(Edit: it is of course Bernard Cribbins to put you all out of your misery...spooky, huh?)
I have to watch far too much of that program. Still, at least it's not Mike the Knight or the adventures of Igglepiggle and Makka Pakka In the Night Garden ...
(Edit: it is of course Bernard Cribbins to put you all out of your misery...spooky, huh?)
I have to watch far too much of that program. Still, at least it's not Mike the Knight or the adventures of Igglepiggle and Makka Pakka In the Night Garden ...
Especially in the light of Gen. Houghton's comments today, surely it won't be long before Bernard is recruited to play the role of his life, a la Uday.
ScottP .... Re war memorials.(at 2.49) Yes you usually see a great disproportion between losses. However some villages will have fewer WW1 names in proportion. This is because at the beginning of the WW1 certain groups joined up en mass from the same area into the same unit. Later we had conscription and recruits were distributed more evenly. In WW1 we were involved in a continental wide mass war for 4 solid years. We were only involved in continental warfare for about 1 year in WW2. During that time our ground losses were comparable.
...
Mr. Path, I don't think I have ever seen a local war memorial on which the number of people from WW2 was larger than the number from WW1. I suppose in theory one should exist but if there is one I should be interested to hear of it.
You second point is however well made. I shall get back on a hobbyhorse of mine and state that an infantryman in the Normandy campaign in 1944 was more likely to suffer death or wounds than an infantryman in the Somme campaign of 1916.
Possibly a comparison could be made with the RAF and particularly Bomber Command.
Bomber command's casualties were indeed shocking.
I think German U boat crews had a pretty astonishing casualty rate too.
Yes, it was virtually a commitment to suicide at one point to be in a U boat. Mr Llama makes a very valid point about the normady campaign and it can be carried forward to the whole of the NW Europe campaign. I may have misremembered the figures but our average rate of attrition on the western front was 100 dead a day. I believe the comparable figure for me Europe was 80. I do not stand by these half remembered figures but the general drift is fair. It was no cake walk liberating Europe, especially for those at the sharp end.
While not taking anything away from the sacrifice and effort of those who died anywhere, the horrible feature of the casualty rate on the WWI Western Front was that no-one, generally speaking, got anywhere. In WWII, once Caen was taken then progress was reasonably swift.
Not sure if already posted but potentially quite significant. Labour MPs Mike Gapes and Ronnie Campbell were interviewed together by Andrew Neil on Friday's Daily Politics re Labour MPs being at odds with Labour members. They both said they had seen huge increases in the number of members in their constituencies - one of them gave the number 600. They both said they had contacted all their new members more than once by email etc. Now, the interesting bit - they both said they had hardly heard anything at all back from their new members - they had both had no more than a handful of responses and only tiny numbers of them had turned up to any events / made themselves available for leafleting etc. They both seemed very perplexed by the situation - as if all these people have simply vanished into thin air.
Hmmm. Is this all it did require to become a £3 member? 1. A name on the voter register 2. Having their application completed online by someone such as a call centre run by Corbyn's supporters 3. An email sent back as a "vote" to the stated email address. 4. The vote completed online by the person controlling the email address.
I really want Jeremy Corbyn to go until May 2020. But I do not think that he can survive many more days like today. When it comes to the nuclear deterrent, who does he think the public will believe-the chief of our armed forces or old man Steptoe from Oil Drum Lane, Islington? If this was a boxing match the referee would step in to save him further punishment. Is there no-one in the Labour party who can throw the towel into the ring for him?
While not taking anything away from the sacrifice and effort of those who died anywhere, the horrible feature of the casualty rate on the WWI Western Front was that no-one, generally speaking, got anywhere.
"No further than an asthmatic ant with heavy shopping?"
Not sure if already posted but potentially quite significant. Labour MPs Mike Gapes and Ronnie Campbell were interviewed together by Andrew Neil on Friday's Daily Politics re Labour MPs being at odds with Labour members. They both said they had seen huge increases in the number of members in their constituencies - one of them gave the number 600. They both said they had contacted all their new members more than once by email etc. Now, the interesting bit - they both said they had hardly heard anything at all back from their new members - they had both had no more than a handful of responses and only tiny numbers of them had turned up to any events / made themselves available for leafleting etc. They both seemed very perplexed by the situation - as if all these people have simply vanished into thin air.
Hmmm. Is this all it did require to become a £3 member? 1. A name on the voter register 2. Having their application completed online by someone such as a call centre run by Corbyn's supporters 3. An email sent back as a "vote" to the stated email address. 4. The vote completed online by the person controlling the email address.
"It is a matter of serious concern that the chief of the defence staff has today intervened directly in issues of political dispute. It is essential in a democracy that the military remains political neutral at all times," Mr Corbyn said.
"By publicly taking sides in current political arguments, Sir Nicholas Houghton has clearly breached that constitutional principle. Accordingly, I am writing to the defence secretary to ask him to take action to ensure that the neutrality of the armed forces is upheld."
The General ought to have been more guarded in his comments, but it would be odd if the CDS didn't have a view on the implications of Corbyn's policies. But convention is convention, and that is to remain silent.
If a soldier was interviewed on TV and said he thought his commander's orders were wrong, he would be disciplined pdq.
On the other hand Corbyn's intent is to destroy the labour party as we know it and to use its hollowed out shell do destroy our country and all it has stood for for decades if not centuries and give succour to our enemies, the enemies of peace and democracy. Unlike some the CDS appears not to be a traitor.
Well said sir
It was about the most histrionic bundle of meaningless clichés posted here all week.
You should read some of your more.... interesting... contributions.
ScottP .... Re war memorials.(at 2.49) Yes you usually see a great disproportion between losses. However some villages will have fewer WW1 names in proportion. This is because at the beginning of the WW1 certain groups joined up en mass from the same area into the same unit. Later we had conscription and recruits were distributed more evenly. In WW1 we were involved in a continental wide mass war for 4 solid years. We were only involved in continental warfare for about 1 year in WW2. During that time our ground losses were comparable.
...
Mr. Path, I don't think I have ever seen a local war memorial on which the number of people from WW2 was larger than the number from WW1. I suppose in theory one should exist but if there is one I should be interested to hear of it.
You second point is however well made. I shall get back on a hobbyhorse of mine and state that an infantryman in the Normandy campaign in 1944 was more likely to suffer death or wounds than an infantryman in the Somme campaign of 1916.
Possibly a comparison could be made with the RAF and particularly Bomber Command.
Bomber command's casualties were indeed shocking.
I think German U boat crews had a pretty astonishing casualty rate too.
Yes, it was virtually a commitment to suicide at one point to be in a U boat. Mr Llama makes a very valid point about the normady campaign and it can be carried forward to the whole of the NW Europe campaign. I may have misremembered the figures but our average rate of attrition on the western front was 100 dead a day. I believe the comparable figure for me Europe was 80. I do not stand by these half remembered figures but the general drift is fair. It was no cake walk liberating Europe, especially for those at the sharp end.
While not taking anything away from the sacrifice and effort of those who died anywhere, the horrible feature of the casualty rate on the WWI Western Front was that no-one, generally speaking, got anywhere. In WWII, once Caen was taken then progress was reasonably swift.
