Congratulations Mr Herdson - but sadly I cannot find much comparison between 911 and the Assassination of Franz Ferdinand. For a start which secret police organisation was Al Quada working with? And have you ever heard of the UN? Where was the international objection to the invasion of Afghanistan and removal of the host Taliban? And in later times where was the international objections to the killing of Bin Ladin? Serbia agreed to Austrian demands in 1914 but egged on by Germany they still started the war.
The invasion of Iraq - or rather its aftermath - may have been handled badly but I for one think the removal of Saddam was a good thing. We saw Gadaffi give up his nuclear weapons programme. I agree that again the aftermath of that and cosying up to Gadaffi was badly handled. But even despite all the severe problems some places face now - the middle east is free to evolve towards democracy and if the international community were doing its job properly then the misery we see would be curtailed.
Whilst London had a wet afternoon yesterday, took the opportunity to take my 7 year-old granddaughter around the Houses of Parliament.
Whilst of British parents, she was born and lived all her life in Spain and to my surprise knew and recognised all the wives of Henry 8 - all their portraits in one of the chambers. She is already quad-lingual (English, Spanish, Catalan and French) and it led me to wonder how many of UK pupils ever know as much about Spanish history or ever attain those linguistic skills. (She goes to a normal state school and not a private or international school).
Your granddaughter clearly has exceptional parents and teachers. She is also self-evidently exceptionally bright.
Given what we know of 25% of her genes it’s not altogether surprising she’s bright! And I agree about the paucity of information about Europe in English (anyway) schools. For my part, until my late 60’s all I knew about Spain was that a) Columbus had sailed from there b) they’d tried to invade us when Eliz 1st was queen and been defeated by Drake (or something like that) and c) that in the 30’s they’d put into power a nasty friend for Hitler’s, who’d fortunately stayed neutral during the war. I’m not sure how much more my children know even now, although one is a regular visitor there as part of his employment.
What more information about Spain could you have wanted to know? Seems to me you got the essential detail, unless you were in a very specialised job you knew everything that an Englishman needs to know about the history of Spain (and probably a great deal more than the overwhelming majority of school leavers today).
Do Spanish infants' schools teach the history of Tudor England? I doubt it. Far more likely that a bright child has had her imagination fired and like any child in that situation absorbs knowledge like a sponge absorbs water. Full credit to the parents but probably not to the Spanish school system.
Yes but what a load of tittle tattle drivel you have just quoted. Cherie 'hissed privately to Blair' ?? so how come somebody can quote it? Equally what I find amazingly shocking is that a bride should try to look her best on her wedding day. Can't think why.
The Guardian hate's the fact she's a one woman juggernaut.
I bet they couldn't believe it when she got off and wasn't sent to prison, LOL!
Why does the BBC feel it necessary (or indeed justified) to impose FIFTEEN HOURS from 9.00am until midnight of virtually uninterrupted coverage of the so-called Commonwealth Games, thereby monopolising their flagship channel with what is distinctly minority interest TV ?
Yawn!!!!
Maybe because it is a major event , by far the biggest in the UK and so poor that it is only 15 hours.
I'm with Peter from Putney on this one. I'm not really sure what the quality is that we are watching. Well I'm not watching it, but then again I did not watch the Olympics. £10 billion? terrible waste (and then there is all the corruption) when all sports have their own world championships anyway.
Yes but what a load of tittle tattle drivel you have just quoted. Cherie 'hissed privately to Blair' ?? so how come somebody can quote it? Equally what I find amazingly shocking is that a bride should try to look her best on her wedding day. Can't think why.
The Guardian hate's the fact she's a one woman juggernaut.
I bet they couldn't believe it when she got off and wasn't sent to prison, LOL!
Try reading Private Eye on the subject if you want a demonstration of disbelief!
[On topic post] One other point is that with the pace of technological change, the top brass are anxious to test their new kit every 10 years or so. I know it's a poor excuse for killing people (remember the Belgrano) but at least it keeps the psycho vote on-side.
Congratulations on your marriage Mr.Herdson. The simple way to understand todays international relations and this thread is by playing "War on Terror the Boardgame" though I dont know if its still illegal in Britain.
"Everyone starts with the best intentions. Then things start to get cramped. Then you notice your neighbour has more oil than you. Before long, war is waged, nukes are dropped, revolutions are fought and terrorists are doing your dirty work, before turning on you..."
[On topic post] One other point is that with the pace of technological change, the top brass are anxious to test their new kit every 10 years or so. I know it's a poor excuse for killing people (remember the Belgrano) but at least it keeps the psycho vote on-side.
What a very poor post.
Made worse by the reference to the Belgrano, which not only undermined such point as was trying to be made but also displayed a level of ignorance rare on this site.
That happens when you make it a symbol of struggle for something. Well, if they do wish to fly the flag of a country other than the UK, they should continue to fly the Union Flag and fly the flag of palestine in a subsidiary position. That would be the usual protocol.
Congratulations on your marriage Mr.Herdson. The simple way to understand todays international relations and this thread is by playing "War on Terror the Boardgame" though I dont know if its still illegal in Britain.
Mr Herdson is being married. Church bells may be pealing as a result. The sun is shining. It is a happy day. So a happy link - Wodehouse on animals, genius, pure genius in every sentence, not a word wasted.
Mr. Lilburne, I'm reminded of school, when someone brought an Indian flag to the common room. The next day, about twenty union flags and St George flags appeared.
Congratulations on your marriage Mr.Herdson. The simple way to understand todays international relations and this thread is by playing "War on Terror the Boardgame" though I dont know if its still illegal in Britain.
Mr Herdson is being married. Church bells may be pealing as a result. The sun is shining. It is a happy day. So a happy link - Wodehouse on animals, genius, pure genius in every sentence, not a word wasted.
Alas the author left out Wodehouse on cats, a subject on which he was very sound.
Afternoon Mr Llama - Never got around to replying the other day to your witty contribution regarding PG’s’ ‘Drones Club’ as an aptly named halfway house for eligible young bachelors.
Several years ago the good lady bought me the entire set for Christmas but despite re-reading most of them, I must admit to never making the connection, so ta very much - and after today’s nuptials, I guess Mr Herdson, will also be relinquishing his membership…?
The Iraq war was an enormous success for its planners. The Middle East has been divided into a Shia/Sunni civil war and a major regional rival splintered in three, as entirely predicted before hand. Israel has a free hand to do as they please in Palestine with only Iran remaining as a serious rival in the region.
As for the First World War Austria, backed by Germany, sought and got its war against the Slav untermenschen. The simple truth is that the first shots of the Great War were not fired by Gavrilo Princip, but by the Austro-Hungarian artillery, which attacked Belgrade in the evening of July 28, 1914 after the issuance of a series of ridiculous ultimatumsthey knew the Serbs could never agree to. The assassination was simply an excuse used by the slowly collapsing multicultural, multiethnic Austrian blob to further occupy the peoples of South East Europe
Nicholas II himself told his cousin the Kaiser on July 29, 1914:
'An ignoble war has been declared to a weak country. The indignation in Russia shared fully by me is enormous. I foresee that very soon I shall be overwhelmed by the pressure forced upon me and be forced to take extreme measures which will lead to war. To try and avoid such a calamity as a European war I beg you in the name of our old friendship to do what you can to stop your allies from going too far.'
