Wouldn't it be simplest to have a bright line test:
* All parties that are standing in more than X constituencies with at least Y in each of England, Wales and Scotland (excluding NI because of the different party structure)
AND EITHER
(a) Have more than X current members of the House of Commons
OR
(b) Have averaged more than x% in opinion polls since the last equivalent election (you'd need to select a single provider, probably YouGov simply by virtue of them having the most polls, or perhaps you go for some kind of blended average of polls
Perfectly sensible
Whilst I support the idea of a threshold of contested seats I oppose the two additional criteria because
a) Number of seats as has been discussed ad infinitum does not fully represent national support it reflects local selection. If we were having each MP representing his constituency it would be valid but as it is the Party Leader representing his party centrally then surely total vote (highest in any election in the last 5? 10? years) should be the criterion.
Now if a threshold was set at say 250,000 thousand or 500,000 votes received (therefore excluding all but serious parties) then arguably that would avoid the obvious charges of elitism and of a 'Parliamentary closed shop' that would likely follow a much higher threshold in the millions or a constituency threshold.
it is still not wholly desirable. Previous performance should not be allowed to limit future potential in politics as elsewhere but it is far better than the closed shop constituency threshold approach.
b) Polling is such an imprecise science, methods are increasingly varied and different and there are at least two pollsters who would have to be excluded because of severe conflicts of interest (Yougov and Populus) that it just would not be credible to base an threshold on polling.
The primary point being any criteria that is perceived to protect the Conservatives, Labour or Libdems will just further do damage to their reputation and that of our political system in general.
The idea that it was all some terrible accident or simply incompetence is no longer in favour.
I don;t think Blackadder really hits out at the justness of the war anyway. What it really criticizes is the complete folly of prolonging it when it was clear the whole thing had essentially become a vast killing field stalemate
In all seriousness, but with different treaties/alliances signed decades before, we could have been on the side of the Central Powers in World War I, and the Germans on the Entente side.
Given that Britain's imperial friction was mainly with France and Russia, it's far from inconceivable that had the crisis been surmounted in 1914, a later war might have seen Britain on the side of the Central Powers rather than with the Entente.
The idea that it was all some terrible accident or simply incompetence is no longer in favour.
I don;t think Blackadder really hits out at the justness of the war anyway. What it really criticizes is the complete folly of prolonging it when it was clear the whole thing had essentially become a vast killing field stalemate
Wars are easy to get into, but rather hard to get out of....
Christ on a bike, I've just read Michael Gove's comments on World War I.
Someone make him stop
The Education Secretary says the conflict was a "just war" to combat aggression by a German elite bent on domination.
That's pretty much the conclusion that Max Hastings comes to in Catastrophe and, as I understand it (IANAE), is the consensus view among modern historians, including German ones. The German leadership was confident they could repeat the successes of Bismarck and pushed Austria-Hungary into attacking Serbia in the knowledge this would bring the Russians and hence the French in. They had plans to attack and knock out France in the same way they did in 1870.
The idea that it was all some terrible accident or simply incompetence is no longer in favour.
Even Churchill criticised Haig's strategies.
Criticism of Haig began in the memoirs of politicians. Winston Churchill, whose World Crisis was written during Haig's lifetime, suggested that greater use of tanks, as at Cambrai, could have been an alternative to blocking enemy machine-gun fire with "the breasts of brave men"
It's the futility of repeating the same mistake over and over again, that saw the deaths of so many British and Empire soldiers that grate, when it was obvious thus tactics were inept.
I guess my own thoughts are coloured by reading Alan Clark's books on the war.
In all seriousness, but with different treaties/alliances signed decades before, we could have been on the side of the Central Powers in World War I, and the Germans on the Entente side.
Given that Britain's imperial friction was mainly with France and Russia, it's far from inconceivable that had the crisis been surmounted in 1914, a later war might have seen Britain on the side of the Central Powers rather than with the Entente.
Exactly.
The Great Game could have had a few more chapters.
The idea that it was all some terrible accident or simply incompetence is no longer in favour.
I don;t think Blackadder really hits out at the justness of the war anyway. What it really criticizes is the complete folly of prolonging it when it was clear the whole thing had essentially become a vast killing field stalemate
Stopping wars is a lot more difficult than starting them. But I would not suggest that everyone might not have done more once the scale of the horror unleashed by modern warfare was appreciated.
The number of times Generals were able to persuade themselves that this time it would be different is one of the real puzzles of the war. These men were not stupid.
Wonder how many gullible Tories fell for all that Parliament Act posturing?
I think you misunderstand the Parliament Act. It could never have been used on Wharton's bill *this* year
Could it not be used in the 2013-14 session?
I believe it can be - the bill needs to be reintroduced in the same form as previously passed the commons under the aegis of the Parliament Act. It then needs to pass in the same form.
(caveat: it has been 20 years since I read the relevant piece of legislation)
The reality is that Labour/LibDems will vote to amend the Wharton-II Bill to prevent it becoming law. They need to do this in such a way that they are not perceived as denying the British people a vote. I'd assume it would be an amendment to move the vote forward to 2015 (perhaps concomitant with the General Election - to save money naturally - while also making the election all about Europe)
The Tories then either have to vote against an earlier vote - and stick up for Bartlett's nuances - or swing behind 2015 and risk clouding the 2015 election / losing the opportunity to renegotiate. My guess is that Cameron will try to stick up for 2017, but will get pushed by his party to back 2015. The Lords will then vote it down on the grounds that it is, by then, late 2014 and there is not enough time to have a meaningful debate.
The idea that it was all some terrible accident or simply incompetence is no longer in favour.
I don;t think Blackadder really hits out at the justness of the war anyway. What it really criticizes is the complete folly of prolonging it when it was clear the whole thing had essentially become a vast killing field stalemate
Stopping wars is a lot more difficult than starting them. But I would not suggest that everyone might not have done more once the scale of the horror unleashed by modern warfare was appreciated.
The number of times Generals were able to persuade themselves that this time it would be different is one of the real puzzles of the war. These men were not stupid.
That's the definition of insanity isn't it though.. doing things time after time expecting a different result.
Christ on a bike, I've just read Michael Gove's comments on World War I.
Someone make him stop
The Education Secretary says the conflict was a "just war" to combat aggression by a German elite bent on domination.
That's pretty much the conclusion that Max Hastings comes to in Catastrophe and, as I understand it (IANAE), is the consensus view among modern historians, including German ones. The German leadership was confident they could repeat the successes of Bismarck and pushed Austria-Hungary into attacking Serbia in the knowledge this would bring the Russians and hence the French in. They had plans to attack and knock out France in the same way they did in 1870.
