It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Presumably the only important outcome of a war fought by a woke army would be each and every combatant's own 'lived truth'.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
One thing I have noticed over the years is that when the Conservatives are doing well, they are extremely jovial and condescending.
In contrast, when they are doing badly, they become very bitter and twisted.
So it is that the selection of posts here from Conservative contributors suggests to me that the Conservatives are likely to be utterly thrashed by the Lib Dems in Chesham and Amersham.
A subtle variant of the PBTories know nothing line, as approach our 6th year of glorious Ed Miliband leadership.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
There's a strand of twitter historians/history fans that fetishises (not too strong a word I think) the Western Allies' contribution in WWII. They detest Hastings and Beevor for in their view bigging up German and Soviet performances while sneering at the US and particularly British efforts. One of them in all seriousness asked if they should block a tweeter for saying that Montgomery's period in the European theatre was less than perfect.
To me that just seems wokeness in the mirror.
Military history is prone to willy-waving. Praising another party’s contribution to allied victory does not imply that one is denigrating one’s own side.
The Red Army displayed outstanding courage, and Stalin and his clique deserve credit for holding their nerve and providing determined, if ruthless, leadership. OTOH, they deserve huge criticism for the purges, the pact with Hitler, and their inept tactics in the first two years of war.
My own field, the Peninsular War, is riddled with similar biases. You can read biographies of Wellington and come away with the idea that the Spanish did nothing, or Spanish nationalists who claim that Talavera, Salamanca, and Vitoria were basically Spanish victories.
My knowledge of the Peninsula War is based entirely on the Sharpe novels. They imply that the Spanish Army was not particularly effective but the guerrillas had a huge impact, bleeding the French occupying forces white.
How accurate would you say that was?
Didn’t Welllington’s ‘famous’ peninsula campaign mostly consist of retreating from the French, zigzagging across Portugal and western Spain, while the Spanish guerrillas and poor supply gradually abraded the French armies chasing him about trying to force him to battle? With just the occasional small scale battle when the odds were right.
It worked!
Great General... terrible PM
Rope-a-dope. I wondered where Muhammad Ali got the idea from!
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Presumably the only important outcome of a war fought by a woke army would be each and every combatant's own 'lived truth'.
Well indeed - they might finally get to experience the lived truth of being cancelled.
One thing I have noticed over the years is that when the Conservatives are doing well, they are extremely jovial and condescending.
In contrast, when they are doing badly, they become very bitter and twisted.
So it is that the selection of posts here from Conservative contributors suggests to me that the Conservatives are likely to be utterly thrashed by the Lib Dems in Chesham and Amersham.
Is that really a Tory thing? I know I tend to be more jovial when things are going well for me. How were Labour in the early 2000s?
One of the funnier author notes in the Sharpe series (new one out this year, btw) is Sharpe's Waterloo, where he describes the battle site and the info there, which apparently might give people the impression it was a French victory so great is the emphasis on Napoleon and his greatness. Don't know if that is true now, but I have seen people either surprised about the role of the Prussian force, or go way to the other side and act as though the British contribution was meaningless because of the arrival of the Prussians.
Napoleon won Waterloo has been a thing since Napoleon himself wrote "“After eight hours of firing and infantry and cavalry charges, the whole [French] army was able to look with satisfaction upon a battle won and the battlefield in our possession.”
Japanese response to speedy vaccination (video in tweet):
The vaccination at Umi, a town in Fukuoka, is done smoothly and effectively with a doctor & his team moving while elderly residents sit and wait. They can give shots to 120 people in an hour, 8 times faster than before
As a counter to the various stories of how swift and efficient the vaccine rollout is, I'd note that my first dose took an hour from door to door, and I was in 4 separate queues which all ended in a different dopey volunteer asking me exactly the same questions, before I was finally released to a aisle of largely idle jabbers. Very much too many volunteers but none of them willing to engage brains to increase throughput.
I had my second dose earlier this week in the same centre in Ealing in which I’d had my first dose. Was notably more efficient this time round - in and out in 10 mins, while it’d had taken around 45 mins previously.