And today, almost hundred years since Austria-Hungary launched a war of extermination against "Serbian terrorists," the Western-backed junta in Kiev – championing a rabidly Russophobic identity invented by Austria-Hungary and Germany over a century ago – is waging a war of extermination against Russian-speaking "terrorists" refusing to submit to its rule. The Kremlin is now facing the same choice forced on Nicholas II, and much closer to home.
Anyone who thinks that Moscow will just sit back and watch, clearly hasn’t been paying attention.
Mr Herdson is being married. Church bells may be pealing as a result. The sun is shining. It is a happy day. So a happy link - Wodehouse on animals, genius, pure genius in every sentence, not a word wasted.
Alas the author left out Wodehouse on cats, a subject on which he was very sound.
Afternoon Mr Llama - Never got around to replying the other day to your witty contribution regarding PG’s’ ‘Drones Club’ as an aptly named halfway house for eligible young bachelors.
Several years ago the good lady bought me the entire set for Christmas but despite re-reading most of them, I must admit to never making the connection, so ta very much - and after today’s nuptials, I guess Mr Herdson, will also be relinquishing his membership…?
Thanks for that, Mr. St Clare. My own Wodehouse collection has alas been dispersed by Herself's rather incomprehensible demand that, as every room in the house apart from the bathrooms have bookshelves and those shelves are all over-loaded with books on top of books and the attics are already full, I should get rid of books. Many old friends went in the great book-cull of 2008/9 and the subsequent minor culls when she worked out I had been cheating on her "one in one out policy". You are blessed that Mrs St. Clare gave you a Wodehouse collection without a list of disposals to be filled in.
Anyway, Mr. Herdson must resign his membership of the Drones today, but that need not be so dreadful. The Diogenes Club awaits, assuming he can find a couple of gentlemen to put him up for it.
To be fair to ISIS ....... why??? ........ anyway this atrocity is comparable with the destruction of pre-Reformation church art in the 16th Century. I was once told that it had been estimated that 97% of English (and Welsh and Scottish) mediaeval (and possible pre-mediaeval) religious art was sacrificied to religious fanaticism during that period.
Pre-race piece will be a while, going to take a break so I (and my computer) can cool down. Should allow time for markets to develop and penalties to be doled out too. May be this evening, possibly tomorrow morning (I'd rather get it done sooner, if I can).
Anyone who thinks that Moscow will just sit back and watch, clearly hasn’t been paying attention.
I don't agree with all your analysis there but having WW1FO in your stream tweeting cables from this time in 1914 fits in bizarrely well with everything else happening in the news at the moment.
To be fair to ISIS ....... why??? ........ anyway this atrocity is comparable with the destruction of pre-Reformation church art in the 16th Century. I was once told that it had been estimated that 97% of English (and Welsh and Scottish) mediaeval (and possible pre-mediaeval) religious art was sacrificied to religious fanaticism during that period.
Yes, but was it said "convert or be killed?"
IIRC, wasn't the situation in the UK one of cuius regio, eius religio.
Under Edward VI, being a protestant, and going to protestant services was compulsory. I don't know what the punishment for failure was (and I'm sure enforcement varied locally), but it was certainly not possible to be a visible Catholic subject of Edward VI.
Whilst London had a wet afternoon yesterday, took the opportunity to take my 7 year-old granddaughter around the Houses of Parliament.
Whilst of British parents, she was born and lived all her life in Spain and to my surprise knew and recognised all the wives of Henry 8 - all their portraits in one of the chambers. She is already quad-lingual (English, Spanish, Catalan and French) and it led me to wonder how many of UK pupils ever know as much about Spanish history or ever attain those linguistic skills. (She goes to a normal state school and not a private or international school).
I have heard many delusional blowhards in my day but you take the biscuit.
And you are just a sad, lonely and nasty old man
Ha Ha Ha , go blow to someone else you eejit. What would you know about me you dunderheid.
To be fair to ISIS ....... why??? ........ anyway this atrocity is comparable with the destruction of pre-Reformation church art in the 16th Century. I was once told that it had been estimated that 97% of English (and Welsh and Scottish) mediaeval (and possible pre-mediaeval) religious art was sacrificied to religious fanaticism during that period.
Yes, but was it said "convert or be killed?"
IIRC, wasn't the situation in the UK one of cuius regio, eius religio.
Under Edward VI, being a protestant, and going to protestant services was compulsory. I don't know what the punishment for failure was (and I'm sure enforcement varied locally), but it was certainly not possible to be a visible Catholic subject of Edward VI.
Why anyone would want to be fair to ISIS fairly curls my brain. As for poor old, half mad Edward VI (sometimes completely mad), we no longer live in the 15th century with its inquisitions and religious death cults.
Why anyone would want to be fair to ISIS fairly curls my brain. As for poor old, half mad Edward VI (sometimes completely mad), we no longer live in the 15th century with its inquisitions and religious death cults.
Why anyone would want to be fair to ISIS fairly curls my brain. As for poor old, half mad Edward VI (sometimes completely mad), we no longer live in the 15th century with its inquisitions and religious death cults.
Neither did Edward VI.
Plus I'm not sure how anyone can call Edward VI old.
Upgraded to First on my BA flight to Chicago today. Sorry to be boastful, but it's not happened before so I'm pretty excited. Sitting in the cabin now waiting to take off. It's a step up from Biz. I may drink too much!
First, all the best to David H - one of the "old guard" on here and I hope today is going well for all.
As for the article, I'm much less convinced. Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003 don't for me resonate as did Serbia in 1914. The move on Iraq wasn't really related to the events of September 2001 but the apparent success of the move on Afghanistan (as it seemed in 2003) seemed to validate the reasoning of those who saw the interventionist policy as being inherently successful.
In 1914, the absence of significant conflict between the major powers on the Continent for two generations and a huge ignorance as to the military consequences of technological innovation made the concept of war far less frightening than it has for us since 1945 seeing as for many of us European war would lead inexorably to nuclear exchange.
Leaders with a Victorian mind set couldn't visualise or understand industrial warfare. Perhaps they envisaged a European war as a re-run of the wars of the 1850s and 1860s with cavalry charges and set-piece battles. Concepts of "glory" and "honour" augmented by a campaign of aggressive jingoism encouraged tens of thousands of young men to willingly sign up.
The horrific casualty numbers are not as much those of the Somme or Ypres (bad though they are) but the first frantic weeks as cavalry and infantry in open cover charged machine gun emplacements.
To be fair to ISIS ....... why??? ........ anyway this atrocity is comparable with the destruction of pre-Reformation church art in the 16th Century. I was once told that it had been estimated that 97% of English (and Welsh and Scottish) mediaeval (and possible pre-mediaeval) religious art was sacrificied to religious fanaticism during that period.
Yes, but was it said "convert or be killed?"
IIRC, wasn't the situation in the UK one of cuius regio, eius religio.
Under Edward VI, being a protestant, and going to protestant services was compulsory. I don't know what the punishment for failure was (and I'm sure enforcement varied locally), but it was certainly not possible to be a visible Catholic subject of Edward VI.
