similar.
Like this, I'd suggest.
British Army veteran heads for Kyiv
https://news.sky.com/story/someone-has-to-stand-up-and-i-always-stand-up-british-army-veteran-heads-for-kyiv-12558348
Would have been more sensible to Leave sooner, but don't think we can blame her if she had been there for weeks befor.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Again a friend of mine (my neighbour in fact) who was a long serving RAF officer specialising in intelligence operations told me they never had any trouble from the Russians but that on occasion they would get beaten up by the East Germans who absolutely hated them.
Of course, attacking people with words is an old trick, dating back to Times Roman.
Russia's proposed ceasefire in Muriupol was likely an attempt to deflect international condemnation while resetting its forces for renewed offensive
activity. By accusing Ukraine of breaking the agreement, Russia is likely seeking to shift responsibility for current and future civilian casualties in the city
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1500159409976131584
In politics or philosophy there may be a case to teach it but downsides to it as well eg totalitarianism and frequent mass poverty
https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2021/03/338013/uks-growing-reliance-on-moroccan-fruit-and-vegetables
“According to statistics released by UK’s HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), and compiled by Fruit and Vegetable Facts, imports of Moroccan produce for January 2021 have grown by 51% compared to January 2020.
The biggest growth, by far, can be observed in the import of Moroccan courgettes, which saw an increase from 95 tons imported in January 2020, to 878 tons imported in January 2021, an increase of 822%. Demand for Moroccan strawberries also saw a marked increase, from 231 tons in January 2020, to 1,292 tons the following year, a growth of 459%”
And how can it even make sense to teach about a revolution without understanding the ideological justifications the MANY different parties used for driving or opposing change? It's a total nonsense, and a powerfully stupid thing for a minister to do.
It isn't as if Zelenskyy hasn't been talking to NATO throughout. The response was already known.
He pretends to be desperate, and meanwhile we've been shipping in some proper anti-aircraft kit which will effectively turn the place into a no fly zone for Russians without any Eurofighters required.
https://exercisetigermemorial.co.uk/ken-small
Then there was HMS Dasher off Glasgow.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59233709
Incidentally the 'history is dying' bit is linked to this;
https://royalhistsoc.org/rhs-statement-on-recent-closure-of-uk-history-departments/
Edit: sure catches the eye on the coast road to south Devon.
https://www.google.com/maps/@50.2682679,-3.652447,3a,75y,327.8h,89.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVwpPU5uuFLy1Q-YLsCnKuw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The best history courses ie at Oxbridge and the Russell Group in particular are generally still doing well.
At school level every pupil has to study history until at least 14 anyway whether they like it or not so they get a basic overview of our island's story and global history
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
They do seem to be pinning their hopes on artillery.
A team of Russian soldiers wanted to use the elevator to reach the roof of an office building.
The Ukrainian administration of the building trapped them inside by cutting off the electricity.
The Ukrainians also used an industrial camera to take this commemorative photo.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1500147298520768515
That suggests that the Russians would like to talk about how to end the war.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1500165170215235591
Are they all this good at trolling people?
History numbers have dropped off a cliff at A-level and as a result at degree level. That's the issue, far more than third rate unis* claiming superiority and cramming undergraduates onto courses they can't staff adequately.
This is going to make it worse.
It's sad you can't see that, but not unexpected given your avowed tribalism.
*Your previous absolutely asinine post drawing a false distinction confirms the view of a friend of mine who taught there that Warwick's history department is at best third rate.
Then he invaded and you said "he will stop at the Donets Basin"
Then he bombed Kyiv and you said "this was bound to happen because of the West's actions over a number of years"
And then there was no one left to speak up for you, because you showed yourself to be a cretin.
A Ukrainian actually defends their Capitol.
https://twitter.com/David_Leavitt/status/1500098016312807426
One of our neighbours told of a farm over the hill that was used by GIs - it supposedly had a hunting scene in one of the bedrooms, painted with camo paint. A couple of years ago, the building was renovated - and part of that mural was discovered.
It is also tricky to cut down trees round here - so many bullets to trash your chainsaw....
If there's a plan behind Russia's attack, then it must have been developed my Mr Bean (no, not GB). There doesn't seem to be much sense to it. Therefore it's fair to assume it is nowhere near going to plan for them. Could be wrong, though.
If they'd 'won' after the first few days, they could probably have divided-and-conquered the sanctions away. The longer this mess goes on, the greater the number of pictures of destroyed cities and dead civilians, the worse it is for them.
Bennett is hard line orthodox btw, so if he's travewlling on the sabbath he must think he is saving lives.
However, there is a bit of difference in scale and nature between that (Eboats amongst training landing and friendly fire, with a 948 dead) and Katyn (as massacre of unarmed prisoners, with 22,000 or so dead
And I don't think people realise how complex and interconnected modern oil & gas drilling is. You need to get the right seismic shot and you need core samples. And then you do a hell of a lot of analysis to understand exactly where you should drill the hole. And at what angle. And if you're fracking what kind of bore spacing there should be. And what the optimal fracking solution is for the hydrocarbons and rock formation.
This isn't just 'stick a pipe in the ground and expect oil to come flooding out' any more.
Take just one part away, and your ability to economically extract oil & gas disintegrates.
I fear we will soon be at the most dangerous stage. I hope the Israelis can talk the Kremlin into de-escalating somehow, because the alternative is, well, not good.
Take your time, but if you can do wordle more days than not within the 6 permitted goes, you may find this conundrum to be soluble.