California continues their rapid decline

[rubato]

Alan Turing is very famous and his name was known to everyone at the college level in the1970s, certainly everyone in mathematics, CIS (computer and information sciences), and disciplines which used math.

The issue is how well he was known to students of history, rather than in specialized disciplines that depended upon his work. The issue is also how much more he would have been able to contribute to those disciplines had that door not been shut in his face and caused him to commit suicide.

Turing's acclaim is far more than many whose contributions are greater than his. I do not think a reasonable person could say otherwise. Frederick Sanger has two Nobel prizes for showing how to sequence proteins and DNA and his name is almost entirely unknown. G. C. Marshall was the most important individual to both our military success in WWII and to 'winning the peace' with the Marshall Plan and he is known by a tine fraction of those who know Turing.

Turing definitely was treated badly for his homosexuality.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

I'm not really against this legislation but I wonder why the sexual orientation of anyone who has done something historically significant is necessary.

If it turns out that people like Jack the Ripper, John Wilkes Booth, Adolph Hitler, Ted Bundy and bin laden were gay, why would it need to be required to be referenced in history classes in school ?

Or would only the "good" homosexual people be outed?

That wouldn't be right, would it?

To repeat myself.

It is a necessary part of undoing historic bigotry to acknowledge the achievements of persons from those groups. By recognizing their achievements we acknowledge their humanity.

yrs,
rubato

[Rick]

It's who we want to recognize.

Every school kid knows about Alexander the Great.

If you want to dwell on his sexual orientation that's another issue entirely.

Of course as Gob points out we can use hemorrhoid cream as historical white out...

[Scooter]

G. C. Marshall was the most important individual to both our military success in WWII and to 'winning the peace' with the Marshall Plan and he is known by a tine fraction of those who know Turing.

To people who bury their noses in nothing but science texts, perhaps. Anyone who has studied WWII and its aftermath in even the most cursory way would have come across the name George Marshall. The same cannot be said of Turing.

[rubato]

G. C. Marshall was the most important individual to both our military success in WWII and to 'winning the peace' with the Marshall Plan and he is known by a tine fraction of those who know Turing.

To people who bury their noses in nothing but science texts, perhaps. Anyone who has studied WWII and its aftermath in even the most cursory way would have come across the name George Marshall. The same cannot be said of Turing.

I'm referring to the notice of the general public. Not that narrow few who have read some significant history of WWII.

For myself, I have 'buried my nose' far more in history, literature, philosophy, and various other subjects than science.

Turing is like Tesla, someone every has heard about that nonetheless are 'ignored by history'.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

To people who bury their noses in nothing but science texts, perhaps. Anyone who has studied WWII and its aftermath in even the most cursory way would have come across the name George Marshall. The same cannot be said of Turing.

Scooter is certainly right there...

I was familiar with Turing and his role, (though not his sexual preference; I don't really see how that relates to his contributions) but I've studied WW II in depth; I certainly didn't learn about him in high school...

On the other hand, I can't imagine any half way decent high school history book that wouldn't mention "The Marshall Plan"....

This statement:

he is known by a tine fraction of those who know Turing.

Reflects a laughable and embarrassingly staggering level of ignorance about both what is taught in schools and the body of writing about WW II and its aftermath generally....

Laughable and embarrassing, but considering the source, hardly surprising...

[Lord Jim]

As for what single individual contributed the most to the allied victory in WW II, I think that's an almost impossible call to make, given the scope, complexity and magnitude of the conflict....there are many that one could point to as playing huge contributing roles, but no one person could be called indispensable.

Once the US was in the war, given the US industrial capacity and manpower strength, allied victory was inevitable eventually; so long as the country maintained the political will to continue the fight. But without the contributions of a numerous folks that victory could have taken a lot longer and come at a much higher price in human life then it did, (which was certainly bad enough.)

If I had to pick just one who contributed the most, I'd probably pick Adolf Hitler, who invaded Russia before he put Britain out of the war, (and then delayed that invasion for a couple of important months and diverted numerous divisions from it to bail out Mussolini in Greece) declared war on the United States, repeatedly refused to allow his generals to make tactical retreats to consolidated defensible lines resulting in German forces being taken prisoner at the rate of a hundred thousand plus at a time, and who delayed authorizing the dispatch of his western reserve forces to Normandy for a critical 24 plus hours, giving the Anglo-American forces time to establish firm beach heads and break out...