Why anyone would want to be fair to ISIS fairly curls my brain. As for poor old, half mad Edward VI (sometimes completely mad), we no longer live in the 15th century with its inquisitions and religious death cults.
@perdix said that we'd (as in Christendom) had never been as barbaric as ISIS is. I do not seek to defend ISIS, only to point out that both Protestant and Catholic Churches - in the dim and distant past - also had poor records of tolerance.
Whilst London had a wet afternoon yesterday, took the opportunity to take my 7 year-old granddaughter around the Houses of Parliament.
Whilst of British parents, she was born and lived all her life in Spain and to my surprise knew and recognised all the wives of Henry 8 - all their portraits in one of the chambers. She is already quad-lingual (English, Spanish, Catalan and French) and it led me to wonder how many of UK pupils ever know as much about Spanish history or ever attain those linguistic skills. (She goes to a normal state school and not a private or international school).
Your granddaughter clearly has exceptional parents and teachers. She is also self-evidently exceptionally bright.
Given what we know of 25% of her genes it’s not altogether surprising she’s bright! And I agree about the paucity of information about Europe in English (anyway) schools. For my part, until my late 60’s all I knew about Spain was that a) Columbus had sailed from there b) they’d tried to invade us when Eliz 1st was queen and been defeated by Drake (or something like that) and c) that in the 30’s they’d put into power a nasty friend for Hitler’s, who’d fortunately stayed neutral during the war. I’m not sure how much more my children know even now, although one is a regular visitor there as part of his employment.
What more information about Spain could you have wanted to know? Seems to me you got the essential detail, unless you were in a very specialised job you knew everything that an Englishman needs to know about the history of Spain (and probably a great deal more than the overwhelming majority of school leavers today).
Do Spanish infants' schools teach the history of Tudor England? I doubt it. Far more likely that a bright child has had her imagination fired and like any child in that situation absorbs knowledge like a sponge absorbs water. Full credit to the parents but probably not to the Spanish school system.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Henry and his wives were taught in Spain: don't forget that Henry's first (and according to the Spanish) only wife was Catherine of Aragon, and Mary was married to Philip II.
So it's a pretty key episode in their national history - not to take away from the achievement of the 8 year old, of course
To be fair to ISIS ....... why??? ........ anyway this atrocity is comparable with the destruction of pre-Reformation church art in the 16th Century. I was once told that it had been estimated that 97% of English (and Welsh and Scottish) mediaeval (and possible pre-mediaeval) religious art was sacrificied to religious fanaticism during that period.
Yes, but was it said "convert or be killed?"
IIRC, wasn't the situation in the UK one of cuius regio, eius religio.
Under Edward VI, being a protestant, and going to protestant services was compulsory. I don't know what the punishment for failure was (and I'm sure enforcement varied locally), but it was certainly not possible to be a visible Catholic subject of Edward VI.
That's why English Catholics who remained true to their faith during the Reformation are known as recusants; because they recused themselves from Anglican services.
To be fair to ISIS ....... why??? ........ anyway this atrocity is comparable with the destruction of pre-Reformation church art in the 16th Century. I was once told that it had been estimated that 97% of English (and Welsh and Scottish) mediaeval (and possible pre-mediaeval) religious art was sacrificied to religious fanaticism during that period.
Yes, but was it said "convert or be killed?"
IIRC, wasn't the situation in the UK one of cuius regio, eius religio.
Under Edward VI, being a protestant, and going to protestant services was compulsory. I don't know what the punishment for failure was (and I'm sure enforcement varied locally), but it was certainly not possible to be a visible Catholic subject of Edward VI.
That's why English Catholic who remained true to their faith during the Reformation are known as recusants, because they recused themselves from Anglican services.
I thought recusants were those who foreswore Catholicism and went to Anglican services but then secretly continued to profess the Catholic faith: ie they broke their pledge twice - hence why the punishment was so severe
To be fair to ISIS ....... why??? ........ anyway this atrocity is comparable with the destruction of pre-Reformation church art in the 16th Century. I was once told that it had been estimated that 97% of English (and Welsh and Scottish) mediaeval (and possible pre-mediaeval) religious art was sacrificied to religious fanaticism during that period.
Yes, but was it said "convert or be killed?"
IIRC, wasn't the situation in the UK one of cuius regio, eius religio.
Under Edward VI, being a protestant, and going to protestant services was compulsory. I don't know what the punishment for failure was (and I'm sure enforcement varied locally), but it was certainly not possible to be a visible Catholic subject of Edward VI.
Why anyone would want to be fair to ISIS fairly curls my brain. As for poor old, half mad Edward VI (sometimes completely mad), we no longer live in the 15th century with its inquisitions and religious death cults.
@perdix said that we'd (as in Christendom) had never been as barbaric as ISIS is. I do not seek to defend ISIS, only to point out that both Protestant and Catholic Churches - in the dim and distant past - also had poor records of tolerance.
I have not heard of ISIS doing anything remotely as unpleasant as burning at the stake, or boiling in oil or lead - both Christian standbys for centuries.
To be fair to ISIS ....... why??? ........ anyway this atrocity is comparable with the destruction of pre-Reformation church art in the 16th Century. I was once told that it had been estimated that 97% of English (and Welsh and Scottish) mediaeval (and possible pre-mediaeval) religious art was sacrificied to religious fanaticism during that period.
Yes, but was it said "convert or be killed?"
IIRC, wasn't the situation in the UK one of cuius regio, eius religio.
Under Edward VI, being a protestant, and going to protestant services was compulsory. I don't know what the punishment for failure was (and I'm sure enforcement varied locally), but it was certainly not possible to be a visible Catholic subject of Edward VI.
That's why English Catholic who remained true to their faith during the Reformation are known as recusants, because they recused themselves from Anglican services.
I thought recusants were those who foreswore Catholicism and went to Anglican services but then secretly continued to profess the Catholic faith: ie they broke their pledge twice - hence why the punishment was so severe
Interesting article on Blair including the first ppe with him as leader
He certainly changed the face of the country, and he took millions of people out of poorly paid jobs into well paid careers... Just that they weren't British people...
To be fair to ISIS ....... why??? ........ anyway this atrocity is comparable with the destruction of pre-Reformation church art in the 16th Century. I was once told that it had been estimated that 97% of English (and Welsh and Scottish) mediaeval (and possible pre-mediaeval) religious art was sacrificied to religious fanaticism during that period.
Yes, but was it said "convert or be killed?"
IIRC, wasn't the situation in the UK one of cuius regio, eius religio.
Under Edward VI, being a protestant, and going to protestant services was compulsory. I don't know what the punishment for failure was (and I'm sure enforcement varied locally), but it was certainly not possible to be a visible Catholic subject of Edward VI.
Why anyone would want to be fair to ISIS fairly curls my brain. As for poor old, half mad Edward VI (sometimes completely mad), we no longer live in the 15th century with its inquisitions and religious death cults.
@perdix said that we'd (as in Christendom) had never been as barbaric as ISIS is. I do not seek to defend ISIS, only to point out that both Protestant and Catholic Churches - in the dim and distant past - also had poor records of tolerance.
I have not heard of ISIS doing anything remotely as unpleasant as burning at the stake, or boiling in oil or lead - both Christian standbys for centuries.