The idea that it was all some terrible accident or simply incompetence is no longer in favour.
Even Churchill criticised Haig's strategies.
Criticism of Haig began in the memoirs of politicians. Winston Churchill, whose World Crisis was written during Haig's lifetime, suggested that greater use of tanks, as at Cambrai, could have been an alternative to blocking enemy machine-gun fire with "the breasts of brave men"
It's the futility of repeating the same mistake over and over again, that saw the deaths of so many British and Empire soldiers that grate, when it was obvious thus tactics were inept.
I guess my own thoughts are coloured by reading Alan Clark's books on the war.
That is rather a different point from who started the war and it is one on which you will have seen I broadly agree (not that Haig was any different in this respect from his counterparts). It is a long time since I studied this in school was was Cambrai not in 1917? I think it was fairly late on before tanks were available at all.
The idea that it was all some terrible accident or simply incompetence is no longer in favour.
I don;t think Blackadder really hits out at the justness of the war anyway. What it really criticizes is the complete folly of prolonging it when it was clear the whole thing had essentially become a vast killing field stalemate
The problem was that the sheer scale of that killing meant that it produced its own momentum: how could anyone justify all those deaths if there was nothing to show for it and the country (whichever one it was) had the ability to continue. You can hear the arguments now: 'it would be a betrayal to the fallen to bargain away their sacrifices' etc etc.
Christ on a bike, I've just read Michael Gove's comments on World War I.
Someone make him stop
The Education Secretary says the conflict was a "just war" to combat aggression by a German elite bent on domination.
That's pretty much the conclusion that Max Hastings comes to in Catastrophe and, as I understand it (IANAE), is the consensus view among modern historians, including German ones. The German leadership was confident they could repeat the successes of Bismarck and pushed Austria-Hungary into attacking Serbia in the knowledge this would bring the Russians and hence the French in. They had plans to attack and knock out France in the same way they did in 1870.
The idea that it was all some terrible accident or simply incompetence is no longer in favour.
Even Churchill criticised Haig's strategies.
Criticism of Haig began in the memoirs of politicians. Winston Churchill, whose World Crisis was written during Haig's lifetime, suggested that greater use of tanks, as at Cambrai, could have been an alternative to blocking enemy machine-gun fire with "the breasts of brave men"
It's the futility of repeating the same mistake over and over again, that saw the deaths of so many British and Empire soldiers that grate, when it was obvious thus tactics were inept.
I guess my own thoughts are coloured by reading Alan Clark's books on the war.
That is rather a different point from who started the war and it is one on which you will have seen I broadly agree (not that Haig was any different in this respect from his counterparts). It is a long time since I studied this in school was was Cambrai not in 1917? I think it was fairly late on before tanks were available at all.
The first battle of Cambrai was in 1917, The Second Battle was in 1918
Christ on a bike, I've just read Michael Gove's comments on World War I.
Someone make him stop
The Education Secretary says the conflict was a "just war" to combat aggression by a German elite bent on domination.
That's pretty much the conclusion that Max Hastings comes to in Catastrophe and, as I understand it (IANAE), is the consensus view among modern historians, including German ones. The German leadership was confident they could repeat the successes of Bismarck and pushed Austria-Hungary into attacking Serbia in the knowledge this would bring the Russians and hence the French in. They had plans to attack and knock out France in the same way they did in 1870.
The idea that it was all some terrible accident or simply incompetence is no longer in favour.
Even Churchill criticised Haig's strategies.
Criticism of Haig began in the memoirs of politicians. Winston Churchill, whose World Crisis was written during Haig's lifetime, suggested that greater use of tanks, as at Cambrai, could have been an alternative to blocking enemy machine-gun fire with "the breasts of brave men"
It's the futility of repeating the same mistake over and over again, that saw the deaths of so many British and Empire soldiers that grate, when it was obvious thus tactics were inept.
I guess my own thoughts are coloured by reading Alan Clark's books on the war.
The Education Secretary says the conflict was a "just war" to combat aggression by a German elite bent on domination.
That's not true for a start.
Well, "not true" is putting it a bit strongly. It's an opinion which is justified by some facts and actions.
One of the problems with WWI is that just about every participant could claim it was a just war, even though in the big scheme of things, it was utterly pointless.
Whether you believe the 'German domination' hypothesis really turns on the two key questions about the outbreak of the war: - Was Austria-Hungary justified in declaring war on Serbia? - Was Russia justified in fully backing Serbia?
(a) No. Austria-Hungary had been trying to bully Serbia for many years and was just using this as an excuse. Serbia - backed by Russia - had had enough
(b) No. Russia had tried to create a European role for itself by setting itself up as the pan-Slavic champion despite the fact that the majority of European Slavs* lived inside the Austro-Hungarian empire.
Personally I view WWI as a runaway train that no one had the balls to try and stop
* Excluding Slavs in European Russia, of course, for any smart arses out there
The idea that it was all some terrible accident or simply incompetence is no longer in favour.
I don;t think Blackadder really hits out at the justness of the war anyway. What it really criticizes is the complete folly of prolonging it when it was clear the whole thing had essentially become a vast killing field stalemate
The problem was that the sheer scale of that killing meant that it produced its own momentum: how could anyone justify all those deaths if there was nothing to show for it and the country (whichever one it was) had the ability to continue. You can hear the arguments now: 'it would be a betrayal to the fallen to bargain away their sacrifices' etc etc.
That also links into the 'gamblers fallacy' though doesn't it.. That the events of the failures before, must mean there is success in the future. That the failed assults somehow must have weakened the enemy, so the next one will have a higher chance of success..
The Education Secretary says the conflict was a "just war" to combat aggression by a German elite bent on domination.
That's not true for a start.
Personally I view WWI as a runaway train that no one had the balls to try and stop
That doesn't fit well with the modern mindset that there must always be someone to blame for any event which happens, that a human element is responsible for everything.
Criticism of Haig began in the memoirs of politicians.
The person who really did for Haig was David Lloyd George. The two never got on when DLG was prime minister 1916/1918 and when DLG published his memoirs in the 30s, there was no doubt as to where the blame for the slaughter lay.
Christ on a bike, I've just read Michael Gove's comments on World War I.
Someone make him stop
The Education Secretary says the conflict was a "just war" to combat aggression by a German elite bent on domination.
That's pretty much the conclusion that Max Hastings comes to in Catastrophe and, as I understand it (IANAE), is the consensus view among modern historians, including German ones. The German leadership was confident they could repeat the successes of Bismarck and pushed Austria-Hungary into attacking Serbia in the knowledge this would bring the Russians and hence the French in. They had plans to attack and knock out France in the same way they did in 1870.