Yours truly (in Seattle) got first jab (of Pfizer) in early February, second in early March, both at UW Medical Center. Each time waited in just one line for processing. First time took about 45 minutes to make it through the line from soup to nuts, second time maybe 20 minutes. Difference was due to the number of folks ahead of me.
In each case, I arrived about half hour earlier than my appointment time, which no one bothered about, key thing was that I had an appointment for that morning. Entire operation was very efficient, got the feeling that there were no "volunteers" (which personally think was mostly a dodge for getting younger workers (such as Amazon employees) jabbed for benefit of themselves AND their employers) at this location.
Best thing was the lady ahead of me in line in February, who got to visit with her daughter, a UW Medical Center health care worker; first time they'd met face-to-face since previous Spring.
Well Ollie Robinson is making it rather hard to drop next test....but they will.
Would be funny if they didn’t and then got a huge amount of criticism.
I’m reminded of my Arsenal friends demanding Szczesny to be dropped for smoking in the showers at Southampton. That they didn’t rate him had nothing to do with their outrage at such a crime.
Dropping/Selling Szczesny for such a paltry fee was one of Arsenes biggest errors in my opinion. He was better than Cech at that stage of their careers
I try not to get angry about football, but I struggled to contain my rage after Cech’s debut.
Post about 2004 it seems the shrewd move for big names was to leave. It worked out well for Wojech.
Staff shortages beginning to affect hospitality businesses here in the tourist hotspot that is the Yorkshire Dales. Pubs and cafes choosing to close midweek or run limited services despite huge demand. On a different matter, walk-in vaccinations for over-18s seemed to have stopped suddenly - no idea why.
Same in the Lakes. Every single cafe, pub, restaurant I have seen or heard from is hiring.
Demand is off the scale. The other night the usual 35 covers, which is busy for Daughter's small kitchen, went up to 50.
I now have a late blooming career as a waitress. Comfortable shoes are now the only thing that matter to me .......
Be interesting to see if this bounce back continues. Haldane's prediction of turbo charged v recovery may be happening.
Certainly the level of building work around me is astonishing.
The U.K. simply doesn’t have the capacity for everyone to have a staycation... I imagine that people cancelling holidays abroad now are finding it very hard to book anything in the U.K. And if you manage to book somewhere in the Dales, treat finding a car park space in the likes of Malham or Grassington as seriously as reserving a sun lounger by the pool...
Hartlepool Marina Travelodge is £35 a night, lots of availability in July/August.
Nice stretch of coast to the North, pint in the shadow of HMS Trincomalee, wander around the headland. Catch train up to Sunderland for beach and a couple of pints overlooking the river and harbour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
There's a strand of twitter historians/history fans that fetishises (not too strong a word I think) the Western Allies' contribution in WWII. They detest Hastings and Beevor for in their view bigging up German and Soviet performances while sneering at the US and particularly British efforts. One of them in all seriousness asked if they should block a tweeter for saying that Montgomery's period in the European theatre was less than perfect.
To me that just seems wokeness in the mirror.
Military history is prone to willy-waving. Praising another party’s contribution to allied victory does not imply that one is denigrating one’s own side.
The Red Army displayed outstanding courage, and Stalin and his clique deserve credit for holding their nerve and providing determined, if ruthless, leadership. OTOH, they deserve huge criticism for the purges, the pact with Hitler, and their inept tactics in the first two years of war.
My own field, the Peninsular War, is riddled with similar biases. You can read biographies of Wellington and come away with the idea that the Spanish did nothing, or Spanish nationalists who claim that Talavera, Salamanca, and Vitoria were basically Spanish victories.
My knowledge of the Peninsula War is based entirely on the Sharpe novels. They imply that the Spanish Army was not particularly effective but the guerrillas had a huge impact, bleeding the French occupying forces white.
How accurate would you say that was?
Didn’t Welllington’s ‘famous’ peninsula campaign mostly consist of retreating from the French, zigzagging across Portugal and western Spain, while the Spanish guerrillas and poor supply gradually abraded the French armies chasing him about trying to force him to battle? With just the occasional small scale battle when the odds were right.