But more importantly, Christian brutality (whether Catholic or Protestant) is history, ISIS Boko Haram, Taliban and fellow travellers is a very contemporary phenomenon.
The horrific casualty numbers are not as much those of the Somme or Ypres (bad though they are) but the first frantic weeks as cavalry and infantry in open cover charged machine gun emplacements.
This is something that I find very hard to comprehend. All the combatants had machine-guns and modern long-range rifles: they knew what these weapons did and how they worked, and yet they persisted in completely suicidal infantry advances, led by cavalry. In the case of the French, cavalry officers were still dressed in bright red uniforms with big plumes on the helmets, just to make absolutely certain that even the most short-sighted machine-gun operator or sniper couldn't fail to see them.
They also didn't adapt their infantry tactics, still advancing in line and making periodic dashes forward, which in Napoleonic times made sense because the enemy needed time to reload. It didn't make any sense against a machine gun.
You could understand if these were new weapons they'd never encountered before, but they had them themselves. I find this quite baffling.
The horrific casualty numbers are not as much those of the Somme or Ypres (bad though they are) but the first frantic weeks as cavalry and infantry in open cover charged machine gun emplacements.
This is something that I find very hard to comprehend. All the combatants had machine-guns and modern long-range rifles: they knew what these weapons did and how they worked, and yet they persisted in completely suicidal infantry advances, led by cavalry. In the case of the French, cavalry officers were still dressed in bright red uniforms with big plumes on the helmets, just to make absolutely certain that even the most short-sighted machine-gun operator or sniper couldn't fail to see them.
They also didn't adapt their infantry tactics, still advancing in line and making periodic dashes forward, which in Napoleonic times made sense because the enemy needed time to reload. It didn't make any sense against a machine gun.
You could understand if these were new weapons they'd never encountered before, but they had them themselves. I find this quite baffling.
Without wanting to upset Michael Gove, to quote Blackadder
"[The First World War] which would have been a damn sight simpler if we'd just stayed in England and shot 50,000 of our men a week!"
The horrific casualty numbers are not as much those of the Somme or Ypres (bad though they are) but the first frantic weeks as cavalry and infantry in open cover charged machine gun emplacements.
This is something that I find very hard to comprehend. All the combatants had machine-guns and modern long-range rifles: they knew what these weapons did and how they worked, and yet they persisted in completely suicidal infantry advances, led by cavalry. In the case of the French, cavalry officers were still dressed in bright red uniforms with big plumes on the helmets, just to make absolutely certain that even the most short-sighted machine-gun operator or sniper couldn't fail to see them.
They also didn't adapt their infantry tactics, still advancing in line and making periodic dashes forward, which in Napoleonic times made sense because the enemy needed time to reload. It didn't make any sense against a machine gun.
You could understand if these were new weapons they'd never encountered before, but they had them themselves. I find this quite baffling.
It is indeed astonishing. The British forces had adapted after the Boer war, and the Russians also after their 1905 war, but the other powers kept the cult of the bayonet and cavalry charge for too long. All believed in a decisive short war...
In 1918 the Battles of the 100 days also had higher casualty rates than trench warfare, being fought in the open.
Upgraded to First on my BA flight to Chicago today. Sorry to be boastful, but it's not happened before so I'm pretty excited. Sitting in the cabin now waiting to take off. It's a step up from Biz. I may drink too much!
@Richard_Nabavi The Germans had invested heavily in the "Maxim" gun, and worked out ways of using it strategically in mass warfare. The British who had been fighting "colonial wars" had a very small fraction of them, seeing them more as an optional accessory. The prevailing mentality of the British (and possibly the French) was an infantry advance to break the lines, followed by a glorious and noble cavalry charge. In short, they were not remotely thinking in terms of the machine gun and trench warfare.
Nice Kafkaesque charge: you complain of being treated unfairly, it turns out you had a point, but then you get investigated for "criticism of party processes".
The horrific casualty numbers are not as much those of the Somme or Ypres (bad though they are) but the first frantic weeks as cavalry and infantry in open cover charged machine gun emplacements.
This is something that I find very hard to comprehend. All the combatants had machine-guns and modern long-range rifles: they knew what these weapons did and how they worked, and yet they persisted in completely suicidal infantry advances, led by cavalry. In the case of the French, cavalry officers were still dressed in bright red uniforms with big plumes on the helmets, just to make absolutely certain that even the most short-sighted machine-gun operator or sniper couldn't fail to see them.
They also didn't adapt their infantry tactics, still advancing in line and making periodic dashes forward, which in Napoleonic times made sense because the enemy needed time to reload. It didn't make any sense against a machine gun.
You could understand if these were new weapons they'd never encountered before, but they had them themselves. I find this quite baffling.
It's easy to forget none of them had fought a war on European soil since the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian War two generations earlier.
And yet the lessons were there to be learned from the Balkan Wars where the machine gun was widely used against infantry but for whatever reasons the German, French and British military leaders couldn't or wouldn't realise what these were.
The evolution to trench warfare reduced casualty rates substantially but also prevented the belligerents running out of munitions and manpower too quickly.
To be fair to ISIS ....... why??? ........ anyway this atrocity is comparable with the destruction of pre-Reformation church art in the 16th Century. I was once told that it had been estimated that 97% of English (and Welsh and Scottish) mediaeval (and possible pre-mediaeval) religious art was sacrificied to religious fanaticism during that period.
Yes, but was it said "convert or be killed?"
IIRC, wasn't the situation in the UK one of cuius regio, eius religio.
Under Edward VI, being a protestant, and going to protestant services was compulsory. I don't know what the punishment for failure was (and I'm sure enforcement varied locally), but it was certainly not possible to be a visible Catholic subject of Edward VI.
Why anyone would want to be fair to ISIS fairly curls my brain. As for poor old, half mad Edward VI (sometimes completely mad), we no longer live in the 15th century with its inquisitions and religious death cults.
@perdix said that we'd (as in Christendom) had never been as barbaric as ISIS is. I do not seek to defend ISIS, only to point out that both Protestant and Catholic Churches - in the dim and distant past - also had poor records of tolerance.
I have not heard of ISIS doing anything remotely as unpleasant as burning at the stake, or boiling in oil or lead - both Christian standbys for centuries.
But more importantly, Christian brutality (whether Catholic or Protestant) is history, ISIS Boko Haram, Taliban and fellow travellers is a very contemporary phenomenon.
As the one who unleashed this particular hare (I think) I did ask in my orginal post about the strangeness of being “fair” to ISIS. However I am continually struck by the fact that these fanatical puritanical sects have arisen some 1500 years after the Flight from Mecca, a period similar to that when the worst excesses of sectarian Christianity developed, apart possibly from the treatment of the Cathars.
The horrific casualty numbers are not as much those of the Somme or Ypres (bad though they are) but the first frantic weeks as cavalry and infantry in open cover charged machine gun emplacements.
This is something that I find very hard to comprehend. All the combatants had machine-guns and modern long-range rifles: they knew what these weapons did and how they worked, and yet they persisted in completely suicidal infantry advances, led by cavalry. In the case of the French, cavalry officers were still dressed in bright red uniforms with big plumes on the helmets, just to make absolutely certain that even the most short-sighted machine-gun operator or sniper couldn't fail to see them.
