The Off Topic Topic

[Tonitrus]

Too bad CC is avoiding us but he could talk to us about is Ioniq 5.

I am getting along ok with my EV.  I don't have a Level 2 charger at home (just a regular plug-in within reach of the carport), and only get 2 miles range/hour, but that is enough to make up for the daily commute usually with some left over.  It's also an old 1950's military house, with free utilities...so free fueling.

Taking it on its first major road trip (up home to Seattle) in a couple weeks though...will see how that goes.  The major anecdotal complaints with the non-Tesla's over here is the severely-lacking charging network (and all the technical problems with the ones that do exist).

[FunkMonk]

In my recent history graduate studies I took a seminar on World War II and I was pleasantly surprised that there wasn't anything like studying orders of battle or critiquing the decisions of individual commanders. It was mainly reading and discussing the war's impact on society (and vice versa), race, economics, how soldiers experienced the war, and how nations remembered the war.

It was a good course 

[Valmy]

In my recent history graduate studies I took a seminar on World War II and I was pleasantly surprised that there wasn't anything like studying orders of battle or critiquing the decisions of individual commanders.

I am amazed you thought it would be looking at that stuff, given my own experience with history graduate school and what Oex mentioned above. I would be shocked if it WAS about that stuff. Now granted those kinds of primary sources are really important because so much of what we think we know about a war is often colored by propaganda and self-congratulatory memoirs of generals. Much of what nations remember about the war are lies and a close study of the actual military campaigns can help untangle that and help correct the often politically damaging long term impacts of that propaganda. But that kind of intense study of primary sources is something that takes years of work and is beyond a graduate studies seminar.

[FunkMonk]

In my recent history graduate studies I took a seminar on World War II and I was pleasantly surprised that there wasn't anything like studying orders of battle or critiquing the decisions of individual commanders.

I am amazed you thought it would be looking at that stuff, given my own experience with history graduate school and what Oex mentioned above. I would be shocked if it WAS about that stuff. Now granted those kinds of primary sources are really important because so much of what we think we know about a war is often colored by propaganda and self-congratulatory memoirs of generals. Much of what nations remember about the war are lies and a close study of the actual military campaigns can help untangle that and help correct the often politically damaging long term impacts of that propaganda. But that kind of intense study of primary sources is something that takes years of work and is beyond a graduate studies seminar.

Yeah, I quite liked the seminar and the professor. So much so I took his course on Civil-Military relations a couple of semesters later.  That was quite a lot of fun too

[Valmy]

So much so I took his course on Civil-Military relations a couple of semesters later.

Ooooh. Now that is a juicy topic.

[The Brain]

In my recent history graduate studies I took a seminar on World War II and I was pleasantly surprised that there wasn't anything like studying orders of battle or critiquing the decisions of individual commanders. It was mainly reading and discussing the war's impact on society (and vice versa), race, economics, how soldiers experienced the war, and how nations remembered the war.

It was a good course 

What did they say about the causes of the war, how the war could have been avoided, and what made the winning side win?

[Sheilbh]

Both of these things are linked to a similar thing, but with different effect: presentism. Caveat: this is mostly based on my experience in US and Canadian institutions. Europe may be different. I should ask ex-Mrs Oex. 

Thanks - that's interesting.

That all makes sense. I can also see given the current situation in Europe how there could be a gap.

[Sheilbh]

In my recent history graduate studies I took a seminar on World War II and I was pleasantly surprised that there wasn't anything like studying orders of battle or critiquing the decisions of individual commanders. It was mainly reading and discussing the war's impact on society (and vice versa), race, economics, how soldiers experienced the war, and how nations remembered the war.

It was a good course 

Yeah I should say I don't think any of it would be of any interest to me. I've never read military history and it doesn't really appeal.

But I find the wider context and how things are memorialised or become myths etc interesting.

However in Europe at the minute when we're looking at a war and something maybe a bit like state formation going on, I can see how suddenly discovering you don't have many academic historians who are specialised in those areas is a problem. But, of course, that it's a problem actually reinforces the issue Oex is talking about because it's a presentist use of history to help understand or contextualise the present - so maybe that is difficult to escape.