Sounds like sensible tactics.
Indeed - a similar thing on a larger scale did for Napoleon in Russia Worn down by a battle or contested river crossing at a time...
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
There's a strand of twitter historians/history fans that fetishises (not too strong a word I think) the Western Allies' contribution in WWII. They detest Hastings and Beevor for in their view bigging up German and Soviet performances while sneering at the US and particularly British efforts. One of them in all seriousness asked if they should block a tweeter for saying that Montgomery's period in the European theatre was less than perfect.
To me that just seems wokeness in the mirror.
Military history is prone to willy-waving. Praising another party’s contribution to allied victory does not imply that one is denigrating one’s own side.
The Red Army displayed outstanding courage, and Stalin and his clique deserve credit for holding their nerve and providing determined, if ruthless, leadership. OTOH, they deserve huge criticism for the purges, the pact with Hitler, and their inept tactics in the first two years of war.
My own field, the Peninsular War, is riddled with similar biases. You can read biographies of Wellington and come away with the idea that the Spanish did nothing, or Spanish nationalists who claim that Talavera, Salamanca, and Vitoria were basically Spanish victories.
My knowledge of the Peninsula War is based entirely on the Sharpe novels. They imply that the Spanish Army was not particularly effective but the guerrillas had a huge impact, bleeding the French occupying forces white.
How accurate would you say that was?
The Spanish army fought very doggedly, but most of its generals were inept. But, they always came back for more. In the right circumstances, such as defence of Zaragoza or Gerona, they inflicted dreadful casualties on the French (Zaragoza can be compared to Stalingrad.)
There’s no clear line between guerillas and soldiers. Many Spanish soldiers, recognising that formal pitched battles against the French were usually suicidal, fought in the manner of irregulars, raiding, harassing, uniting to overwhelm isolated French military units, before dispersing again.
Thanks for that. Sounds like my impression was correct as a first order approximation.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Staff shortages beginning to affect hospitality businesses here in the tourist hotspot that is the Yorkshire Dales. Pubs and cafes choosing to close midweek or run limited services despite huge demand. On a different matter, walk-in vaccinations for over-18s seemed to have stopped suddenly - no idea why.
Same in the Lakes. Every single cafe, pub, restaurant I have seen or heard from is hiring.
Demand is off the scale. The other night the usual 35 covers, which is busy for Daughter's small kitchen, went up to 50.
I now have a late blooming career as a waitress. Comfortable shoes are now the only thing that matter to me .......
Be interesting to see if this bounce back continues. Haldane's prediction of turbo charged v recovery may be happening.
Certainly the level of building work around me is astonishing.
The U.K. simply doesn’t have the capacity for everyone to have a staycation... I imagine that people cancelling holidays abroad now are finding it very hard to book anything in the U.K. And if you manage to book somewhere in the Dales, treat finding a car park space in the likes of Malham or Grassington as seriously as reserving a sun lounger by the pool...
Hartlepool Marina Travelodge is £35 a night, lots of availability in July/August.
Nice stretch of coast to the North, pint in the shadow of HMS Trincomalee, wander around the headland. Catch train up to Sunderland for beach and a couple of pints overlooking the river and harbour.
Solid.
Better get in there quick. I'm going for Swansea travelodge though for a long weekend, it was only £25 a night - cycle round the Gower Pensinsula then on to Pembrokeshire on the west wales line.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Day by day our decision to leave the EU cartel is being totally justified
Staff shortages beginning to affect hospitality businesses here in the tourist hotspot that is the Yorkshire Dales. Pubs and cafes choosing to close midweek or run limited services despite huge demand. On a different matter, walk-in vaccinations for over-18s seemed to have stopped suddenly - no idea why.
Same in the Lakes. Every single cafe, pub, restaurant I have seen or heard from is hiring.
Demand is off the scale. The other night the usual 35 covers, which is busy for Daughter's small kitchen, went up to 50.
I now have a late blooming career as a waitress. Comfortable shoes are now the only thing that matter to me .......