They also didn't adapt their infantry tactics, still advancing in line and making periodic dashes forward, which in Napoleonic times made sense because the enemy needed time to reload. It didn't make any sense against a machine gun.
You could understand if these were new weapons they'd never encountered before, but they had them themselves. I find this quite baffling.
It is indeed astonishing. The British forces had adapted after the Boer war, and the Russians also after their 1905 war, but the other powers kept the cult of the bayonet and cavalry charge for too long. All believed in a decisive short war...
In 1918 the Battles of the 100 days also had higher casualty rates than trench warfare, being fought in the open.
Dr. Sox, the Normandy campaign (not just D-Day) in 1944 was as bad for the British infantry and armour as anything seen in WW1 yet one never sees any comments like that posted by Mr. Nabavi below in relation to it.
For a period of about two years the casualty rate of front-line British troops in Afghanistan was 24%. Every time those squaddies went out on patrol they knew they had about a one in four chance of not coming back in the same state as they went out. Nobody writes fatuous remarks about it would have been easier to stay at home and shoot n squaddies a week.
Seventy-five percent of the British and Dominion soldiers involved in the 1916 campaign on the Somme came through without a scratch.
@Richard_Nabavi The Germans had invested heavily in the "Maxim" gun, and worked out ways of using it strategically in mass warfare. The British who had been fighting "colonial wars" had a very small fraction of them, seeing them more as an optional accessory. The prevailing mentality of the British (and possibly the French) was an infantry advance to break the lines, followed by a glorious and noble cavalry charge. In short, they were not remotely thinking in terms of the machine gun and trench warfare.
Possibly true of French and Austrians, but not of the British who used cavalry mostly as rapidly deployable mounted infantry. The battle of Langemarck in first Ypres demonstrated that the Germans could be as foolish in charging entrenchments manned by the skilled marksmen as any other nation.
Not that entrenchments and fortifications worked well either. The Austrians lost 700 000 casualties and destroyed their army in the battles around Prezemsyl. That winter battle was a strange precursor to Stalingrad in how wars of movement could be fought.
@stodge The Germans certainly had taken note, look at the numbers they had compared to the British and French?
Yeah, the Germans understood this new warfare so well that the "Massacre of the Innocents" at Ypres didn't happen. FFS, Comrade, do try and post from a position of knowledge rather than prejudice.
The horrific casualty numbers are not as much those of the Somme or Ypres (bad though they are) but the first frantic weeks as cavalry and infantry in open cover charged machine gun emplacements.
This is something that I find very hard to comprehend. All the combatants had machine-guns and modern long-range rifles: they knew what these weapons did and how they worked, and yet they persisted in completely suicidal infantry advances, led by cavalry. In the case of the French, cavalry officers were still dressed in bright red uniforms with big plumes on the helmets, just to make absolutely certain that even the most short-sighted machine-gun operator or sniper couldn't fail to see them.
They also didn't adapt their infantry tactics, still advancing in line and making periodic dashes forward, which in Napoleonic times made sense because the enemy needed time to reload. It didn't make any sense against a machine gun.
You could understand if these were new weapons they'd never encountered before, but they had them themselves. I find this quite baffling.
Very briefly as im on holiday I think thats a common misconception about WW1. I recommend the excellent "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" by Gordon Corrigan. He makes the following points (and im not doing justice as dont have the copy to hand).
1. Walking in a line v 'fire and movement'. The volunteer armies of 1916 were not at that time (he argues convincingly) able to be trained in the complexities of fire and movement. So in 1916 they did attack in line. By the end of the battle of the somme the British Army had learnt, and practised fire and movement.
2. If you compare casualty rates per battalion per time at the front there is little or no difference in those rates between the Western Front in WW1 and the Normandy Campaign. And indeed in the Normandy campaign the British Army was hardly facing the cream of the German Army. In WW1 it was and repeatedly and decisively bested them.
3. The British Army adapted and learnt far more than its opponents so that in 1918 the only army in the field capable of victory was the British. Indeed WW1 was won by and large by the British Army (with particular mention to the Australian Corps and the Canadian Corps)
@stodge The Germans certainly had taken note, look at the numbers they had compared to the British and French?
Yeah, the Germans understood this new warfare so well that the "Massacre of the Innocents" at Ypres didn't happen. FFS, Comrade, do try and post from a position of knowledge rather than prejudice.
What with the earlier Belgrano comment, I really do wonder about the quality of history teachers in this country.
@foxinsoxuk The British had mounted infantry units, the same as most other armies, but the military thinking of the time was to create a hole in the lines, then use mounted cavalry to rush through and exploit the breakthrough with speed and mobility. Neil Oliver made a documentary on the effect the maxims had on a volunteer company from one town in Skye. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03z2d1g Unfortunately the page is the stub without the video as it has expired.
"Economic sanctions are to modern statecraft what mounted lancers were to war in the trenches: magnificent but useless. Their continued deployment defies study after study showing them as cosmetic, cruel or counterproductive. Yet how many times has Cameron emerged from his Cobra bunker to threaten “tighter economic sanctions” against some rogue regime, to absolutely no effect? The rhetoric is always the same, to “send a message”, show resolve, impose a price, not to let “wrongdoing go unpunished”. It is as if Britain were some superannuated school prefect"
The horrific casualty numbers are not as much those of the Somme or Ypres (bad though they are) but the first frantic weeks as cavalry and infantry in open cover charged machine gun emplacements.
This is something that I find very hard to comprehend. All the combatants had machine-guns and modern long-range rifles: they knew what these weapons did and how they worked, and yet they persisted in completely suicidal infantry advances, led by cavalry. In the case of the French, cavalry officers were still dressed in bright red uniforms with big plumes on the helmets, just to make absolutely certain that even the most short-sighted machine-gun operator or sniper couldn't fail to see them.
They also didn't adapt their infantry tactics, still advancing in line and making periodic dashes forward, which in Napoleonic times made sense because the enemy needed time to reload. It didn't make any sense against a machine gun.
You could understand if these were new weapons they'd never encountered before, but they had them themselves. I find this quite baffling.
Very briefly as im on holiday I think thats a common misconception about WW1. I recommend the excellent "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" by Gordon Corrigan. He makes the following points (and im not doing justice as dont have the copy to hand).
1. Walking in a line v 'fire and movement'. The volunteer armies of 1916 were not at that time (he argues convincingly) able to be trained in the complexities of fire and movement. So in 1916 they did attack in line. By the end of the battle of the somme the British Army had learnt, and practised fire and movement.
2. If you compare casualty rates per battalion per time at the front there is little or no difference in those rates between the Western Front in WW1 and the Normandy Campaign. And indeed in the Normandy campaign the British Army was hardly facing the cream of the German Army. In WW1 it was and repeatedly and decisively bested them.
3. The British Army adapted and learnt far more than its opponents so that in 1918 the only army in the field capable of victory was the British. Indeed WW1 was won by and large by the British Army (with particular mention to the Australian Corps and the Canadian Corps)
I agree, and along with Gary Sheffield Corrigan makes a very strong case for British Imperial forces.