The idea that it was all some terrible accident or simply incompetence is no longer in favour.
Even Churchill criticised Haig's strategies.
Criticism of Haig began in the memoirs of politicians. Winston Churchill, whose World Crisis was written during Haig's lifetime, suggested that greater use of tanks, as at Cambrai, could have been an alternative to blocking enemy machine-gun fire with "the breasts of brave men"
It's the futility of repeating the same mistake over and over again, that saw the deaths of so many British and Empire soldiers that grate, when it was obvious thus tactics were inept.
I guess my own thoughts are coloured by reading Alan Clark's books on the war.
That is rather a different point from who started the war and it is one on which you will have seen I broadly agree (not that Haig was any different in this respect from his counterparts). It is a long time since I studied this in school was was Cambrai not in 1917? I think it was fairly late on before tanks were available at all.
The first battle of Cambrai was in 1917, The Second Battle was in 1918
To simplify a bit - the answer is both of you are right, tanks were available mid war but only later in real numbers. Tanks wre first rushed, arguably prematurely and in far too small numbers, by Haig on the Somme in autumn 1916 - ghastly Mark 1 which were basically pre-production by modern standards - and a poor battlefield. All it did was give the Germans (ironically) an early sense of confidence, especially when they captured and tried out their guns on, IIRC, the Mark II which was in fact an unarmoured boilerplate variant for training [that those should have been sent into battle is appalling]. Cambrai 1917 was the first properly organised battle which took tanks' strengths and weaknesses into account and out them on reasonable ground. It was a smashing success - just a shame the generals were not able/prepared to exploit it.
The conduct that provoked Carthage to reluctantly bring about the Third War was not the settlement of the Second but the Roman behaviour over a prolonged period of time. The concession by Rome of territory from Carthage to Numidia followed by continual insults and unnecessary provocation by Rome brought about the Third War. The settlement itself did not.
In fact, it's about as wrong an analogy as can be made. Rome won the earlier war and forced the next, whereas in the 1930s it was Germany who had lost the earlier war and forced the next.
'The red caps mobilised in a wave of nationalist fervour at the end of last year, bringing together bosses, farmers and workers in a single cause, and crystallising the French disgust at their rising tax burden.'
Hannan on the EU elections: "My guess is that May’s elections will see big losses for the EPP and the Liberals. The Socialists may pick up a few seats, benefiting from anti-incumbency votes against centre-right governments at national level. But the big gains will be made by euro-critical parties. Paradoxically, the result will be to drive the EPP and the Socialists even closer together"
The conduct that provoked Carthage to reluctantly bring about the Third War was not the settlement of the Second but the Roman behaviour over a prolonged period of time. The concession by Rome of territory from Carthage to Numidia followed by continual insults and unnecessary provocation by Rome brought about the Third War. The settlement itself did not.
In fact, it's about as wrong an analogy as can be made. Rome won the earlier war and forced the next, whereas in the 1930s it was Germany who had lost the earlier war and forced the next.
No, if you notice, I maintain it was the French that triggered World War II via the treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I.
The Education Secretary says the conflict was a "just war" to combat aggression by a German elite bent on domination.
That's not true for a start.
Well, "not true" is putting it a bit strongly. It's an opinion which is justified by some facts and actions.
One of the problems with WWI is that just about every participant could claim it was a just war, even though in the big scheme of things, it was utterly pointless.
Whether you believe the 'German domination' hypothesis really turns on the two key questions about the outbreak of the war: - Was Austria-Hungary justified in declaring war on Serbia? - Was Russia justified in fully backing Serbia?
(a) No. Austria-Hungary had been trying to bully Serbia for many years and was just using this as an excuse. Serbia - backed by Russia - had had enough
(b) No. Russia had tried to create a European role for itself by setting itself up as the pan-Slavic champion despite the fact that the majority of European Slavs* lived inside the Austro-Hungarian empire.
Personally I view WWI as a runaway train that no one had the balls to try and stop
* Excluding Slavs in European Russia, of course, for any smart arses out there
I'd only agree with one of those.
I think that Austria-Hungary was justified in attacking Serbia, in much the same way as the US was justified in attacking Afghanistan (in very similar circumstances, it has to be said). Serbian extremists had committed a highly symbollic outrage against Austria-Hungary and Austria had to respond effectively. Considering the links between the Serbian state and the paramilitaries, the shared pan-Serbian ideology, and Serbia's evasive response to the ultimatum, I don't think there was any other option to resolving the Austria's Serb problem than force. This isn't to say that either Austria's previous actions in the Balkans or the Archduke's visit were well-advised; they weren't.
On the other hand, and for the same reasons, I don't think Russia was justified in giving Serbia the kind of backing it did, except that its own actions and assurances had backed itself into a corner whereby to not act would have gravely affected its own status, influence and reliability. Still, better that than the alternative.
Serbia deserved to get its backside kicked for its behaviour over several decades in the Balkans prior to the outbreak of war. The role of the rest of Europe should have been to make sure Austria didn't go too far, not to join in.
'The red caps mobilised in a wave of nationalist fervour at the end of last year, bringing together bosses, farmers and workers in a single cause, and crystallising the French disgust at their rising tax burden.'
300 troops or so were executed on the British side by firing squad in the first world war. What is little known is that without Haig it would have been 3000.
That's the number of death sentences that were passed by makeshift court martials in the field. Haig commuted 9 in 10 to another sentence (he had the final say after the papers had been passed up the chain of command).
Thus, the Blackadder court martial episode (the flanders pigeon murderer!) isn't so very far from the truth in that WW1 courts martial were pretty ropey affairs, and Blackadder got let off.
But in the episode Blackadder was let off by Kitchener, whereas in reality he would have been let off by Haig.
Southampton's complaint against Mark Clattenburg thrown out by refs' bosses
• Adam Lallana had been at centre of Saints' letter to PGMOL • 'You are very different now, since you've played for England' • Clattenburg will referee Arsenal v Tottenham on Saturday
Interesting analysis of the current political state of play in Brussels and around Europe in the run up to the Euros from Dan Hannan
Watch out Eurocrats, here come the Pirates! The Brussels establishment see their diverse new opponents as just a bunch of extremists. They won't know what's hit them
Mr. Eagles, I can't recall the precise terms of the settlement (I suspect loss of all territory in Iberia and the islands and most/all of the fleet being destroyed as well), but after the treaty further loss of territory and needless insults were what caused the next war.