Be interesting to see if this bounce back continues. Haldane's prediction of turbo charged v recovery may be happening.
Certainly the level of building work around me is astonishing.
The U.K. simply doesn’t have the capacity for everyone to have a staycation... I imagine that people cancelling holidays abroad now are finding it very hard to book anything in the U.K. And if you manage to book somewhere in the Dales, treat finding a car park space in the likes of Malham or Grassington as seriously as reserving a sun lounger by the pool...
Hartlepool Marina Travelodge is £35 a night, lots of availability in July/August.
Nice stretch of coast to the North, pint in the shadow of HMS Trincomalee, wander around the headland. Catch train up to Sunderland for beach and a couple of pints overlooking the river and harbour.
Solid.
Better get in there quick. I'm going for Swansea travelodge though for a long weekend, it was only £25 a night - cycle round the Gower Pensinsula then on to Pembrokeshire on the west wales line.
I've been off this last week. Trip to High Wycombe to see family. Walked between Warwick and Kenilworth Castles. Couple of boozey evening in Brummingham pubs.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
Staff shortages beginning to affect hospitality businesses here in the tourist hotspot that is the Yorkshire Dales. Pubs and cafes choosing to close midweek or run limited services despite huge demand. On a different matter, walk-in vaccinations for over-18s seemed to have stopped suddenly - no idea why.
Same in the Lakes. Every single cafe, pub, restaurant I have seen or heard from is hiring.
Demand is off the scale. The other night the usual 35 covers, which is busy for Daughter's small kitchen, went up to 50.
I now have a late blooming career as a waitress. Comfortable shoes are now the only thing that matter to me .......
Be interesting to see if this bounce back continues. Haldane's prediction of turbo charged v recovery may be happening.
Certainly the level of building work around me is astonishing.
The U.K. simply doesn’t have the capacity for everyone to have a staycation... I imagine that people cancelling holidays abroad now are finding it very hard to book anything in the U.K. And if you manage to book somewhere in the Dales, treat finding a car park space in the likes of Malham or Grassington as seriously as reserving a sun lounger by the pool...
Hartlepool Marina Travelodge is £35 a night, lots of availability in July/August.
Nice stretch of coast to the North, pint in the shadow of HMS Trincomalee, wander around the headland. Catch train up to Sunderland for beach and a couple of pints overlooking the river and harbour.
Solid.
Better get in there quick. I'm going for Swansea travelodge though for a long weekend, it was only £25 a night - cycle round the Gower Pensinsula then on to Pembrokeshire on the west wales line.
I've been off this last week. Trip to High Wycombe to see family. Walked between Warwick and Kenilworth Castles. Couple of boozey evening in Brummingham pubs.
It's not that hard to do stuff in the UK!
If you went between Warwick and Kenilworth Castles while staying at High Wycombe then that is a very impressive walk.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Day by day our decision to leave the EU cartel is being totally justified
Not so much a cartel, more a disorganised crime family.....
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Mandela was Jewish...? We were talking antisemitism
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Staff shortages beginning to affect hospitality businesses here in the tourist hotspot that is the Yorkshire Dales. Pubs and cafes choosing to close midweek or run limited services despite huge demand. On a different matter, walk-in vaccinations for over-18s seemed to have stopped suddenly - no idea why.
Same in the Lakes. Every single cafe, pub, restaurant I have seen or heard from is hiring.
Demand is off the scale. The other night the usual 35 covers, which is busy for Daughter's small kitchen, went up to 50.
I now have a late blooming career as a waitress. Comfortable shoes are now the only thing that matter to me .......
Be interesting to see if this bounce back continues. Haldane's prediction of turbo charged v recovery may be happening.
Certainly the level of building work around me is astonishing.
The U.K. simply doesn’t have the capacity for everyone to have a staycation... I imagine that people cancelling holidays abroad now are finding it very hard to book anything in the U.K. And if you manage to book somewhere in the Dales, treat finding a car park space in the likes of Malham or Grassington as seriously as reserving a sun lounger by the pool...
Hartlepool Marina Travelodge is £35 a night, lots of availability in July/August.