The strategic and tactical mistakes of the Germans and Austro Hungarians are well described in Holger Herwigs excellent tome, a little light holiday reading for myself!
@HurstLlama Take the facts up with Neil Oliver, and the historical documents he referred to. Or look at those facts yourselves instead of your usual mumblings.
IIRC one important effect of the battles of 1916 was the ending of the “Pals” battalions. The losses among some of those were so high that it became difficult for the authorities to recruit younger brothers in areas where casualties had been severe. Consequently men might well be assigned to regiments with no connection to their homes. One of my uncles, a Hertfordshire man, was killed while serving with the Kings Own Yorkshire LI, having been transerred to it from the Hertfordshire Yeomany for, apparently, precisely that reason.
Very briefly as im on holiday I think thats a common misconception about WW1. I recommend the excellent "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" by Gordon Corrigan. He makes the following points (and im not doing justice as dont have the copy to hand).
1. Walking in a line v 'fire and movement'. The volunteer armies of 1916 were not at that time (he argues convincingly) able to be trained in the complexities of fire and movement. So in 1916 they did attack in line. By the end of the battle of the somme the British Army had learnt, and practised fire and movement.
2. If you compare casualty rates per battalion per time at the front there is little or no difference in those rates between the Western Front in WW1 and the Normandy Campaign. And indeed in the Normandy campaign the British Army was hardly facing the cream of the German Army. In WW1 it was and repeatedly and decisively bested them.
3. The British Army adapted and learnt far more than its opponents so that in 1918 the only army in the field capable of victory was the British. Indeed WW1 was won by and large by the British Army (with particular mention to the Australian Corps and the Canadian Corps)
Good post, Mr. Child. One small point the tactics on 1st July 1916 varied considerably. It was not a uniform get out of the trench and walk forward. Where that did happen it was not just because of the lack of time to train Kitchener's army units, Generals simply believed that the biggest artillery barrage in history would do what had been claimed for it. Who at the time could say they were wrong? The "scientific consensus" was that the German lines under bombardment would be destroyed.
Anyway, in some places (notably in the South of the attack sector) a more sophisticated attack method was used with considerable success. Then the real problem hit - communication. To reslove that would take another few decades.
@HurstLlama Take the facts up with Neil Oliver, and the historical documents he referred to. Or look at those facts yourselves instead of your usual mumblings.
When I said the "Massacre of the Innocents" you didn't have a clue what I was talking about, did you?
IIRC one important effect of the battles of 1916 was the ending of the “Pals” battalions. The losses among some of those were so high that it became difficult for the authorities to recruit younger brothers in areas where casualties had been severe. Consequently men might well be assigned to regiments with no connection to their homes. One of my uncles, a Hertfordshire man, was transerred to, and killed while serving with, the Kings Own Yorkshire LI, having been transerred to it from the Hertfordshire Yeomany for apparently, precisely that reason.
The 'pals' battalions were a creation of Kitcheners' New Armies - recruited in 1914/15 and who first saw mass action in 1916. One of the recruiting slogans was "join up and fight with your friends". These were 'new' formations.
From 1916 replacements for the British army were conscripts and thus "pals" battalions were not recruited since new soldiers were sent as replacements for existing formations.
I think we'll get just the YouGov, might have to wait until 6am though.
Party pooper!
Seems sometime since we had an ICM wisdom thingy with the Sunday Telegraph?
I think The Sunday Telegraph have dropped ICM as their pollster.
Monday should be a good day for us polling junkies
Not only do we get the Ashcroft phone poll, the YouGov and Populus online polls, we should also get the ComRes phone poll and the ComRes marginals polls.
I think we'll get just the YouGov, might have to wait until 6am though.
Party pooper!
Seems sometime since we had an ICM wisdom thingy with the Sunday Telegraph?
I think The Sunday Telegraph have dropped ICM as their pollster.
Monday should be a good day for us polling junkies
Not only do we get the Ashcroft phone poll, the YouGov and Populus online polls, we should also get the ComRes phone poll and the ComRes marginals polls.
1. Somebody should the ST that ICM is the gold standard and we want them reinstated NOW!
2. The last Monday of the month is indeed #MegaPollingMonday
@HurstLlama No Mister Llama, I have only the vaguest notions of WW1,and very little after my grandfather was invalided out of the lines having been gassed for the third time. Tell me great stories of the glory of war and empire.
Very briefly as im on holiday I think thats a common misconception about WW1. I recommend the excellent "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" by Gordon Corrigan. He makes the following points (and im not doing justice as dont have the copy to hand).
1. Walking in a line v 'fire and movement'. The volunteer armies of 1916 were not at that time (he argues convincingly) able to be trained in the complexities of fire and movement. So in 1916 they did attack in line. By the end of the battle of the somme the British Army had learnt, and practised fire and movement.
2. If you compare casualty rates per battalion per time at the front there is little or no difference in those rates between the Western Front in WW1 and the Normandy Campaign. And indeed in the Normandy campaign the British Army was hardly facing the cream of the German Army. In WW1 it was and repeatedly and decisively bested them.
3. The British Army adapted and learnt far more than its opponents so that in 1918 the only army in the field capable of victory was the British. Indeed WW1 was won by and large by the British Army (with particular mention to the Australian Corps and the Canadian Corps)
Good post, Mr. Child. One small point the tactics on 1st July 1916 varied considerably. It was not a uniform get out of the trench and walk forward. Where that did happen it was not just because of the lack of time to train Kitchener's army units, Generals simply believed that the biggest artillery barrage in history would do what had been claimed for it. Who at the time could say they were wrong? The "scientific consensus" was that the German lines under bombardment would be destroyed.
Anyway, in some places (notably in the South of the attack sector) a more sophisticated attack method was used with considerable success. Then the real problem hit - communication. To reslove that would take another few decades.
You make a good point about the variation in tactics that is perhaps worth reflecting on. In contrast to the stereotype of the inflexible British General in fact in the British Army of WW1 Battalion commanders had a wide degree of latitude in their tactics. Impressively the British Army then learned from differing approaches and reflected those lessons the next time it saw action. - An example here is the "Russian Sap" a trench leading into 'no-mans land' to act as a staging post prior to attacking the German first line. Some Battalion commanders used this, others did not. After read AAR (After Action Reports) it became clear that when "Russian saps" has been used success had been greater than in sections where they had not. Next time they would be used across all formation. The British Army of WW1 was not the inflexible monolith of Blackadder. It was a flexible, innovative and by 1918 the most successful army in the field.
IIRC one important effect of the battles of 1916 was the ending of the “Pals” battalions. The losses among some of those were so high that it became difficult for the authorities to recruit younger brothers in areas where casualties had been severe. Consequently men might well be assigned to regiments with no connection to their homes. One of my uncles, a Hertfordshire man, was transerred to, and killed while serving with, the Kings Own Yorkshire LI, having been transerred to it from the Hertfordshire Yeomany for apparently, precisely that reason.
The 'pals' battalions were a creation of Kitcheners' New Armies - recruited in 1914/15 and who first saw mass action in 1916. One of the recruiting slogans was "join up and fight with your friends". These were 'new' formations.
From 1916 replacements for the British army were conscripts and thus "pals" battalions were not recruited since new soldiers were sent as replacements for existing formations.