In those rather basic and broad terms, then you can make an argument for comparison, but I think 1920s/30s Germany and Carthage immediately after the Second Punic War concluded are not well-suited for comparison.
In many ways the real origins of WW1 was the brilliance of Bismarck. His clever strategies and immense skill in isolating his enemies made wars look simple, relatively cheap and effective. He defeated Austria Hungary in 6 weeks and France in about 3 months with relatively modest casulaties.
The next generation of Germans thought they could do the same and that the war machine that Moltke had built and Krupps had armed was so superior that war would be relatively easy. No doubt they also looked at the way the British empire had largely been acquired on the back of beating its European competitors.
Those involved would have been better considering the horrors of the American Civil war than the tactical genius of Bismarck.
Another criticism of Bismarck (slightly unfair as he was not a supreme ruler of his country) was that he did very little or nothing to develop a more sophisticated and responsive democracy in Germany which might have allowed politicians rather than the Kaiser and the General Staff to decide if war was a good idea or not.
One of my favourite stories about Bismarck is that when he was on his death bed he was asked if he had any regrets about his life, the wars, etc. His reply was that he wished he had drunk more champagne. Truly a remarkable man.
Just finished viewing "PQ17: An Arctic Convoy Disaster" on iplayer. Bloody brilliant!
I watched it this morning, the grimmest part was the bit when it was revealed that they stopped getting paid the moment their ship was sunk...
What I can't understand, is that everyone knew that Admiral Douglas Pound was an ill man. Churchill knew, and yet still kept him in his post. Not only astonishing but completely crazy.
In many ways the real origins of WW1 was the brilliance of Bismarck. His clever strategies and immense skill in isolating his enemies made wars look simple, relatively cheap and effective. He defeated Austria Hungary in 6 weeks and France in about 3 months with relatively modest casulaties.
The next generation of Germans thought they could do the same and that the war machine that Moltke had built and Krupps had armed was so superior that war would be relatively easy. No doubt they also looked at the way the British empire had largely been acquired on the back of beating its European competitors.
Those involved would have been better considering the horrors of the American Civil war than the tactical genius of Bismarck.
Another criticism of Bismarck (slightly unfair as he was not a supreme ruler of his country) was that he did very little or nothing to develop a more sophisticated and responsive democracy in Germany which might have allowed politicians rather than the Kaiser and the General Staff to decide if war was a good idea or not.
One of my favourite stories about Bismarck is that when he was on his death bed he was asked if he had any regrets about his life, the wars, etc. His reply was that he wished he had drunk more champagne. Truly a remarkable man.
I'd agree with much of that sentiment, and would add to it in that Bismarck built a diplomatic policy that required someone of extreme skill (and largely free of external control) to maintain: it simply had too many contradictions.
However, I'd disagree that the Germans thought their forces far superior and capable of taking on all-comers in a matter of weeks. Indeed, there was growing concern in Germany in 1914 at how fast Russia was developing and how much of a threat she presented. Ironically, the pre-war war-gaming suggested France could be knocked out quickly but Germany would need to come to a negotiated settlement in the east. As conclusions go, it was 180 degrees out.
@DavidL I'm another one that is reading the brilliant, yet flawed book, "The War That Ended Peace". Shame that it's so poorly edited, and some facts that I know- at least in the earlier part of the book - are totally at variance with the truth, which makes me suspect other, later parts of the book.
The conduct that provoked Carthage to reluctantly bring about the Third War was not the settlement of the Second but the Roman behaviour over a prolonged period of time. The concession by Rome of territory from Carthage to Numidia followed by continual insults and unnecessary provocation by Rome brought about the Third War. The settlement itself did not.
In fact, it's about as wrong an analogy as can be made. Rome won the earlier war and forced the next, whereas in the 1930s it was Germany who had lost the earlier war and forced the next.
No, if you notice, I maintain it was the French that triggered World War II via the treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I.
I don't think the Treaty of Versailles was that unreasonable. Germany remained intact as a major power, albeit one whose ability to wage war was circumscribed.
The Germans really only had two legitimate grievances; that Danzig and Austria weren't allowed to unite with Germany, despite the clear wish of their inhabitants.
Mr. Herdson, that sounds comparable to Diocletian's tetrarchy of the Roman Empire (whereby two senior emperors, called Augusti, had responsibility for East and West, each with a junior colleague called a Caesar).
Diocletian made it work but when he was no longer chief emperor it proved to be a cause of rather than a cure for instability. Ironically, he was unable to help his wife and daughter after becoming the only emperor to willingly abdicate, when they were in the power of another emperor in his latter years.
Hannan on the EU elections: "My guess is that May’s elections will see big losses for the EPP and the Liberals. The Socialists may pick up a few seats, benefiting from anti-incumbency votes against centre-right governments at national level. But the big gains will be made by euro-critical parties. Paradoxically, the result will be to drive the EPP and the Socialists even closer together"
The idea that it was all some terrible accident or simply incompetence is no longer in favour.
I don;t think Blackadder really hits out at the justness of the war anyway. What it really criticizes is the complete folly of prolonging it when it was clear the whole thing had essentially become a vast killing field stalemate
Stopping wars is a lot more difficult than starting them. But I would not suggest that everyone might not have done more once the scale of the horror unleashed by modern warfare was appreciated.
The number of times Generals were able to persuade themselves that this time it would be different is one of the real puzzles of the war. These men were not stupid.
Weren't they? Serious question -- when did buying commissions stop?
I don't think the Treaty of Versailles was that unreasonable. Germany remained intact as a major power, albeit one whose ability to wage war was circumscribed.
The Germans really only had two legitimate grievances; that Danzig and Austria weren't allowed to unite with Germany, despite the clear wish of their inhabitants.
Versailles is the Treaty everyone remembers but Trianon and Sevres were equally divisive and would lead to lasting recrimination and sow the seeds of future conflict.
Whatever the veracity of the maxim, the victorious Allies, driven perhaps by their fear of Bolshevism, completely misjudged the immediate aftermath of 1918-19 and left fragile and unsupported democracies to fall into the hands of nationalist authoritarians.
The consequences of 1918-19 would reverberate for a generation. It's equally arguable we are living with the consequences of the events of 1989-90. The 20th Century saw the fall of three systems of totalitarianism - dynastic autarchy in 1918, fascism and naziism in 1944-45 and finally Communism in 1989. The triumph of liberal democracy and capitalism is to be welcomed but has not been without consequences for the victors.
The idea that it was all some terrible accident or simply incompetence is no longer in favour.