This is a fair point. But what must be remembered is that there were no flanks, this was effectively a hundreds mile long siege. And both sides were broadly equal and it was difficult to gain advantages of numbers. And there was no mobile artillery. It was difficult enough in Normandy with total air superiority and large preponderance of tanks providing mobility and protection from machine gun fire, and enigma intelligence and good command and control. By the time the allies reached the Siegfried Line they were pretty exhausted and attrition had taken a heavy toll.
Just a comment apropos of nothing really except some of the discussions below.
I don't particularly like Corbyn. I probably couldn't think of a single policy of his that I agree with and certainly wouldn't vote or him. I think if he ever got near power it would be very bad for me personally and for the country as a whole.
But...
I honestly don't think he did anything wrong at all during the Remembrance Day ceremonies today. He looked dignified and sombre and played his part just as every other leader of the Opposition has before him. So I am kind of baffled by the attempts to find some way to criticise him for his appearance or his behaviour. It seems to me that those attempting to do so are guilty of the very thing they attack others for - playing politics with the Remembrance Day ceremonies.
I honestly don't think he did anything wrong at all during the Remembrance Day ceremonies today. He looked dignified and sombre and played his part just as every other leader of the Opposition has before him.
True. All of that what fine.
His only potential misstep was to engage with the comments of the General.
I really want Jeremy Corbyn to go until May 2020. But I do not think that he can survive many more days like today. When it comes to the nuclear deterrent, who does he think the public will believe-the chief of our armed forces or old man Steptoe from Oil Drum Lane, Islington? If this was a boxing match the referee would step in to save him further punishment. Is there no-one in the Labour party who can throw the towel into the ring for him?
Which would make him the first serving politician to be unseated by the army since Jack Seely in 1914 (really clever move, that, by the army, driving the Secretary of State for War to resign just before the outbreak of World War I) and if memory serves only the second ever, the first being Richard Cromwell in 1660.
General Ferguson's remarks to the restive, even mutinous garrison at Curragh bear repeating in this context:
He reminded us that although we must naturally hold private political views, officially we should not be on the side of any one political party. It was our duty to obey orders, to go wherever we were sent and to comply with instructions of any political party that happened to be in power. There was no sloppy sentiment, it was good stuff straight from the shoulder and just what we wanted.
He was right then. And he would still be right now.
ScottP .... Re war memorials.(at 2.49) Yes you usually see a great disproportion between losses. However some villages will have fewer WW1 names in proportion. This is because at the beginning of the WW1 certain groups joined up en mass from the same area into the same unit. Later we had conscription and recruits were distributed more evenly. In WW1 we were involved in a continental wide mass war for 4 solid years. We were only involved in continental warfare for about 1 year in WW2. During that time our ground losses were comparable.
...
Mr. Path, I don't think I have ever seen a local war memorial on which the number of people from WW2 was larger than the number from WW1. I suppose in theory one should exist but if there is one I should be interested to hear of it.
You second point is however well made. I shall get back on a hobbyhorse of mine and state that an infantryman in the Normandy campaign in 1944 was more likely to suffer death or wounds than an infantryman in the Somme campaign of 1916.
Possibly a comparison could be made with the RAF and particularly Bomber Command.
Bomber command's casualties were indeed shocking.
I think German U boat crews had a pretty astonishing casualty rate too.
Yes, it was virtually a commitment to suicide at one point to be in a U boat. Mr Llama makes a very valid point about the normady campaign and it can be carried forward to the whole of the NW Europe campaign. I may have misremembered the figures but our average rate of attrition on the western front was 100 dead a day. I believe the comparable figure for me Europe was 80. I do not stand by these half remembered figures but the general drift is fair. It was no cake walk liberating Europe, especially for those at the sharp end.
While not taking anything away from the sacrifice and effort of those who died anywhere, the horrible feature of the casualty rate on the WWI Western Front was that no-one, generally speaking, got anywhere. In WWII, once Caen was taken then progress was reasonably swift.
That's true although sideshows like Africa apart, in WWII Britain didn't get anywhere for over four years, from 1940-4; it's just that the Channel was too wide to lob shells across a la WWI.
I honestly don't think he did anything wrong at all during the Remembrance Day ceremonies today. He looked dignified and sombre and played his part just as every other leader of the Opposition has before him.
True. All of that what fine.
His only potential misstep was to engage with the comments of the General.
I disagree, I think he had to respond to them, particularly given Eagle's defending the comments. If they are smart the Tories won't be commenting anytime soon on the specifics, so Corbyn was free to make an entirely apolitical point about the military overstepping. I take the point about people perhaps accepting the comments of the CDS seriously, but as the reaction on here shows, plenty of people not sympathetic to Corbyn will defend his criticism of the General.
Just a comment apropos of nothing really except some of the discussions below.
I don't particularly like Corbyn. I probably couldn't think of a single policy of his that I agree with and certainly wouldn't vote or him. I think if he ever got near power it would be very bad for me personally and for the country as a whole.
But...
I honestly don't think he did anything wrong at all during the Remembrance Day ceremonies today. He looked dignified and sombre and played his part just as every other leader of the Opposition has before him. So I am kind of baffled by the attempts to find some way to criticise him for his appearance or his behaviour. It seems to me that those attempting to do so are guilty of the very thing they attack others for - playing politics with the Remembrance Day ceremonies.
Just a comment apropos of nothing really except some of the discussions below.
I don't particularly like Corbyn. I probably couldn't think of a single policy of his that I agree with and certainly wouldn't vote or him. I think if he ever got near power it would be very bad for me personally and for the country as a whole.
But...
I honestly don't think he did anything wrong at all during the Remembrance Day ceremonies today. He looked dignified and sombre and played his part just as every other leader of the Opposition has before him. So I am kind of baffled by the attempts to find some way to criticise him for his appearance or his behaviour. It seems to me that those attempting to do so are guilty of the very thing they attack others for - playing politics with the Remembrance Day ceremonies.
That's true although sideshows like Africa apart, in WWII Britain didn't get anywhere for over four years, from 1940-4; it's just that the Channel was too wide to lob shells across a la WWI.
I hate to be picky Mr Herdson, but the Germans could and did lob shells across the Channel, which is why the centre of Dover is rebuilt in 1960s brutalist style.
And I don't think my late grandfather would be too pleased to be told that his six years of hard fighting in the Middle East, Egypt, Libya, Algeria and finally Italy was just a 'sideshow'!
Just a comment apropos of nothing really except some of the discussions below.
I don't particularly like Corbyn. I probably couldn't think of a single policy of his that I agree with and certainly wouldn't vote or him. I think if he ever got near power it would be very bad for me personally and for the country as a whole.
But...
I honestly don't think he did anything wrong at all during the Remembrance Day ceremonies today. He looked dignified and sombre and played his part just as every other leader of the Opposition has before him. So I am kind of baffled by the attempts to find some way to criticise him for his appearance or his behaviour. It seems to me that those attempting to do so are guilty of the very thing they attack others for - playing politics with the Remembrance Day ceremonies.
I tend towards agreement, amazingly enough. I will say I think he looked shabby despite some attempt to be plausibly smart, possibly just short of being shambling, but that is normal for Corbyn. He is not capable of more so hardly anything worthy of comment. Just how much of an impact these regular appearances are having on the wider public, if any, are as yet unknown. To paraphrase the Duke of Wellington, I know what effect he has on me.
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
Corbyn has made a mistake as this will only alert the attention of many generally politically unaware people to his defence policies and his related attitudes.
Absolutely and the timing is all wrong
Yes, a mistake in terms of PR. That doesn't change the fact that the General really shouldn't have made those comments.