Yes, should have said 1915. There was certainly considerable opposition in badly hit areas to recruiting drives prior to consciption.
IIRC one important effect of the battles of 1916 was the ending of the “Pals” battalions. The losses among some of those were so high that it became difficult for the authorities to recruit younger brothers in areas where casualties had been severe. Consequently men might well be assigned to regiments with no connection to their homes. One of my uncles, a Hertfordshire man, was transerred to, and killed while serving with, the Kings Own Yorkshire LI, having been transerred to it from the Hertfordshire Yeomany for apparently, precisely that reason.
The 'pals' battalions were a creation of Kitcheners' New Armies - recruited in 1914/15 and who first saw mass action in 1916. One of the recruiting slogans was "join up and fight with your friends". These were 'new' formations.
From 1916 replacements for the British army were conscripts and thus "pals" battalions were not recruited since new soldiers were sent as replacements for existing formations.
Quite, and in WWII when casualties were sometimes on the same scale in terms of numbers killed or wounded they never appeared to those at home so awful as they were geographically spread. In 1916 the loss of half a company could destroy a community in 1944 the same loss would be spread around an entire region. Same number of casualties different effect, an effect that reaches down through a hundred years to us.
IIRC one important effect of the battles of 1916 was the ending of the “Pals” battalions. The losses among some of those were so high that it became difficult for the authorities to recruit younger brothers in areas where casualties had been severe. Consequently men might well be assigned to regiments with no connection to their homes. One of my uncles, a Hertfordshire man, was transerred to, and killed while serving with, the Kings Own Yorkshire LI, having been transerred to it from the Hertfordshire Yeomany for apparently, precisely that reason.
The 'pals' battalions were a creation of Kitcheners' New Armies - recruited in 1914/15 and who first saw mass action in 1916. One of the recruiting slogans was "join up and fight with your friends". These were 'new' formations.
From 1916 replacements for the British army were conscripts and thus "pals" battalions were not recruited since new soldiers were sent as replacements for existing formations.
Quite, and in WWII when casualties were sometimes on the same scale in terms of numbers killed or wounded they never appeared to those at home so awful as they were geographically spread. In 1916 the loss of half a company could destroy a community in 1944 the same loss would be spread around an entire region. Same number of casualties different effect, an effect that reaches down through a hundred years to us.
Had we recruited Bomber Comand from (say) Cheshire there would have been an outcry! Analysis of the Scottish Mental Survey of 1932 shows that a considerable number of men in the higher ability cohorts were lost in WWII. Similar to the losses of well educated subalterns in 1914+
Congratulations David. I was photographing a friends 25th wedding anniversary vow renewal service today and look forward to reading of yours in that many years time!
Yossarians Child said - ' The British Army of WW1 was not the inflexible monolith of Blackadder. It was a flexible, innovative and by 1918 the most successful army in the field. '
Correct - its something that needs saying more often. Indeed within 14 days of that horrible '1st day of the Somme' successful attacks were being made with better co-ordination of artillery. The problem was in WW1 there was no way to pursue an attack without incurring significant casualties. And defence was not easy either!
@Flightpath And by the start of the Second world war, guess what, same thing, another learning curve, and millions of souls thinking this last thought. "Why?"
Comments
For a start which secret police organisation was Al Quada working with?
And have you ever heard of the UN? Where was the international objection to the invasion of Afghanistan and removal of the host Taliban? And in later times where was the international objections to the killing of Bin Ladin?
Serbia agreed to Austrian demands in 1914 but egged on by Germany they still started the war.
The invasion of Iraq - or rather its aftermath - may have been handled badly but I for one think the removal of Saddam was a good thing. We saw Gadaffi give up his nuclear weapons programme. I agree that again the aftermath of that and cosying up to Gadaffi was badly handled. But even despite all the severe problems some places face now - the middle east is free to evolve towards democracy and if the international community were doing its job properly then the misery we see would be curtailed.
Do Spanish infants' schools teach the history of Tudor England? I doubt it. Far more likely that a bright child has had her imagination fired and like any child in that situation absorbs knowledge like a sponge absorbs water. Full credit to the parents but probably not to the Spanish school system.
I bet they couldn't believe it when she got off and wasn't sent to prison, LOL!
The simple way to understand todays international relations and this thread is by playing "War on Terror the Boardgame" though I dont know if its still illegal in Britain.
http://www.waronterrortheboardgame.com/
"Everyone starts with the best intentions. Then things start to get cramped. Then you notice your neighbour has more oil than you. Before long, war is waged, nukes are dropped, revolutions are fought and terrorists are doing your dirty work, before turning on you..."
That happens when you make it a symbol of struggle for something.
Democracy and immigration, the more muslim voters the greater their power.
Well, if they do wish to fly the flag of a country other than the UK, they should continue to fly the Union Flag and fly the flag of palestine in a subsidiary position. That would be the usual protocol.
http://the-toast.net/2013/11/12/wodehouse-you-dog/
Alas the author left out Wodehouse on cats, a subject on which he was very sound.
Edited extra bit: and the online radiofeed seems to have gone down...
Several years ago the good lady bought me the entire set for Christmas but despite re-reading most of them, I must admit to never making the connection, so ta very much - and after today’s nuptials, I guess Mr Herdson, will also be relinquishing his membership…?
As for the First World War Austria, backed by Germany, sought and got its war against the Slav untermenschen. The simple truth is that the first shots of the Great War were not fired by Gavrilo Princip, but by the Austro-Hungarian artillery, which attacked Belgrade in the evening of July 28, 1914 after the issuance of a series of ridiculous ultimatumsthey knew the Serbs could never agree to. The assassination was simply an excuse used by the slowly collapsing multicultural, multiethnic Austrian blob to further occupy the peoples of South East Europe
Nicholas II himself told his cousin the Kaiser on July 29, 1914:
'An ignoble war has been declared to a weak country. The indignation in Russia shared fully by me is enormous. I foresee that very soon I shall be overwhelmed by the pressure forced upon me and be forced to take extreme measures which will lead to war. To try and avoid such a calamity as a European war I beg you in the name of our old friendship to do what you can to stop your allies from going too far.'
And today, almost hundred years since Austria-Hungary launched a war of extermination against "Serbian terrorists," the Western-backed junta in Kiev – championing a rabidly Russophobic identity invented by Austria-Hungary and Germany over a century ago – is waging a war of extermination against Russian-speaking "terrorists" refusing to submit to its rule. The Kremlin is now facing the same choice forced on Nicholas II, and much closer to home.
Anyone who thinks that Moscow will just sit back and watch, clearly hasn’t been paying attention.
Anyway, Mr. Herdson must resign his membership of the Drones today, but that need not be so dreadful. The Diogenes Club awaits, assuming he can find a couple of gentlemen to put him up for it.
Under Edward VI, being a protestant, and going to protestant services was compulsory. I don't know what the punishment for failure was (and I'm sure enforcement varied locally), but it was certainly not possible to be a visible Catholic subject of Edward VI.
This was required reading in the 17th Century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxe's_Book_of_Martyrs
After the Bible, the most widely read and owned book in England.
As for poor old, half mad Edward VI (sometimes completely mad), we no longer live in the 15th century with its inquisitions and religious death cults.