I don;t think Blackadder really hits out at the justness of the war anyway. What it really criticizes is the complete folly of prolonging it when it was clear the whole thing had essentially become a vast killing field stalemate
Stopping wars is a lot more difficult than starting them. But I would not suggest that everyone might not have done more once the scale of the horror unleashed by modern warfare was appreciated.
The number of times Generals were able to persuade themselves that this time it would be different is one of the real puzzles of the war. These men were not stupid.
Weren't they? Serious question -- when did buying commissions stop?
No, they weren't. They, along with everyone else, was learning as they went along. They started off in 1914 waging the kind of battlefield war similar to those from the mid-19th century conflicts. By 1918, they had effectively developed Blitzkrieg, incorporating tanks, air support, and concentrated artillary assault. That learning process was expensive and bloody.
It shouldn't be forgotten that they were also under pressure from public and politicians to 'do something'. Sitting around for three years waiting for the tank to be developed wasn't an option.
Hannan on the EU elections: "My guess is that May’s elections will see big losses for the EPP and the Liberals. The Socialists may pick up a few seats, benefiting from anti-incumbency votes against centre-right governments at national level. But the big gains will be made by euro-critical parties. Paradoxically, the result will be to drive the EPP and the Socialists even closer together"
I don't think the Treaty of Versailles was that unreasonable. Germany remained intact as a major power, albeit one whose ability to wage war was circumscribed.
The Germans really only had two legitimate grievances; that Danzig and Austria weren't allowed to unite with Germany, despite the clear wish of their inhabitants.
Versailles is the Treaty everyone remembers but Trianon and Sevres were equally divisive and would lead to lasting recrimination and sow the seeds of future conflict.
Whatever the veracity of the maxim, the victorious Allies, driven perhaps by their fear of Bolshevism, completely misjudged the immediate aftermath of 1918-19 and left fragile and unsupported democracies to fall into the hands of nationalist authoritarians.
The consequences of 1918-19 would reverberate for a generation. It's equally arguable we are living with the consequences of the events of 1989-90. The 20th Century saw the fall of three systems of totalitarianism - dynastic autarchy in 1918, fascism and naziism in 1944-45 and finally Communism in 1989. The triumph of liberal democracy and capitalism is to be welcomed but has not been without consequences for the victors.
I think that the history of Central Europe would have been a good deal happier, if Austria-Hungary had continued to exist as a state. Unfortunately, few of its inhabitants wanted it to continue in 1918.
TSE - Gove cannot be stopped. He is on a one man mission to revive our flagging patriotism. I'd be interested to see what someone like Richard Evans (doesn't usually mince his words) has to say about his comments. What worries me about Gove is his preference for black and white thinking and his desire to make moral judgements on the past rather than focussing on analysing it. He did of course write a chapter in the book 'Neoconservatism' and wrote a favourable biography of Michael Portillo about the time of his famous SAS speech.
I don't think the Treaty of Versailles was that unreasonable. Germany remained intact as a major power, albeit one whose ability to wage war was circumscribed.
The problem with the Treaty of Versailles was not that it was too harsh, but that it was too lenient. It left Germany with a capability to wage war, and a sense of grievance, which was to prove a fatal combination.
The idea that it was all some terrible accident or simply incompetence is no longer in favour.
I don;t think Blackadder really hits out at the justness of the war anyway. What it really criticizes is the complete folly of prolonging it when it was clear the whole thing had essentially become a vast killing field stalemate
Stopping wars is a lot more difficult than starting them. But I would not suggest that everyone might not have done more once the scale of the horror unleashed by modern warfare was appreciated.
The number of times Generals were able to persuade themselves that this time it would be different is one of the real puzzles of the war. These men were not stupid.
Weren't they? Serious question -- when did buying commissions stop?
According to Wiki in 1871. The Cardwell reforms at that time were a partial response to Prussia's success and the recognition that our army was a joke by modern standards. Unfortunately it remained extremely small and was disregarded as a consideration by the Germans on that basis.
I don't think the Treaty of Versailles was that unreasonable. Germany remained intact as a major power, albeit one whose ability to wage war was circumscribed.
The problem with the Treaty of Versailles was not that it was too harsh, but that it was too lenient. It left Germany with a capability to wage war, and a sense of grievance, which was to prove a fatal combination.
The problem was not that it was too harsh or too lenient; it was that it was a great deal harsher than the Germans had been led to expect (Wilson's 14 points), leaving them with a sense of having been sold a case for going to peace on a false prospectus.
I don't think the Treaty of Versailles was that unreasonable. Germany remained intact as a major power, albeit one whose ability to wage war was circumscribed.
The problem with the Treaty of Versailles was not that it was too harsh, but that it was too lenient. It left Germany with a capability to wage war, and a sense of grievance, which was to prove a fatal combination.
Working my way through Churchill's memoirs, I came across a bit where he approvingly says that the way forward is to dismember Germany into several parts. The general impression is that East Germany was only created because the Russians insisted. I'd forgotten that we favoured it. Mrs T was dubious about reunification, I believe.
It's worse than that. Lagarde, the head of the IMF, is toying with the idea of paying the eurozone's debts by taking10% of all the possessions of the wealthiest in the region. It isn;t a tax, in that its something a government will stand on and be elected on. It's essentially legalised theft.
It would be done at very short notice to prevent the cash and property fleeing elsewhere. Sort of a night of the long knives job.
And it would only be a one off. Honestly.
Now, I ask you, what could possibly go wrong??
Well, ignoring for a moment that Lagarde doesn't make policy in the Eurozone, the idea has 'form'. In the 1970s, there was a one-off levy on Italian bank accounts. (In fact, it may have been a trick that the Italians pulled off twice in the post-WW2 period).
From a pure economics perspective, there is a lot to be said for an annual 'wealth tax'. Any tax system should encourage work (taxes on work obviously discourage work), and should discourage inefficient capital allocation. A wealth tax would encourage people to make sure that all their assets earned a return, and would therefore almost certainly be economically beneficial (there is a lot of good economics literature on this). It would be opposed by retired people, for obvious reasons.
I personally doubt that there will be a one-off anything in the EU. From a government finances perspective (and ignoring unemployment), the PIIGS are in a much improved state. (Note: much improved state is not the same as saying "all is well", it is merely a reflection of the fact that aggressive government spending cuts have dramatically cut deficits.)
Greece and Italy now both run primary government surpluses (i.e., they bring in more in taxes than they spend, before interest payments) - although it's wrth noting that Greece is still fundamentally f*cked; Ireland is likely to see overall debt-to-GDP start to fall in early 2014 (which is rather before we in the UK do); Spain is not yet there, but it's economy is improving fast (as a country it is 12-18 months behind Ireland);
Government bond yields on Spanish and Italian debt is now c. 4%; Ireland is below that. Portugal and Greece are the only countries where the bond markets currently indicate any stress (6% and 8.5% respectively).