And Eagle should not have defended his right to make them.
Have the Tories commented at all?
Should doctors talk about the NHS? Teachers about Education?
I'm not sure I can spot the difference.
If public sector employees are meant to stay quiet, where does that leave UNISON/UNITE/PCS/BMA/Police Federation etc?
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
The reason is obvious though when you think about it - they had to be close to the front to have some idea of what was going on in the days before efficient wireless and telephones. In fact, I think the record amount of time spent by one man in the front line continuously was General Julian Byng, who stayed there for six months before the attack on Vimy Ridge. It was Alan Clark's novel The Donkeys, which people (including Clark himself sometimes) mistook for a work of scholarship that created a myth to the contrary, reinforced by the play and film based on it.
Worst casualty rates of all were subalterns - 19% compared to 12% for privates and NCOs. However, 96% of all casualties were from the ranks, which tells you something about how few officers there were compared to men (unlike now)!
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
And following on from this a bit of digging comes up with the numbers of 232 British and Empire General officers or above killed or wounded in WW1. That is out of a total of 1257 who served giving a casualty rate of 18.5%.
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
The Russians captured 22 German generals at Stalingrad.
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
The Russians captured 22 German generals at Stalingrad.
Oh yes but that was a rather different type of war with large sweeping manouvres which captured cast tracts of land and so trapped General staff even when they were dozens of miles behind the lines.
Not sure if already posted but potentially quite significant. Labour MPs Mike Gapes and Ronnie Campbell were interviewed together by Andrew Neil on Friday's Daily Politics re Labour MPs being at odds with Labour members. They both said they had seen huge increases in the number of members in their constituencies - one of them gave the number 600. They both said they had contacted all their new members more than once by email etc. Now, the interesting bit - they both said they had hardly heard anything at all back from their new members - they had both had no more than a handful of responses and only tiny numbers of them had turned up to any events / made themselves available for leafleting etc. They both seemed very perplexed by the situation - as if all these people have simply vanished into thin air.
Hmmm. Is this all it did require to become a £3 member? 1. A name on the voter register 2. Having their application completed online by someone such as a call centre run by Corbyn's supporters 3. An email sent back as a "vote" to the stated email address. 4. The vote completed online by the person controlling the email address.
Or was some stage completed by post?
It does sound a bit dodgy, but you would have to make up all those email addresses wouldn't you? It hardly looks foolproof. If remotely true then would not the election have to be rerun? If remotely true would it not lead to mass expulsions of the left? It would make for an interesting few weeks but I cannot see how such a plot could be made to work and last the pace in practice.
Corbyn has made a mistake as this will only alert the attention of many generally politically unaware people to his defence policies and his related attitudes.
Absolutely and the timing is all wrong
Yes, a mistake in terms of PR. That doesn't change the fact that the General really shouldn't have made those comments.
And Eagle should not have defended his right to make them.
Have the Tories commented at all?
Should doctors talk about the NHS? Teachers about Education?
I'm not sure I can spot the difference.
If I, as a teacher, refuse to follow the government's orders, that is a matter of minor inconvenience. I am not in a position to overthrow the whole system of government tomorrow afternoon and have all our MPs shot, or by my inaction or complicity, leave this country open to its enemies.
If the military decide they can do things better, you get coups. If they refuse to do what they are told by the government, you get invasions. Neither are good things. The only way to make sure that such things do not happen is to say clearly and simple, as Ferguson did at Curragh in 1914, that the army stays out of politics.
Yes, we hold the army to a higher standard than teachers or doctors. There is a very good reason for that. Just as I would point out many people on here are uneasy about bishops speaking on the issues because when religious organisations get too involved in running countries it doesn't end well, so it is with the military (although theocracies tend to be less damaging than military dictatorships).
If he had commented on current government policy and said it was damaging the defence of the realm, that would be slightly different - that could be argued to be his duty to protect us against an error by the government. I would still be uneasy, but there would be a logic to it. But Corbyn is not in government and he never will be. The chances of his flawed policies being enacted are zero. Therefore, there could be no motive other than a purely political one for attacking him. That is overstepping the mark.
ScottP .... Re war memorials.(at 2.49) Yes you usually see a great disproportion between losses. However some villages will have fewer WW1 names in proportion. This is because at the beginning of the WW1 certain groups joined up en mass from the same area into the same unit. Later we had conscription and recruits were distributed more evenly. In WW1 we were involved in a continental wide mass war for 4 solid years. We were only involved in continental warfare for about 1 year in WW2. During that time our ground losses were comparable.
...
Mr. Path, I don't think I have ever seen a local war memorial on which the number of people from WW2 was larger than the number from WW1. I suppose in theory one should exist but if there is one I should be interested to hear of it.
You second point is however well made. I shall get back on a hobbyhorse of mine and state that an infantryman in the Normandy campaign in 1944 was more likely to suffer death or wounds than an infantryman in the Somme campaign of 1916.
Possibly a comparison could be made with the RAF and particularly Bomber Command.
Bomber command's casualties were indeed shocking.
I think German U boat crews had a pretty astonishing casualty rate too.
Yes, it was virtually a commitment to suicide at one point to be in a U boat. Mr Llama makes a very valid point about the normady campaign and it can be carried forward to the whole of the NW Europe campaign. I may have misremembered the figures but our average rate of attrition on the western front was 100 dead a day. I believe the comparable figure for me Europe was 80. I do not stand by these half remembered figures but the general drift is fair. It was no cake walk liberating Europe, especially for those at the sharp end.
While not taking anything away from the sacrifice and effort of those who died anywhere, the horrible feature of the casualty rate on the WWI Western Front was that no-one, generally speaking, got anywhere. In WWII, once Caen was taken then progress was reasonably swift.
I think that a large part of it. I believe the casualty rates in the 100 days battles of 1918 were comparable to the Somme, but because of the progress and the German prisoners being taken in their tens of thousands these battles do not loom so large in the popular imagination.
The Ministry of Defence being full of idiots is a far greater threat to our security than the seas being empty of Trident in my opinion.
So far as I can see, even if it works perfectly, the protocols are such that it cannot be used except in a doomsday scenario to take revenge when the UK has suffered nuclear annihilation. Therefore as a deterrent, it doesn't protect us from attack, invasion, or even an individual city being flattened by a nuclear explosion. What it does is therefore is suck up a vast proportion of our military expenditure and spend it on a tiny proportion of the threat facing our country.
Corbyn has made a mistake as this will only alert the attention of many generally politically unaware people to his defence policies and his related attitudes.
Absolutely and the timing is all wrong
Yes, a mistake in terms of PR. That doesn't change the fact that the General really shouldn't have made those comments.
And Eagle should not have defended his right to make them.
Have the Tories commented at all?
Should doctors talk about the NHS? Teachers about Education?
I'm not sure I can spot the difference.
If I, as a teacher, refuse to follow the government's orders, that is a matter of minor inconvenience. I am not in a position to overthrow the whole system of government tomorrow afternoon and have all our MPs shot, or by my inaction or complicity, leave this country open to its enemies.
If the military decide they can do things better, you get coups. If they refuse to do what they are told by the government, you get invasions. Neither are good things. The only way to make sure that such things do not happen is to say clearly and simple, as Ferguson did at Curragh in 1914, that the army stays out of politics.