Hitler played a huge role in shortening the war.

[Lord Jim]

he is known by a tine fraction of those who know Turing.

Google Results for the following searches:

Alan Turing:

About 2,000,000 results (0.07 seconds)

George Marshall:

About 11,100,000 results (0.15 seconds)

George C Marshall

About 6,460,000 results (0.09 seconds)

Marshall Plan:

About 8,730,000 results (0.10 seconds)

[rubato]

Marshall has more google hits because he is more important. Naturally.

But the number of people who can say that he is important because he was the general of the army and oversaw the preparation and execution of WWII is minuscule. The number of people who know that he was singularly important in convincing the Republicans in congress to prepare for war when all they cared about was not taxing the rich is minuscule. The number of people who know that he alone appointed Eisenhower to be head of the war in europe is nothing.

The number of people who can explain why the Marshall Plan was the best and most important foreign policy initiative in the past century is minuscule.

LJ remains as dirt stupid as ever. And proves it every chance he gets.


yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

You claimed he wasn't 'noticed' by the general public. Now that your case has been shot to hell you've changed it to the fact that most people don't know his full biography!

Funny.

[Lord Jim]

You claimed he wasn't 'noticed' by the general public. Now that your case has been shot to hell you've changed it to the fact that most people don't know his full biography!

Perhaps he doesn't know what the word "known" means....

I'd suggest he consult a dictionary, but rube was never very skillful at navigating his way through one....

All those words...

it would most likely just confuse him further....

[rubato]

You claimed he wasn't 'noticed' by the general public. Now that your case has been shot to hell you've changed it to the fact that most people don't know his full biography!

Funny.

I have proven that his accomplishments are unknown. That was the claim.

yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

G. C. Marshall was the most important individual to both our military success in WWII and to 'winning the peace' with the Marshall Plan and he is known by a tine fraction of those who know Turing.

Funny, no mention of his 'accomplishments' there...

Your point has been shot down in flames so you have decided to move the goalposts. Are you taking lessons from Loca?

Next you'll be trying to convince us that it was a 'joke'...

[rubato]

G. C. Marshall was the most important individual to both our military success in WWII and to 'winning the peace' with the Marshall Plan and he is known by a tine fraction of those who know Turing.

Funny, no mention of his 'accomplishments' there...

.. "

Go back and read the thread.

yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

Oh I have done.
And that is not an answer. That is an attempt at distraction.

You are amazingly transparent for one who thinks himself so clever...

[Lord Jim]

Rube is another one of those who when he's digging a hole, is never satisfied until he finds himself sitting in the Marianas Trench....it doesn't matter how ridiculous or disingenuous he makes himself look; to him, the idea of admitting he was wrong is worse. So long as he doesn't do that, he can continue to pretend in his own mind that he is correct, and that's really all that matters to him. (To those of us who aren't put together this way, it's puzzling mind-set...)

The inability to admit to having got things wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, is a hallmark of the intellectually insecure.

The one thing that can be said in rube's defense is that in his case, he has proven for years that this insecurity is well justified....

[Andrew D]

Once the US was in the war, given the US industrial capacity and manpower strength, allied victory was inevitable eventually; so long as the country maintained the political will to continue the fight.

What if the Third Reich had developed the capacity to manufacture and deploy atomic bombs before the US did and dropped a couple of them on, say, London and Paris in, say, December of 1944? Would the Allies' victory still have been inevitable?

[Rick]

Guess we'll never know...

[Jarlaxle]

Once the US was in the war, given the US industrial capacity and manpower strength, allied victory was inevitable eventually; so long as the country maintained the political will to continue the fight.

What if the Third Reich had developed the capacity to manufacture and deploy atomic bombs before the US did and dropped a couple of them on, say, London and Paris in, say, December of 1944? Would the Allies' victory still have been inevitable?

Yes...would have been messier, might well have taken longer, but it would have happened.

(Also, I suspect that, if they had an atomic bomb in 1944, it would have been used on the Eastern Front.)

[dales]

What if the Third Reich had developed the capacity to manufacture and deploy atomic bombs before the US did and dropped a couple of them on, say, London and Paris in, say, December of 1944? Would the Allies' victory still have been inevitable?

Attach those to V-2 rockets and who knows?

Hitler's chances at world domination (sans Nippon?) would've been almost guaranteed.