Hannan on the EU elections: "My guess is that May’s elections will see big losses for the EPP and the Liberals. The Socialists may pick up a few seats, benefiting from anti-incumbency votes against centre-right governments at national level. But the big gains will be made by euro-critical parties. Paradoxically, the result will be to drive the EPP and the Socialists even closer together"
The problem was not that it was too harsh or too lenient; it was that it was a great deal harsher than the Germans had been led to expect (Wilson's 14 points), leaving them with a sense of having been sold a case for going to peace on a false prospectus.
Wilson never claimed nor had the right to speak on behalf of the United Kingdom or France, who were also victors and whose agreement to peace terms was necessary. Germany may have had a sense of grievance, and it may have had a palpable basis, but that grievance could only have given rise to war because Germany's capacity to make war was preserved at Versailles. Partition would have been a better way of proceeding.
The idea that it was all some terrible accident or simply incompetence is no longer in favour.
I don;t think Blackadder really hits out at the justness of the war anyway. What it really criticizes is the complete folly of prolonging it when it was clear the whole thing had essentially become a vast killing field stalemate
Stopping wars is a lot more difficult than starting them. But I would not suggest that everyone might not have done more once the scale of the horror unleashed by modern warfare was appreciated.
The number of times Generals were able to persuade themselves that this time it would be different is one of the real puzzles of the war. These men were not stupid.
Weren't they? Serious question -- when did buying commissions stop?
According to Wiki in 1871. The Cardwell reforms at that time were a partial response to Prussia's success and the recognition that our army was a joke by modern standards. Unfortunately it remained extremely small and was disregarded as a consideration by the Germans on that basis.
I had to look into this for the day job recently and that is just about right. The only book I could find on it was BRUCE, A., 1980 The purchase system in the British Army, 1660-1871. London. - fascinatingly arcane stuff, frp those who like such. There is a journal paper out there which argues that the purchase system was the economically rational thing to do for all parties - I forget by whom but it is also interesting for those who etc.
Purchase was long over by GW times but it did establish the aristo/gentry class dominance of the officer class and therefore by the cavalry and the Guards. Cavalry and the Great War battle system were not exactly compatible ...
I don't think the Treaty of Versailles was that unreasonable. Germany remained intact as a major power, albeit one whose ability to wage war was circumscribed.
The problem with the Treaty of Versailles was not that it was too harsh, but that it was too lenient. It left Germany with a capability to wage war, and a sense of grievance, which was to prove a fatal combination.
Working my way through Churchill's memoirs, I came across a bit where he approvingly says that the way forward is to dismember Germany into several parts. The general impression is that East Germany was only created because the Russians insisted. I'd forgotten that we favoured it. Mrs T was dubious about reunification, I believe.
Well initially Germany was split into four zones with the British French and US combining theirs into one - seen by Stalin I believe as an act of aggression. Did Churchill want to go back to something like before German unification, with lots of statelets?
Thatcher was certainly suspicious of a united Germany. As was Mitterand. Lawson eventually grew tired of what he called her 'saloon bar xenophobia'.
Hannan on the EU elections: "My guess is that May’s elections will see big losses for the EPP and the Liberals. The Socialists may pick up a few seats, benefiting from anti-incumbency votes against centre-right governments at national level. But the big gains will be made by euro-critical parties. Paradoxically, the result will be to drive the EPP and the Socialists even closer together"
I don't think the Treaty of Versailles was that unreasonable. Germany remained intact as a major power, albeit one whose ability to wage war was circumscribed.
The Germans really only had two legitimate grievances; that Danzig and Austria weren't allowed to unite with Germany, despite the clear wish of their inhabitants.
Versailles is the Treaty everyone remembers but Trianon and Sevres were equally divisive and would lead to lasting recrimination and sow the seeds of future conflict.
Whatever the veracity of the maxim, the victorious Allies, driven perhaps by their fear of Bolshevism, completely misjudged the immediate aftermath of 1918-19 and left fragile and unsupported democracies to fall into the hands of nationalist authoritarians.
The consequences of 1918-19 would reverberate for a generation. It's equally arguable we are living with the consequences of the events of 1989-90. The 20th Century saw the fall of three systems of totalitarianism - dynastic autarchy in 1918, fascism and naziism in 1944-45 and finally Communism in 1989. The triumph of liberal democracy and capitalism is to be welcomed but has not been without consequences for the victors.
There was a very good book about this published a few years ago. You'd like it - the Lib (Dems) come out in a good light... the perfidious French are to blame, of course, as is Wilson's lack of interest
I don't think the Treaty of Versailles was that unreasonable. Germany remained intact as a major power, albeit one whose ability to wage war was circumscribed.
The problem with the Treaty of Versailles was not that it was too harsh, but that it was too lenient. It left Germany with a capability to wage war, and a sense of grievance, which was to prove a fatal combination.
Working my way through Churchill's memoirs, I came across a bit where he approvingly says that the way forward is to dismember Germany into several parts. The general impression is that East Germany was only created because the Russians insisted. I'd forgotten that we favoured it. Mrs T was dubious about reunification, I believe.
I think you are being a little unfair in the way you present Mrs T's position without nuance.
She supported reunification as the expression of the German people's democratic will. She was nervous about the implications for Europe given the huge weight that a prosperous Germany would have in the continent. She perhaps under-estimated the cost and pain and time to get there, but equally a lot of the challenges at the moment arise from Germany's preponderance (and the disquiet that breeds in Southern Europe)
Well initially Germany was split into four zones with the British French and US combining theirs into one - seen by Stalin I believe as an act of aggression. Did Churchill want to go back to something like before German unification, with lots of statelets?
Thatcher was certainly suspicious of a united Germany. As was Mitterand. Lawson eventually grew tired of what he called her 'saloon bar xenophobia'.
No, Churchill was looking at the four-part division idea, but he saw it as permanent at the time he was writing (1943).
Charles, my reference to Mrs T was not intended as a criticism. Reunification has worked out OK IMO, but some nervousness was reasonable enough.
I don't think the Treaty of Versailles was that unreasonable. Germany remained intact as a major power, albeit one whose ability to wage war was circumscribed.
The problem with the Treaty of Versailles was not that it was too harsh, but that it was too lenient. It left Germany with a capability to wage war, and a sense of grievance, which was to prove a fatal combination.
The problem was not that it was too harsh or too lenient; it was that it was a great deal harsher than the Germans had been led to expect (Wilson's 14 points), leaving them with a sense of having been sold a case for going to peace on a false prospectus.