Yes, we hold the army to a higher standard than teachers or doctors. There is a very good reason for that. Just as I would point out many people on here are uneasy about bishops speaking on the issues because when religious organisations get too involved in running countries it doesn't end well, so it is with the military (although theocracies tend to be less damaging than military dictatorships).
If he had commented on current government policy and said it was damaging the defence of the realm, that would be slightly different - that could be argued to be his duty to protect us against an error by the government. I would still be uneasy, but there would be a logic to it. But Corbyn is not in government and he never will be. The chances of his flawed policies being enacted are zero. Therefore, there could be no motive other than a purely political one for attacking him. That is overstepping the mark.
Hope that clarifies it.
Voicing an opinion is equivalent to starting a coup?
Just a comment apropos of nothing really except some of the discussions below.
I don't particularly like Corbyn. I probably couldn't think of a single policy of his that I agree with and certainly wouldn't vote or him. I think if he ever got near power it would be very bad for me personally and for the country as a whole.
But...
I honestly don't think he did anything wrong at all during the Remembrance Day ceremonies today. He looked dignified and sombre and played his part just as every other leader of the Opposition has before him. So I am kind of baffled by the attempts to find some way to criticise him for his appearance or his behaviour. It seems to me that those attempting to do so are guilty of the very thing they attack others for - playing politics with the Remembrance Day ceremonies.
ScottP .... Re war memorials.(at 2.49) Yes you usually see a great disproportion between losses. However some villages will have fewer WW1 names in proportion. This is because at the beginning of the WW1 certain groups joined up en mass from the same area into the same unit. Later we had conscription and recruits were distributed more evenly. In WW1 we were involved in a continental wide mass war for 4 solid years. We were only involved in continental warfare for about 1 year in WW2. During that time our ground losses were comparable.
...
Mr. Path, I don't think I have ever seen a local war memorial on which the number of people from WW2 was larger than the number from WW1. I suppose in theory one should exist but if there is one I should be interested to hear of it.
You second point is however well made. I shall get back on a hobbyhorse of mine and state that an infantryman in the Normandy campaign in 1944 was more likely to suffer death or wounds than an infantryman in the Somme campaign of 1916.
Possibly a comparison could be made with the RAF and particularly Bomber Command.
Bomber command's casualties were indeed shocking.
I think German U boat crews had a pretty astonishing casualty rate too.
Yes, it was virtually a commitment to suicide at one point to be in a U boat. Mr Llama makes a very valid point about the normady campaign and it can be carried forward to the whole of the NW Europe campaign. I may have misremembered the figures but our average rate of attrition on the western front was 100 dead a day. I believe the comparable figure for me Europe was 80. I do not stand by these half remembered figures but the general drift is fair. It was no cake walk liberating Europe, especially for those at the sharp end.
While not taking anything away from the sacrifice and effort of those who died anywhere, the horrible feature of the casualty rate on the WWI Western Front was that no-one, generally speaking, got anywhere. In WWII, once Caen was taken then progress was reasonably swift.
I think that a large part of it. I believe the casualty rates in the 100 days battles of 1918 were comparable to the Somme, but because of the progress and the German prisoners being taken in their tens of thousands these battles do not loom so large in the popular imagination.
That's sadly only all too true. At that stage the British army was well trained and experienced and equipped and was opposed to a dispireted enemy, and much of the time was fighting in open country. But casualties were still significant.
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
The Russians captured 22 German generals at Stalingrad.
The captured a whole heap more during the encirclement at Minsk in Operation Bagration iirc
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
The Russians captured 22 German generals at Stalingrad.
Oh yes but that was a rather different type of war with large sweeping manouvres which captured cast tracts of land and so trapped General staff even when they were dozens of miles behind the lines.
The Ministry of Defence being full of idiots is a far greater threat to our security than the seas being empty of Trident in my opinion.
So far as I can see, even if it works perfectly, the protocols are such that it cannot be used except in a doomsday scenario to take revenge when the UK has suffered nuclear annihilation. Therefore as a deterrent, it doesn't protect us from attack, invasion, or even an individual city being flattened by a nuclear explosion. What it does is therefore is suck up a vast proportion of our military expenditure and spend it on a tiny proportion of the threat facing our country.
We know that in a world where one country has the bomb and no others do, that one country can use it to kill hundreds of thousands of people at a stroke.
The world cannot unlearn this knowledge.
If there was universal disarmament, the world would be in a state of perpetual mistrust where everyone would be wondering if another country was secretly rebuilding their arsenal for military gain.
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
The Russians captured 22 German generals at Stalingrad.
The captured a whole heap more during the encirclement at Minsk in Operation Bagration iirc
Yep, 9 KIA, 22 more captured, 1 MIA, and 2 topped themselves.
The Ministry of Defence being full of idiots is a far greater threat to our security than the seas being empty of Trident in my opinion.
So far as I can see, even if it works perfectly, the protocols are such that it cannot be used except in a doomsday scenario to take revenge when the UK has suffered nuclear annihilation. Therefore as a deterrent, it doesn't protect us from attack, invasion, or even an individual city being flattened by a nuclear explosion. What it does is therefore is suck up a vast proportion of our military expenditure and spend it on a tiny proportion of the threat facing our country.
I suggest you wave your magic wand and make nuclear weapons impossible. Until then we will in fact never be free of them because the knowledge is there to build them even if all the current ones were removed.
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
The Russians captured 22 German generals at Stalingrad.
The captured a whole heap more during the encirclement at Minsk in Operation Bagration iirc
Yep, 9 KIA, 22 more captured, 1 MIA, and 2 topped themselves.
Corbyn has made a mistake as this will only alert the attention of many generally politically unaware people to his defence policies and his related attitudes.
Absolutely and the timing is all wrong
Yes, a mistake in terms of PR. That doesn't change the fact that the General really shouldn't have made those comments.
And Eagle should not have defended his right to make them.
Have the Tories commented at all?
Should doctors talk about the NHS? Teachers about Education?
I'm not sure I can spot the difference.
If I, as a teach.
Voicing an opinion is equivalent to starting a coup?
No, but a higher standard on restriction of politically sensitive comments comes from his position, in part because if the greater potentiality of his own power and the significance of his position. Politically restricted posts are incredibly common at all levels of government, and the position of the military is so central and significant, sensitivity of comment needs to be even more careful than usual. I cannot see what is the least bit controversial about that, or how it is equivalent to a Doctor commenting on the NHS or a teacher on Education. How do you not see the difference?
I note the story on this now on the BBC has Eagle's defence of the General's right to express himself in the way he did is now way down the page, another good reason for Corbyn to respond directly - her view on Trident in opposition to him is still known, but that she not only has that but defends the right of an officer to politically interfere on that issue, which is more significant, is now not as immediately apparent.
The Ministry of Defence being full of idiots is a far greater threat to our security than the seas being empty of Trident in my opinion.
So far as I can see, even if it works perfectly, the protocols are such that it cannot be used except in a doomsday scenario to take revenge when the UK has suffered nuclear annihilation. Therefore as a deterrent, it doesn't protect us from attack, invasion, or even an individual city being flattened by a nuclear explosion. What it does is therefore is suck up a vast proportion of our military expenditure and spend it on a tiny proportion of the threat facing our country.
I suggest you wave your magic wand and make nuclear weapons impossible. Until then we will in fact never be free of them because the knowledge is there to build them even if all the current ones were removed.
How do they act as a deterrent against a first-strike?
Just a comment apropos of nothing really except some of the discussions below.
