[ctrlalt_g]

I once heard an anecdote that might describe some of what's happening. In the trenches of WWI, when it was time to fight, soldiers would have to climb up a ladder onto a battlefield. The problem was that German snipers could see the tops of the ladders. The Germans would keep their rifles fixed on where they knew the enemy would emerge and simply shoot them down once they saw helmets appear.

The European Allied soldiers were so disciplined that they just kept climbing up the ladders and getting killed one by one, following their orders to their deaths. The Americans saw this and said, "fuck that, I'm not climbing up there."

I think most Americans are pragmatic and they won't do something unless it makes sense. And to be honest, most people don't need to study math. Or at least it's not obvious that they do. I think most of the math professors I've talked to would agree. They view math, as it's taught in core curricula, more as an art than as having vocational value.

[jacquesm]

> In the trenches of WWI, when it was time to fight, soldiers would have to climb up a ladder onto a battlefield. The problem was that German snipers could see the tops of the ladders. The Germans would keep their rifles fixed on where they knew the enemy would emerge and simply shoot them down once they saw helmets appear.

> The European Allied soldiers were so disciplined that they just kept climbing up the ladders and getting killed one by one, following their orders to their deaths. The Americans saw this and said, "fuck that, I'm not climbing up there."

Wow, that anecdote explains American supremacy better than anything to date. /s

Without a citation I'm going to have to call bull-shit on that one, I'm just trying to imagine their CO standing there with an ever mounting heap of corpses at the bottom of the ladder and not once thinking 'this doesn't seem to work'.

Some googling does not turn up any evidence for your story either.

[ctrlalt_g]

It's a stupid anecdote to point out the fact that differences in cultural attitudes can explain and somewhat justify test scores. I'm not even American, and I never claimed that the anecdote is true.

[jacquesm]

> It's a stupid anecdote to point out the fact that differences in cultural attitudes can explain and somewhat justify test scores.

It would if it were true.

> I'm not even American

That's immaterial.

> and I never claimed that the anecdote is true.

Well, you didn't claim that it wasn't true either, but the whole thing hinges on whether or not the anecdote is true so if you bring it up I'm going to assume that you at least believe it to be true and that the conclusion is supported by the anecdote.

If we're all just going to make stuff up to prove some point then it becomes very hard to reach conclusions.

[ctrlalt_g]

I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings.

[icebraining]

I don't know about any americans, but isn't the Souain affair pretty much a CO ordering his soldiers to keep going despite an ever mounting heap of corpses?

[jacquesm]

Sure, but that's not structural and there are definitely parallels in the American civil war.

war is an exercise in stupidity to begin with, it shouldn't be surprising there are pockets of even worse. But to claim that structurally Americans refused to get out of the trenches in a certain way in order not to get killed whereas docile Europeans were led like lambs to the slaughter is not something I've found in any history of World War I (or II for that matter).

Both wars had extremely heavy casualties on both sides, and in both wars there were quite a few instances of CO's treating their men like disposables. The Christmas Truce is a beautiful story about such behavior. Even so, both sides were desperately trying to win the war and the rule would have been to not take action hastening the demise of the men on one's own side.

I've yet to come across any substantiation of the anecdote related above, if it was structurally true you'd think it would be more than a mere anecdote.

[Ended]

OTOH, the terrible truth is that it was necessary to order thousands of soldiers to their almost-certain deaths in order to win the war, and without a disciplined army this would not be possible. This says something about the value of discipline (in war or maths!) even when it's not obviously in your personal interest.

[eli_gottlieb]

World War I was a stupid war over stupid pride-issues between imperialist powers.

[jacquesm]

This goes for almost every war that was ever fought.

[eli_gottlieb]

Exactly!

[kwhitefoot]

Is that true? I mean: is it true that the actions where it was necessary to "order thousands of soldiers to their almost-certain deaths" were significant causes of the final outcome?

[jacquesm]

WWI was the first 'industrialized' war, trench warfare implied the certain death of a huge number of men if the lines were ever to move, it's basically a never ending meat grinder until one of the parties runs out of warm bodies, supplies or ammo.

The final assault on the remains of the entrenched opposition were without exception extremely bloody and the side that would take the others trench never did so without significant losses.

[thecopy]

Was is necessary to win the war?

[sangnoir]

Those American soldiers sure were exceptional.