Well, if they were so upset they could have gone back to war. There was only an armistice, not a peace. The fighting may have ended in 1918, but the war ended in 1919.
Funny that they expected lenient terms, they certainly weren't lenient to Russia at Brest-Litovsk!
I mooted the suggestion the other day that Dave should offer an English Parliament and full and equal devolution for all the countries of the UK in his GE manifesto. This would be very popular in England I have no doubt – especially as the Scottish referendum looms. I have come to realise that he should do this quickly because if he doesn’t UKIP might!
Personally I think if Farage offered England formal constitutional recognition and its own parliament then it would destroy the Tories’ chances of getting back into power. (It would do so too if Labour made the same offer – but hell will freeze over before Labour would ever dream of this).
Comments
a) Number of seats as has been discussed ad infinitum does not fully represent national support it reflects local selection. If we were having each MP representing his constituency it would be valid but as it is the Party Leader representing his party centrally then surely total vote (highest in any election in the last 5? 10? years) should be the criterion.
Now if a threshold was set at say 250,000 thousand or 500,000 votes received (therefore excluding all but serious parties) then arguably that would avoid the obvious charges of elitism and of a 'Parliamentary closed shop' that would likely follow a much higher threshold in the millions or a constituency threshold.
it is still not wholly desirable. Previous performance should not be allowed to limit future potential in politics as elsewhere but it is far better than the closed shop constituency threshold approach.
b) Polling is such an imprecise science, methods are increasingly varied and different and there are at least two pollsters who would have to be excluded because of severe conflicts of interest (Yougov and Populus) that it just would not be credible to base an threshold on polling.
The primary point being any criteria that is perceived to protect the Conservatives, Labour or Libdems will just further do damage to their reputation and that of our political system in general.
I don;t think Blackadder really hits out at the justness of the war anyway. What it really criticizes is the complete folly of prolonging it when it was clear the whole thing had essentially become a vast killing field stalemate
I agree with Nick, I mean, Mike.
UKIP will surely do well enough in the Euros to partly cover the change.
Criticism of Haig began in the memoirs of politicians. Winston Churchill, whose World Crisis was written during Haig's lifetime, suggested that greater use of tanks, as at Cambrai, could have been an alternative to blocking enemy machine-gun fire with "the breasts of brave men"
It's the futility of repeating the same mistake over and over again, that saw the deaths of so many British and Empire soldiers that grate, when it was obvious thus tactics were inept.
I guess my own thoughts are coloured by reading Alan Clark's books on the war.
The Great Game could have had a few more chapters.
The number of times Generals were able to persuade themselves that this time it would be different is one of the real puzzles of the war. These men were not stupid.
(caveat: it has been 20 years since I read the relevant piece of legislation)
The reality is that Labour/LibDems will vote to amend the Wharton-II Bill to prevent it becoming law. They need to do this in such a way that they are not perceived as denying the British people a vote. I'd assume it would be an amendment to move the vote forward to 2015 (perhaps concomitant with the General Election - to save money naturally - while also making the election all about Europe)
The Tories then either have to vote against an earlier vote - and stick up for Bartlett's nuances - or swing behind 2015 and risk clouding the 2015 election / losing the opportunity to renegotiate. My guess is that Cameron will try to stick up for 2017, but will get pushed by his party to back 2015. The Lords will then vote it down on the grounds that it is, by then, late 2014 and there is not enough time to have a meaningful debate.
The French were responsible for starting World War II with the Treaty of Versailles.
One for Morris Dancer, John Maynard Keynes called it a Carthaginian Peace.
Read more here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles
and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthaginian_peace
Haig returned to his alma mater a war hero.
(b) No. Russia had tried to create a European role for itself by setting itself up as the pan-Slavic champion despite the fact that the majority of European Slavs* lived inside the Austro-Hungarian empire.
Personally I view WWI as a runaway train that no one had the balls to try and stop
* Excluding Slavs in European Russia, of course, for any smart arses out there
The person who really did for Haig was David Lloyd George. The two never got on when DLG was prime minister 1916/1918 and when DLG published his memoirs in the 30s, there was no doubt as to where the blame for the slaughter lay.
The truth, as always, is more complex.
That's an excellent point DH. And the fact the Germans sued for peace was used again and again by Hitler 'the stab in the back'.
The conduct that provoked Carthage to reluctantly bring about the Third War was not the settlement of the Second but the Roman behaviour over a prolonged period of time. The concession by Rome of territory from Carthage to Numidia followed by continual insults and unnecessary provocation by Rome brought about the Third War. The settlement itself did not.
In fact, it's about as wrong an analogy as can be made. Rome won the earlier war and forced the next, whereas in the 1930s it was Germany who had lost the earlier war and forced the next.
'The red caps mobilised in a wave of nationalist fervour at the end of last year, bringing together bosses, farmers and workers in a single cause, and crystallising the French disgust at their rising tax burden.'
A taste of things to come?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/03/french-eco-tax-new-generation-breton-red-caps
"My guess is that May’s elections will see big losses for the EPP and the Liberals. The Socialists may pick up a few seats, benefiting from anti-incumbency votes against centre-right governments at national level. But the big gains will be made by euro-critical parties. Paradoxically, the result will be to drive the EPP and the Socialists even closer together"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9108492/here-come-the-pirates/
I think that Austria-Hungary was justified in attacking Serbia, in much the same way as the US was justified in attacking Afghanistan (in very similar circumstances, it has to be said). Serbian extremists had committed a highly symbollic outrage against Austria-Hungary and Austria had to respond effectively. Considering the links between the Serbian state and the paramilitaries, the shared pan-Serbian ideology, and Serbia's evasive response to the ultimatum, I don't think there was any other option to resolving the Austria's Serb problem than force. This isn't to say that either Austria's previous actions in the Balkans or the Archduke's visit were well-advised; they weren't.
On the other hand, and for the same reasons, I don't think Russia was justified in giving Serbia the kind of backing it did, except that its own actions and assurances had backed itself into a corner whereby to not act would have gravely affected its own status, influence and reliability. Still, better that than the alternative.
Serbia deserved to get its backside kicked for its behaviour over several decades in the Balkans prior to the outbreak of war. The role of the rest of Europe should have been to make sure Austria didn't go too far, not to join in.
Versailles was clearly a huge mistake, but the settlement at the end of the Second Punic War did not provoke the third.
The comparison is flawed.
300 troops or so were executed on the British side by firing squad in the first world war. What is little known is that without Haig it would have been 3000.