I don't particularly like Corbyn. I probably couldn't think of a single policy of his that I agree with and certainly wouldn't vote or him. I think if he ever got near power it would be very bad for me personally and for the country as a whole.
But...
I honestly don't think he did anything wrong at all during the Remembrance Day ceremonies today. He looked dignified and sombre and played his part just as every other leader of the Opposition has before him. So I am kind of baffled by the attempts to find some way to criticise him for his appearance or his behaviour. It seems to me that those attempting to do so are guilty of the very thing they attack others for - playing politics with the Remembrance Day ceremonies.
Well said Richard.. When Plato accused him of looking miserable I think we reached a new level of absurdity
Voicing an opinion is equivalent to starting a coup?
No Chestnut. It's the slippery slope that could lead to a coup. For example, we ban name-calling at my school not merely because it's rude, but because it can escalate very quickly into something much nastier. If generals get the idea that they know more about politics and government than politicians - well, Augusto Pinochet, who had never expressed an opinion in his life and suddenly got a taste for it, shows where it can lead. Not where it will lead - but even the risk is unacceptable.
No idea what LG83 does for a living but please may he keep out of politics.. and never be in a position where rhe has to deal deal with real world politics..rather than the school room version #
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
And following on from this a bit of digging comes up with the numbers of 232 British and Empire General officers or above killed or wounded in WW1. That is out of a total of 1257 who served giving a casualty rate of 18.5%.
Quite early on in the War general officers, particularly brigadiers had to be ordered away from the front line because so many of them were getting killed. The other thing, and one were Blackadder 4 was particularly unfair, was the death rate for staff officers the 'Captain Darlings'.
The general was wrong. It would have been fine for him to say that in his opinion the country needed to have a nuclear deterrent. But he didn't stick to that. He commented in a way which suggested that he had a view on the suitability of the LOTO to be PM. He can have a view. But as CDS he has to keep his view to himself. If I had been Corbyn, I would have shrugged it off as "he would say that wouldn't he" and have written a note privately, not publicly, to the MOD about crossing the line. And not on Remembrance Sunday either. Once again, Corbyn isn't wrong exactly but he manages to make a mess of the politics. Maladroit and tone deaf. And that is his problem.
Earlier I accidentally clicked on this thread from eight years ago. It is worth a re-read in light of this years events. We can predict everything bar the future!:
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
And following on from this a bit of digging comes up with the numbers of 232 British and Empire General officers or above killed or wounded in WW1. That is out of a total of 1257 who served giving a casualty rate of 18.5%.
That's remarkably high, even if only about half that of the average rate, considering how many general officers would have been permanently based in London, and that even when acting as field commanders would not routinely have been in the direct line of fire (though many were killed visiting forward positions).
Corbyn has made a mistake as this will only alert the attention of many generally politically unaware people to his defence policies and his related attitudes.
Absolutely and the timing is all wrong
Yes, a mistake in terms of PR. That doesn't change the fact that the General really shouldn't have made those comments.
And Eagle should not have defended his right to make them.
Have the Tories commented at all?
Should doctors talk about the NHS? Teachers about Education?
I'm not sure I can spot the difference.
If I, as a teach.
Voicing an opinion is equivalent to starting a coup?
No, but a higher standard on restriction of politically sensitive comments comes from his position, in part because if the greater potentiality of his own power and the significance of his position. Politically restricted posts are incredibly common at all levels of government, and the position of the military is so central and significant, sensitivity of comment needs to be more even more careful than usual.
I note the story on this now on the BBC has Eagle's defence of the General's right to express himself in the way he did is now way down the page, another good reason for Corbyn to respond directly - her view on Trident in opposition to him is still known, but that she not only has that but defends the right of an officer to politically interfere on that issue, which is more significant, is now not as immediately apparent.
I remember in the 80's that Labour had a big difficulty and confusion on the issue of nuclear weapons. However that was during the cold war where nukes were all the rage and people were both worried about their use and defence during WW3 with the Soviets. Today that is no longer a defence priority and people have stopped worrying that at any moment the USSR might attack, simply because there is no USSR anymore, the cold war is over and no amount of rivalry with the Russians or the Chinese is going to bring it back.
Back then it was a gigantic ideological struggle all around the world and outer space, if the Soviets had won we would have no rights to private property, no private businesses and anyone who would have dared to say otherwise would have been shot or sent to a gulag. If the Russians won a cold war today the worst thing would be a flat tax on income, a ban on gays and replacing BBC with RT.
So not many people care about nukes or put them as their policy priority since 1991, so the whining for or against nukes is useless and pointless.
That's true although sideshows like Africa apart, in WWII Britain didn't get anywhere for over four years, from 1940-4; it's just that the Channel was too wide to lob shells across a la WWI.
I hate to be picky Mr Herdson, but the Germans could and did lob shells across the Channel, which is why the centre of Dover is rebuilt in 1960s brutalist style.
And I don't think my late grandfather would be too pleased to be told that his six years of hard fighting in the Middle East, Egypt, Libya, Algeria and finally Italy was just a 'sideshow'!
The Germans could have levelled Dover and it would have made little difference to the war effort. What they couldn't do was lob them across with the accuracy and in the number that they did during WWI.
And while I don't doubt the hardiness of the men fighting through North Africa and Italy, nor the conditions they had to endure (one of my grandfathers also followed that wartime route), the fact remains that the war was won, as far as Britain was concerned, in Western Europe, at sea and in the air. That's not to belittle the other theatres but to recognise those of primary importance and those which were secondary.
(I appreciate that I was a bit provocative in my description, though it was derived from the line in Lawrence of Arabia)
Earlier I accidentally clicked on this thread from eight years ago. It is worth a re-read in light of this years events. We can predict everything bar the future!:
Who thought that the day will come that Blair would see the back of Corbyn, slowly fading away from memory and history.
Blair kept Tories out of office for 13 years, whilst Corbyn is trying hard to keep Labour out of the running for the next 13.
Correction, it was the Tories who kept themselves out of office for 13 years by making a complete mess when in government in the 90's. A donkey would have kept the Tories out.
The Ministry of Defence being full of idiots is a far greater threat to our security than the seas being empty of Trident in my opinion.
So far as I can see, even if it works perfectly, the protocols are such that it cannot be used except in a doomsday scenario to take revenge when the UK has suffered nuclear annihilation. Therefore as a deterrent, it doesn't protect us from attack, invasion, or even an individual city being flattened by a nuclear explosion. What it does is therefore is suck up a vast proportion of our military expenditure and spend it on a tiny proportion of the threat facing our country.
I suggest you wave your magic wand and make nuclear weapons impossible. Until then we will in fact never be free of them because the knowledge is there to build them even if all the current ones were removed.
How do they act as a deterrent against a first-strike?
Because they won't be destroyed in a first strike?
Who thought that the day will come that Blair would see the back of Corbyn, slowly fading away from memory and history.
Blair kept Tories out of office for 13 years, whilst Corbyn is trying hard to keep Labour out of the running for the next 13.
Correction, it was the Tories who kept themselves out of office for 13 years by making a complete mess when in government in the 90's. A donkey would have kept the Tories out.
Blair was no donkey, he was the most successful Labour PM at keeping the Tories out of office since 1924. It has taken the Tories 18 years to secure a small majority government, since they were hammered by Blair in 1997. The Tories divisions may not have helped, but Blair was ruthless & determined to hold power in their place.