Eagle top and mukhadram
First, all the best to David H - one of the "old guard" on here and I hope today is going well for all.
As for the article, I'm much less convinced. Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003 don't for me resonate as did Serbia in 1914. The move on Iraq wasn't really related to the events of September 2001 but the apparent success of the move on Afghanistan (as it seemed in 2003) seemed to validate the reasoning of those who saw the interventionist policy as being inherently successful.
In 1914, the absence of significant conflict between the major powers on the Continent for two generations and a huge ignorance as to the military consequences of technological innovation made the concept of war far less frightening than it has for us since 1945 seeing as for many of us European war would lead inexorably to nuclear exchange.
Leaders with a Victorian mind set couldn't visualise or understand industrial warfare. Perhaps they envisaged a European war as a re-run of the wars of the 1850s and 1860s with cavalry charges and set-piece battles. Concepts of "glory" and "honour" augmented by a campaign of aggressive jingoism encouraged tens of thousands of young men to willingly sign up.
The horrific casualty numbers are not as much those of the Somme or Ypres (bad though they are) but the first frantic weeks as cavalry and infantry in open cover charged machine gun emplacements.
So it's a pretty key episode in their national history - not to take away from the achievement of the 8 year old, of course
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recusancy
He certainly changed the face of the country, and he took millions of people out of poorly paid jobs into well paid careers... Just that they weren't British people...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706366/From-symbol-hope-incarnation-sleaze-lies-greed-This-week-marks-20-years-Tony-Blair-Labour-leader-Now-Dominic-Sandbrook-asks-former-PM-sunk-low.html
What polls are we expecting?
#crossoversaturday
But more importantly, Christian brutality (whether Catholic or Protestant) is history, ISIS Boko Haram, Taliban and fellow travellers is a very contemporary phenomenon.
They also didn't adapt their infantry tactics, still advancing in line and making periodic dashes forward, which in Napoleonic times made sense because the enemy needed time to reload. It didn't make any sense against a machine gun.
You could understand if these were new weapons they'd never encountered before, but they had them themselves. I find this quite baffling.
"[The First World War] which would have been a damn sight simpler if we'd just stayed in England and shot 50,000 of our men a week!"
Lord Rennard gets Lib Dem apology for botched disciplinary process
Lib Dems drop investigation into whether his failure to apologise for sex harassment claims brought party into disrepute
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/25/lord-rennard-lib-dem-apology-disciplinary-process
In 1918 the Battles of the 100 days also had higher casualty rates than trench warfare, being fought in the open.
The Germans had invested heavily in the "Maxim" gun, and worked out ways of using it strategically in mass warfare.
The British who had been fighting "colonial wars" had a very small fraction of them, seeing them more as an optional accessory.
The prevailing mentality of the British (and possibly the French) was an infantry advance to break the lines, followed by a glorious and noble cavalry charge.
In short, they were not remotely thinking in terms of the machine gun and trench warfare.
Incidentally, Rod Crosby was right, wasn't he?
And yet the lessons were there to be learned from the Balkan Wars where the machine gun was widely used against infantry but for whatever reasons the German, French and British military leaders couldn't or wouldn't realise what these were.
The evolution to trench warfare reduced casualty rates substantially but also prevented the belligerents running out of munitions and manpower too quickly.
However I am continually struck by the fact that these fanatical puritanical sects have arisen some 1500 years after the Flight from Mecca, a period similar to that when the worst excesses of sectarian Christianity developed, apart possibly from the treatment of the Cathars.
For a period of about two years the casualty rate of front-line British troops in Afghanistan was 24%. Every time those squaddies went out on patrol they knew they had about a one in four chance of not coming back in the same state as they went out. Nobody writes fatuous remarks about it would have been easier to stay at home and shoot n squaddies a week.
Seventy-five percent of the British and Dominion soldiers involved in the 1916 campaign on the Somme came through without a scratch.
The Germans certainly had taken note, look at the numbers they had compared to the British and French?
Not that entrenchments and fortifications worked well either. The Austrians lost 700 000 casualties and destroyed their army in the battles around Prezemsyl. That winter battle was a strange precursor to Stalingrad in how wars of movement could be fought.
1. Walking in a line v 'fire and movement'. The volunteer armies of 1916 were not at that time (he argues convincingly) able to be trained in the complexities of fire and movement. So in 1916 they did attack in line. By the end of the battle of the somme the British Army had learnt, and practised fire and movement.
2. If you compare casualty rates per battalion per time at the front there is little or no difference in those rates between the Western Front in WW1 and the Normandy Campaign. And indeed in the Normandy campaign the British Army was hardly facing the cream of the German Army. In WW1 it was and repeatedly and decisively bested them.
3. The British Army adapted and learnt far more than its opponents so that in 1918 the only army in the field capable of victory was the British. Indeed WW1 was won by and large by the British Army (with particular mention to the Australian Corps and the Canadian Corps)
The British had mounted infantry units, the same as most other armies, but the military thinking of the time was to create a hole in the lines, then use mounted cavalry to rush through and exploit the breakthrough with speed and mobility.
Neil Oliver made a documentary on the effect the maxims had on a volunteer company from one town in Skye.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03z2d1g
Unfortunately the page is the stub without the video as it has expired.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/25/mock-putin-pride-paranoia-mh17-excuse-punish-russia
This part is very on recent topic @Richardnabavi!
"Economic sanctions are to modern statecraft what mounted lancers were to war in the trenches: magnificent but useless. Their continued deployment defies study after study showing them as cosmetic, cruel or counterproductive. Yet how many times has Cameron emerged from his Cobra bunker to threaten “tighter economic sanctions” against some rogue regime, to absolutely no effect? The rhetoric is always the same, to “send a message”, show resolve, impose a price, not to let “wrongdoing go unpunished”. It is as if Britain were some superannuated school prefect"
The strategic and tactical mistakes of the Germans and Austro Hungarians are well described in Holger Herwigs excellent tome, a little light holiday reading for myself!
Take the facts up with Neil Oliver, and the historical documents he referred to.
Or look at those facts yourselves instead of your usual mumblings.
Anyway, in some places (notably in the South of the attack sector) a more sophisticated attack method was used with considerable success. Then the real problem hit - communication. To reslove that would take another few decades.
Seems sometime since we had an ICM wisdom thingy with the Sunday Telegraph?
From 1916 replacements for the British army were conscripts and thus "pals" battalions were not recruited since new soldiers were sent as replacements for existing formations.
Monday should be a good day for us polling junkies
Not only do we get the Ashcroft phone poll, the YouGov and Populus online polls, we should also get the ComRes phone poll and the ComRes marginals polls.
2. The last Monday of the month is indeed #MegaPollingMonday
No Mister Llama, I have only the vaguest notions of WW1,and very little after my grandfather was invalided out of the lines having been gassed for the third time.
Tell me great stories of the glory of war and empire.
Correct - its something that needs saying more often. Indeed within 14 days of that horrible '1st day of the Somme' successful attacks were being made with better co-ordination of artillery.
The problem was in WW1 there was no way to pursue an attack without incurring significant casualties. And defence was not easy either!
And by the start of the Second world war, guess what, same thing, another learning curve, and millions of souls thinking this last thought. "Why?"