That's the number of death sentences that were passed by makeshift court martials in the field. Haig commuted 9 in 10 to another sentence (he had the final say after the papers had been passed up the chain of command).
Thus, the Blackadder court martial episode (the flanders pigeon murderer!) isn't so very far from the truth in that WW1 courts martial were pretty ropey affairs, and Blackadder got let off.
But in the episode Blackadder was let off by Kitchener, whereas in reality he would have been let off by Haig.
Rereading Keynes' comment, he means this
Carthaginian Peace is a term that refers to the imposition of a very brutal 'peace' by completely crushing the enemy.
• Adam Lallana had been at centre of Saints' letter to PGMOL
• 'You are very different now, since you've played for England'
• Clattenburg will referee Arsenal v Tottenham on Saturday
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jan/03/southampton-mark-clattenburg-referee-adam-lallana-complaint-thrown-out
Watch out Eurocrats, here come the Pirates!
The Brussels establishment see their diverse new opponents as just a bunch of extremists. They won't know what's hit them
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9108492/here-come-the-pirates/
In those rather basic and broad terms, then you can make an argument for comparison, but I think 1920s/30s Germany and Carthage immediately after the Second Punic War concluded are not well-suited for comparison.
I'm still planning to vote UKIP, though I may peruse the Pirates' booty and see if I'm tempted.
The next generation of Germans thought they could do the same and that the war machine that Moltke had built and Krupps had armed was so superior that war would be relatively easy. No doubt they also looked at the way the British empire had largely been acquired on the back of beating its European competitors.
Those involved would have been better considering the horrors of the American Civil war than the tactical genius of Bismarck.
Another criticism of Bismarck (slightly unfair as he was not a supreme ruler of his country) was that he did very little or nothing to develop a more sophisticated and responsive democracy in Germany which might have allowed politicians rather than the Kaiser and the General Staff to decide if war was a good idea or not.
One of my favourite stories about Bismarck is that when he was on his death bed he was asked if he had any regrets about his life, the wars, etc. His reply was that he wished he had drunk more champagne. Truly a remarkable man.
Reminds me of a program I saw with a very aged Sir John Betjamin. A rather earnest interviewer asked him if there was anything he regretted.
'Yes' came the perfectly modulated reply from the venerated poet laureate, 'I very much regret I didn't have more sex'
However, I'd disagree that the Germans thought their forces far superior and capable of taking on all-comers in a matter of weeks. Indeed, there was growing concern in Germany in 1914 at how fast Russia was developing and how much of a threat she presented. Ironically, the pre-war war-gaming suggested France could be knocked out quickly but Germany would need to come to a negotiated settlement in the east. As conclusions go, it was 180 degrees out.
I'm another one that is reading the brilliant, yet flawed book, "The War That Ended Peace". Shame that it's so poorly edited, and some facts that I know- at least in the earlier part of the book - are totally at variance with the truth, which makes me suspect other, later parts of the book.
The Germans really only had two legitimate grievances; that Danzig and Austria weren't allowed to unite with Germany, despite the clear wish of their inhabitants.
Diocletian made it work but when he was no longer chief emperor it proved to be a cause of rather than a cure for instability. Ironically, he was unable to help his wife and daughter after becoming the only emperor to willingly abdicate, when they were in the power of another emperor in his latter years.
Whatever the veracity of the maxim, the victorious Allies, driven perhaps by their fear of Bolshevism, completely misjudged the immediate aftermath of 1918-19 and left fragile and unsupported democracies to fall into the hands of nationalist authoritarians.
The consequences of 1918-19 would reverberate for a generation. It's equally arguable we are living with the consequences of the events of 1989-90. The 20th Century saw the fall of three systems of totalitarianism - dynastic autarchy in 1918, fascism and naziism in 1944-45 and finally Communism in 1989. The triumph of liberal democracy and capitalism is to be welcomed but has not been without consequences for the victors.
It shouldn't be forgotten that they were also under pressure from public and politicians to 'do something'. Sitting around for three years waiting for the tank to be developed wasn't an option.
Without World War I we wouldn't have had Winston Churchill's hiccup or his sneeze as some call it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston's_Hiccup
Good news for the antarctic.
Must have missed the BBC report.
From a pure economics perspective, there is a lot to be said for an annual 'wealth tax'. Any tax system should encourage work (taxes on work obviously discourage work), and should discourage inefficient capital allocation. A wealth tax would encourage people to make sure that all their assets earned a return, and would therefore almost certainly be economically beneficial (there is a lot of good economics literature on this). It would be opposed by retired people, for obvious reasons.
I personally doubt that there will be a one-off anything in the EU. From a government finances perspective (and ignoring unemployment), the PIIGS are in a much improved state. (Note: much improved state is not the same as saying "all is well", it is merely a reflection of the fact that aggressive government spending cuts have dramatically cut deficits.)
Greece and Italy now both run primary government surpluses (i.e., they bring in more in taxes than they spend, before interest payments) - although it's wrth noting that Greece is still fundamentally f*cked; Ireland is likely to see overall debt-to-GDP start to fall in early 2014 (which is rather before we in the UK do); Spain is not yet there, but it's economy is improving fast (as a country it is 12-18 months behind Ireland);
Government bond yields on Spanish and Italian debt is now c. 4%; Ireland is below that. Portugal and Greece are the only countries where the bond markets currently indicate any stress (6% and 8.5% respectively).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25383373
Anyway, don't spoil my fun!
Purchase was long over by GW times but it did establish the aristo/gentry class dominance of the officer class and therefore by the cavalry and the Guards. Cavalry and the Great War battle system were not exactly compatible ...
Thatcher was certainly suspicious of a united Germany. As was Mitterand. Lawson eventually grew tired of what he called her 'saloon bar xenophobia'.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Peacemakers-Months-That-Changed-World/dp/0719562376/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1388767895&sr=8-1&keywords=the+peacemakers+versailles
She supported reunification as the expression of the German people's democratic will. She was nervous about the implications for Europe given the huge weight that a prosperous Germany would have in the continent. She perhaps under-estimated the cost and pain and time to get there, but equally a lot of the challenges at the moment arise from Germany's preponderance (and the disquiet that breeds in Southern Europe)
Charles, my reference to Mrs T was not intended as a criticism. Reunification has worked out OK IMO, but some nervousness was reasonable enough.
Funny that they expected lenient terms, they certainly weren't lenient to Russia at Brest-Litovsk!
Personally I think if Farage offered England formal constitutional recognition and its own parliament then it would destroy the Tories’ chances of getting back into power. (It would do so too if Labour made the same offer – but hell will freeze over before Labour would ever dream of this).