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
And following on from this a bit of digging comes up with the numbers of 232 British and Empire General officers or above killed or wounded in WW1. That is out of a total of 1257 who served giving a casualty rate of 18.5%.
That's remarkably high, even if only about half that of the average rate, considering how many general officers would have been permanently based in London, and that even when acting as field commanders would not routinely have been in the direct line of fire (though many were killed visiting forward positions).
I wonder if that includes other factors like accidental deaths or deaths from non-war related health problems.
The Ministry of Defence being full of idiots is a far greater threat to our security than the seas being empty of Trident in my opinion.
So far as I can see, even if it works perfectly, the protocols are such that it cannot be used except in a doomsday scenario to take revenge when the UK has suffered nuclear annihilation. Therefore as a deterrent, it doesn't protect us from attack, invasion, or even an individual city being flattened by a nuclear explosion. What it does is therefore is suck up a vast proportion of our military expenditure and spend it on a tiny proportion of the threat facing our country.
That's not true. Major threatened Saddam with nuclear weapons if Iraq used chemical weapons against British troops in the 1991 Iraq War. I presume he did that on the basis of being able to carry out the threat.
If it's possible to use the weapons for a WMD attack against troops in theatre then I'm quite sure it's possible to do it for a nuclear attack on the UK itself.
(Whether Major would actually have done it has to remain open to doubt. 'Controversial' wouldn't begin to describe such a decision. Even so, the fact remains that Saddam - who undoubtedly did have chemical weapons in 1991, even if he didn't by 2003 - chose not to use them. Deterrence works as the least-bad option).
Earlier I accidentally clicked on this thread from eight years ago. It is worth a re-read in light of this years events. We can predict everything bar the future!:
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
And following on from this a bit of digging comes up with the numbers of 232 British and Empire General officers or above killed or wounded in WW1. That is out of a total of 1257 who served giving a casualty rate of 18.5%.
That's remarkably high, even if only about half that of the average rate, considering how many general officers would have been permanently based in London, and that even when acting as field commanders would not routinely have been in the direct line of fire (though many were killed visiting forward positions).
The most popular cited book on this is Davies and Maddocks' Bloody Red Tabs. It lists the following causes of death for the 78 British and Empire Generals (this list is taken from the Great War forum)
34 Generals were killed by shellfire = 43% 22 Generals were killed by small arms fire = 28% (of which at least 12 were killed by snipers) 3 Generals were drowned - 1 accidently, This includes Kitchener, who at the time of his death was Field Marshall and Secretary of State for War. 1 inadvertently poisoned himself during the siege of Kut, 1 died from cholera.in Baghdad 1 died as a result of a flying accident 1 died from accidental injuries. Of the remaining 15, no direct cause of death is known altoughh they all died in action either from small arms or shelling.
I don't like the idea of military leaders criticising elected ones. The General made a mistake by publicly airing his views. I don't like Corbyn and don't agree with any of his views, but like it or not he has been elected both by his constituents in Islington and as leader of the Labour party by Labour members.
Who thought that the day will come that Blair would see the back of Corbyn, slowly fading away from memory and history.
Blair kept Tories out of office for 13 years, whilst Corbyn is trying hard to keep Labour out of the running for the next 13.
Correction, it was the Tories who kept themselves out of office for 13 years by making a complete mess when in government in the 90's. A donkey would have kept the Tories out.
That's rewriting history. The Tories should have lost in 1992 by objective standards but they were up against Kinnock. Perhaps Kinnock would have beaten Thatcher and the Poll Tax but the Tories acted in time to dump one and drop the other in the Out tray, even if it hadn't quite been replaced. Yes, there undoubtedly were more errors from 1992-7 but in many ways the country was better placed then than in 1992. Had Labour had another unelectable leader - a donkey to use your terminology - it's quite possible that the Conservatives would have received another grudging mandate. The reason they didn't was because Blair (and his shadow cabinet, which looks extraordinarily strong compared with Corbyn's), had made Labour electable.
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
And following on from this a bit of digging comes up with the numbers of 232 British and Empire General officers or above killed or wounded in WW1. That is out of a total of 1257 who served giving a casualty rate of 18.5%.
That's remarkably high, even if only about half that of the average rate, considering how many general officers would have been permanently based in London, and that even when acting as field commanders would not routinely have been in the direct line of fire (though many were killed visiting forward positions).
A lot of WW1 generals were also surprisingly young, having been at more junior ranks in 1914 and promoted rapidly through the expansion of the Army.
Through much of the war the CIGS was General Robertson, who had started as in the ranks.
He was also probably behind the Maurice Letter; which provoked a major debate at the height of the 1918 battles, with the military heavily criticising the politicians handling of the war.
Who thought that the day will come that Blair would see the back of Corbyn, slowly fading away from memory and history.
Blair kept Tories out of office for 13 years, whilst Corbyn is trying hard to keep Labour out of the running for the next 13.
Correction, it was the Tories who kept themselves out of office for 13 years by making a complete mess when in government in the 90's. A donkey would have kept the Tories out.
Blair was no donkey, he was the most successful Labour PM at keeping the Tories out of office since 1924. It has taken the Tories 18 years to secure a small majority government, since they were hammered by Blair in 1997. The Tories divisions may not have helped, but Blair was ruthless & determined to hold power in their place.
Blair was a donkey, that is why people now fear a return of Labour to government after 13 years of bad memories from New Labour, the same way people were afraid of the Tories for the 13 years before.
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
And following on from this a bit of digging comes up with the numbers of 232 British and Empire General officers or above killed or wounded in WW1. That is out of a total of 1257 who served giving a casualty rate of 18.5%.
That's remarkably high, even if only about half that of the average rate, considering how many general officers would have been permanently based in London, and that even when acting as field commanders would not routinely have been in the direct line of fire (though many were killed visiting forward positions).
The most popular cited book on this is Davies and Maddocks' Bloody Red Tabs. It lists the following causes of death for the 78 British and Empire Generals (this list is taken from the Great War forum)
34 Generals were killed by shellfire = 43% 22 Generals were killed by small arms fire = 28% (of which at least 12 were killed by snipers) 3 Generals were drowned - 1 accidently, This includes Kitchener, who at the time of his death was Field Marshall and Secretary of State for War. 1 inadvertently poisoned himself during the siege of Kut, 1 died from cholera.in Baghdad 1 died as a result of a flying accident 1 died from accidental injuries. Of the remaining 15, no direct cause of death is known altoughh they all died in action either from small arms or shelling.
Rather unfortunately General Maude took over the house in Baghdad where his German opposite number had resided. That General had also died of disease. Personally I would have boiled the water more thoroughly!
General Maude was a pretty brave man. He was the last man to leave the British beach at Gallipoli. The second last was a certain Major Attlee.
That's true although sideshows like Africa apart, in WWII Britain didn't get anywhere for over four years, from 1940-4; it's just that the Channel was too wide to lob shells across a la WWI.
I hate to be picky Mr Herdson, but the Germans could and did lob shells across the Channel, which is why the centre of Dover is rebuilt in 1960s brutalist style.
And I don't think my late grandfather would be too pleased to be told that his six years of hard fighting in the Middle East, Egypt, Libya, Algeria and finally Italy was just a 'sideshow'!
The Germans could have levelled Dover and it would have made little difference to the war effort. What they couldn't do was lob them across with the accuracy and in the number that they did during WWI.
And while I don't doubt the hardiness of the men fighting through North Africa and Italy, nor the conditions they had to endure (one of my grandfathers also followed that wartime route), the fact remains that the war was won, as far as Britain was concerned, in Western Europe, at sea and in the air. That's not to belittle the other theatres but to recognise those of primary importance and those which were secondary.
(I appreciate that I was a bit provocative in my description, though it was derived from the line in Lawrence of Arabia)
Even after D-Day, two-thirds of Wehrmacht casualties were sustained on the Eastern Front.
On nuclear weapons, our total of ~160 isn't so much against Russia's 1600+.
Also we have no ICBM capability or strategic bombers.
Surely we should be addressing these holes in our nuclear defence in addition to Trident ?
The Blue Streak MRBM was cancelled in 1960 in favour of cheaper american missiles (by Lord Mountbatten in order for the navy to have a monopoly over nukes), that started the road to importing Trident missiles from America, and also effectively ending Britain's space program. The French though when straight ahead and they have dominated the european space industry since then.
The Vulcan in 1952 was designed to carry nuclear warheads, but it has been retired for many years now.
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
And following on from this a bit of digging comes up with the numbers of 232 British and Empire General officers or above killed or wounded in WW1. That is out of a total of 1257 who served giving a casualty rate of 18.5%.
That's remarkably high, even if only about half that of the average rate, considering how many general officers would have been permanently based in London, and that even when acting as field commanders would not routinely have been in the direct line of fire (though many were killed visiting forward positions).
A lot of WW1 generals were also surprisingly young, having been at more junior ranks in 1914 and promoted rapidly through the expansion of the Army.
Through much of the war the CIGS was General Robertson, who had started as in the ranks.
He was also probably behind the Maurice Letter; which provoked a major debate at the height of the 1918 battles, with the military heavily criticising the politicians handling of the war.
Germany's youngest general in WW2 was Harald von Hirschfeld, who (whilst still a Major) was heavily involved in the Massacre of the Italian Acqui Division on Cephalonia in 1943. He was killed in action on the Eastern Front in January 1945, just three days after promotion to Major-General - he was aged 32.
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
And following on from this a bit of digging comes up with the numbers of 232 British and Empire General officers or above killed or wounded in WW1. That is out of a total of 1257 who served giving a casualty rate of 18.5%.
That's remarkably high, even if only about half that of the average rate, considering how many general officers would have been permanently based in London, and that even when acting as field commanders would not routinely have been in the direct line of fire (though many were killed visiting forward positions).
A lot of WW1 generals were also surprisingly young, having been at more junior ranks in 1914 and promoted rapidly through the expansion of the Army.
Through much of the war the CIGS was General Robertson, who had started as in the ranks.
He was also probably behind the Maurice Letter; which provoked a major debate at the height of the 1918 battles, with the military heavily criticising the politicians handling of the war.
Germany's youngest general in WW2 was Harald von Hirschfeld, who (whilst still a Major) was heavily involved in the Massacre of the Italian Acqui Division on Cephalonia in 1943. He was killed in action on the Eastern Front in January 1945, just three days after promotion to Major-General - he was aged 32.
Another aside following on from earlier discussions of casualities.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
And following on from this a bit of digging comes up with the numbers of 232 British and Empire General officers or above killed or wounded in WW1. That is out of a total of 1257 who served giving a casualty rate of 18.5%.
That's remarkably high, even if only about half that of the average rate, considering how many general officers would have been permanently based in London, and that even when acting as field commanders would not routinely have been in the direct line of fire (though many were killed visiting forward positions).
A lot of WW1 generals were also surprisingly young, having been at more junior ranks in 1914 and promoted rapidly through the expansion of the Army.
Through much of the war the CIGS was General Robertson, who had started as in the ranks.
He was also probably behind the Maurice Letter; which provoked a major debate at the height of the 1918 battles, with the military heavily criticising the politicians handling of the war.
Germany's youngest general in WW2 was Harald von Hirschfeld, who (whilst still a Major) was heavily involved in the Massacre of the Italian Acqui Division on Cephalonia in 1943. He was killed in action on the Eastern Front in January 1945, just three days after promotion to Major-General - he was aged 32.
Front page of The Times says we're getting a June EU referendum
That's so soon that it's designed for 3 things:
a. Not giving enough time for any EU reform to be decided. b. Not giving enough time for the voters to change their minds. c. Not giving enough time for the non-Cameron political forces to organize.
Who thought that the day will come that Blair would see the back of Corbyn, slowly fading away from memory and history.
Blair kept Tories out of office for 13 years, whilst Corbyn is trying hard to keep Labour out of the running for the next 13.
Correction, it was the Tories who kept themselves out of office for 13 years by making a complete mess when in government in the 90's. A donkey would have kept the Tories out.
Blair was no donkey, he was the most successful Labour PM at keeping the Tories out of office since 1924. It has taken the Tories 18 years to secure a small majority government, since they were hammered by Blair in 1997. The Tories divisions may not have helped, but Blair was ruthless & determined to hold power in their place.
Blair was a donkey, that is why people now fear a return of Labour to government after 13 years of bad memories from New Labour, the same way people were afraid of the Tories for the 13 years before.
Lol the level of self delusion reaches new heights.
Front page of The Times says we're getting a June EU referendum
Front page of the Guardian has the UK losing influence on the world stage. The UK will never maintain or gain influence as long as they remain a member of the EU.
@SimonDanczuk has been warned by Labour GS @IainMcNicol for his attacks on Corbyn/Labour. Sold it to Mail for money
Make good headlines if labour are daft enough to purge Danczuk
Danzcuk will be gone, the matter is when before the next election and how, not if.
If Danzcuk stays Labour would lose his seat since the local party will refuse to vote or support him. The same thing happened in the Heywood by-election with Danzcuk as campaign head which Labour almost lost, since then Danzcuk has become even more of an anathema to Labour.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnkhWsBMk8
Not literally as such but it seems like he's heading that way.
In WWII, once Caen was taken then progress was reasonably swift.
1. A name on the voter register
2. Having their application completed online by someone such as a call centre run by Corbyn's supporters
3. An email sent back as a "vote" to the stated email address.
4. The vote completed online by the person controlling the email address.
Or was some stage completed by post?
It was difficult enough in Normandy with total air superiority and large preponderance of tanks providing mobility and protection from machine gun fire, and enigma intelligence and good command and control.
By the time the allies reached the Siegfried Line they were pretty exhausted and attrition had taken a heavy toll.
I don't particularly like Corbyn. I probably couldn't think of a single policy of his that I agree with and certainly wouldn't vote or him. I think if he ever got near power it would be very bad for me personally and for the country as a whole.
But...
I honestly don't think he did anything wrong at all during the Remembrance Day ceremonies today. He looked dignified and sombre and played his part just as every other leader of the Opposition has before him. So I am kind of baffled by the attempts to find some way to criticise him for his appearance or his behaviour. It seems to me that those attempting to do so are guilty of the very thing they attack others for - playing politics with the Remembrance Day ceremonies.
His only potential misstep was to engage with the comments of the General.
General Ferguson's remarks to the restive, even mutinous garrison at Curragh bear repeating in this context: He was right then. And he would still be right now.
And I don't think my late grandfather would be too pleased to be told that his six years of hard fighting in the Middle East, Egypt, Libya, Algeria and finally Italy was just a 'sideshow'!
Just how much of an impact these regular appearances are having on the wider public, if any, are as yet unknown. To paraphrase the Duke of Wellington, I know what effect he has on me.
I was surprised at quite how many British and Empire officers of General rank or above were killed in action in WW1. Wikipedia lists 78. Whilst a tiny number compared to overall casualties it does somewhat put the lie to the idea that the Generals just stayed safe behind the lines.
I'm not sure I can spot the difference.
If public sector employees are meant to stay quiet, where does that leave UNISON/UNITE/PCS/BMA/Police Federation etc?
Worst casualty rates of all were subalterns - 19% compared to 12% for privates and NCOs. However, 96% of all casualties were from the ranks, which tells you something about how few officers there were compared to men (unlike now)!
It would make for an interesting few weeks but I cannot see how such a plot could be made to work and last the pace in practice.
If the military decide they can do things better, you get coups. If they refuse to do what they are told by the government, you get invasions. Neither are good things. The only way to make sure that such things do not happen is to say clearly and simple, as Ferguson did at Curragh in 1914, that the army stays out of politics.
Yes, we hold the army to a higher standard than teachers or doctors. There is a very good reason for that. Just as I would point out many people on here are uneasy about bishops speaking on the issues because when religious organisations get too involved in running countries it doesn't end well, so it is with the military (although theocracies tend to be less damaging than military dictatorships).
If he had commented on current government policy and said it was damaging the defence of the realm, that would be slightly different - that could be argued to be his duty to protect us against an error by the government. I would still be uneasy, but there would be a logic to it. But Corbyn is not in government and he never will be. The chances of his flawed policies being enacted are zero. Therefore, there could be no motive other than a purely political one for attacking him. That is overstepping the mark.
Hope that clarifies it.
One of the things they said that really hit a nerve is that all budget cuts are bad - except those to defence.
The Armed Forces are one part of the public sector that Corbyn's Labour really loathes. We could add the police and intelligence services, of course.
So far as I can see, even if it works perfectly, the protocols are such that it cannot be used except in a doomsday scenario to take revenge when the UK has suffered nuclear annihilation. Therefore as a deterrent, it doesn't protect us from attack, invasion, or even an individual city being flattened by a nuclear explosion. What it does is therefore is suck up a vast proportion of our military expenditure and spend it on a tiny proportion of the threat facing our country.
The world cannot unlearn this knowledge.
If there was universal disarmament, the world would be in a state of perpetual mistrust where everyone would be wondering if another country was secretly rebuilding their arsenal for military gain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration
Until then we will in fact never be free of them because the knowledge is there to build them even if all the current ones were removed.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=135564
I note the story on this now on the BBC has Eagle's defence of the General's right to express himself in the way he did is now way down the page, another good reason for Corbyn to respond directly - her view on Trident in opposition to him is still known, but that she not only has that but defends the right of an officer to politically interfere on that issue, which is more significant, is now not as immediately apparent.
#
If I had been Corbyn, I would have shrugged it off as "he would say that wouldn't he" and have written a note privately, not publicly, to the MOD about crossing the line. And not on Remembrance Sunday either. Once again, Corbyn isn't wrong exactly but he manages to make a mess of the politics. Maladroit and tone deaf. And that is his problem.
With that, good night all and have a good week.
Earlier I accidentally clicked on this thread from eight years ago. It is worth a re-read in light of this years events. We can predict everything bar the future!:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/08/31/whatever-happened-to-the-far-left/
However that was during the cold war where nukes were all the rage and people were both worried about their use and defence during WW3 with the Soviets.
Today that is no longer a defence priority and people have stopped worrying that at any moment the USSR might attack, simply because there is no USSR anymore, the cold war is over and no amount of rivalry with the Russians or the Chinese is going to bring it back.
Back then it was a gigantic ideological struggle all around the world and outer space, if the Soviets had won we would have no rights to private property, no private businesses and anyone who would have dared to say otherwise would have been shot or sent to a gulag.
If the Russians won a cold war today the worst thing would be a flat tax on income, a ban on gays and replacing BBC with RT.
So not many people care about nukes or put them as their policy priority since 1991, so the whining for or against nukes is useless and pointless.
And while I don't doubt the hardiness of the men fighting through North Africa and Italy, nor the conditions they had to endure (one of my grandfathers also followed that wartime route), the fact remains that the war was won, as far as Britain was concerned, in Western Europe, at sea and in the air. That's not to belittle the other theatres but to recognise those of primary importance and those which were secondary.
(I appreciate that I was a bit provocative in my description, though it was derived from the line in Lawrence of Arabia)
"Sean Fear is a London Conservative activist"
A donkey would have kept the Tories out.
Comparing with WW2 Germany:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a211610.pdf
223 killed in action
30 in accidents
64 Suicides
53 Executed
128 in POW camps
145 by war related health problems
32 missing in action
Total 675.
If it's possible to use the weapons for a WMD attack against troops in theatre then I'm quite sure it's possible to do it for a nuclear attack on the UK itself.
(Whether Major would actually have done it has to remain open to doubt. 'Controversial' wouldn't begin to describe such a decision. Even so, the fact remains that Saddam - who undoubtedly did have chemical weapons in 1991, even if he didn't by 2003 - chose not to use them. Deterrence works as the least-bad option).
Though I was right about Brighton.
34 Generals were killed by shellfire = 43%
22 Generals were killed by small arms fire = 28% (of which at least 12 were killed by snipers)
3 Generals were drowned - 1 accidently, This includes Kitchener, who at the time of his death was Field Marshall and Secretary of State for War.
1 inadvertently poisoned himself during the siege of Kut,
1 died from cholera.in Baghdad
1 died as a result of a flying accident
1 died from accidental injuries.
Of the remaining 15, no direct cause of death is known altoughh they all died in action either from small arms or shelling.
Corbyn goes to war with head of military
#tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers https://t.co/XX1ck5LTNZ
Through much of the war the CIGS was General Robertson, who had started as in the ranks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_William_Robertson,_1st_Baronet
He was also probably behind the Maurice Letter; which provoked a major debate at the height of the 1918 battles, with the military heavily criticising the politicians handling of the war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Maurice_Debate
Also we have no ICBM capability or strategic bombers.
Surely we should be addressing these holes in our nuclear defence in addition to Trident ?
General Maude was a pretty brave man. He was the last man to leave the British beach at Gallipoli. The second last was a certain Major Attlee.
The French though when straight ahead and they have dominated the european space industry since then.
The Vulcan in 1952 was designed to carry nuclear warheads, but it has been retired for many years now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Acqui_Division
"Greece fights for 1.4 billion pounds in bailout cash amid tax row"
Nick Sutton @suttonnick 13m13 minutes ago
Monday's Telegraph Business:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTUiBOWXIAI5Im5.jpg
a. Not giving enough time for any EU reform to be decided.
b. Not giving enough time for the voters to change their minds.
c. Not giving enough time for the non-Cameron political forces to organize.
It's I-285, Atlanta's equivalent to London's M25.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/americas-deadliest-interstate-georgia-study-says/npJBy/
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3308810/Ditch-Danczuk-s-Labour-chiefs-threatening-revenge-rebel-MP-writing-MoS-articles-like-one.html#ixzz3qwPr1DaD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
If Danzcuk stays Labour would lose his seat since the local party will refuse to vote or support him. The same thing happened in the Heywood by-election with Danzcuk as campaign head which Labour almost lost, since then Danzcuk has become even more of an anathema to Labour.