Nice stretch of coast to the North, pint in the shadow of HMS Trincomalee, wander around the headland. Catch train up to Sunderland for beach and a couple of pints overlooking the river and harbour.
Solid.
Better get in there quick. I'm going for Swansea travelodge though for a long weekend, it was only £25 a night - cycle round the Gower Pensinsula then on to Pembrokeshire on the west wales line.
I've been off this last week. Trip to High Wycombe to see family. Walked between Warwick and Kenilworth Castles. Couple of boozey evening in Brummingham pubs.
It's not that hard to do stuff in the UK!
The problem is the trains. The fares are eye watering this summer on some routes, cross country with their awful voyager trains are particularly bad offenders, there are literally no cheap advance fares available. It seems the same for the whole of wales, which still seems to be running some sort of pandemic extremely restricted timetable, meaning of course that the trains that do run will be extremely crowded.
I've booked up far in advance and got decent first class advance fares on LNER and GWR for some long trips. I'm considering the national express to Swansea, the fare was £3.90 from Birmingham. I wouldn't go abroad because really whats the point.
Large loyalist/unionist rally opposing the Irish Sea Border taking place in Portadown this afternoon. The latest in a series of protest parades against the Northern Ireland Brexit arrangements.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
There's a strand of twitter historians/history fans that fetishises (not too strong a word I think) the Western Allies' contribution in WWII. They detest Hastings and Beevor for in their view bigging up German and Soviet performances while sneering at the US and particularly British efforts. One of them in all seriousness asked if they should block a tweeter for saying that Montgomery's period in the European theatre was less than perfect.
To me that just seems wokeness in the mirror.
Military history is prone to willy-waving. Praising another party’s contribution to allied victory does not imply that one is denigrating one’s own side.
The Red Army displayed outstanding courage, and Stalin and his clique deserve credit for holding their nerve and providing determined, if ruthless, leadership. OTOH, they deserve huge criticism for the purges, the pact with Hitler, and their inept tactics in the first two years of war.
My own field, the Peninsular War, is riddled with similar biases. You can read biographies of Wellington and come away with the idea that the Spanish did nothing, or Spanish nationalists who claim that Talavera, Salamanca, and Vitoria were basically Spanish victories.
My knowledge of the Peninsula War is based entirely on the Sharpe novels. They imply that the Spanish Army was not particularly effective but the guerrillas had a huge impact, bleeding the French occupying forces white.
How accurate would you say that was?
Didn’t Welllington’s ‘famous’ peninsula campaign mostly consist of retreating from the French, zigzagging across Portugal and western Spain, while the Spanish guerrillas and poor supply gradually abraded the French armies chasing him about trying to force him to battle? With just the occasional small scale battle when the odds were right.
It worked!
Great General... terrible PM
Rope-a-dope. I wondered where Muhammad Ali got the idea from!
Clearly from his extensive reading re: the Peninsular War.
OR was it from his more hands-on studies, in the School of Hard Knocks?
Staff shortages beginning to affect hospitality businesses here in the tourist hotspot that is the Yorkshire Dales. Pubs and cafes choosing to close midweek or run limited services despite huge demand. On a different matter, walk-in vaccinations for over-18s seemed to have stopped suddenly - no idea why.
Same in the Lakes. Every single cafe, pub, restaurant I have seen or heard from is hiring.
Demand is off the scale. The other night the usual 35 covers, which is busy for Daughter's small kitchen, went up to 50.
I now have a late blooming career as a waitress. Comfortable shoes are now the only thing that matter to me .......
Be interesting to see if this bounce back continues. Haldane's prediction of turbo charged v recovery may be happening.
Certainly the level of building work around me is astonishing.
The U.K. simply doesn’t have the capacity for everyone to have a staycation... I imagine that people cancelling holidays abroad now are finding it very hard to book anything in the U.K. And if you manage to book somewhere in the Dales, treat finding a car park space in the likes of Malham or Grassington as seriously as reserving a sun lounger by the pool...
Hartlepool Marina Travelodge is £35 a night, lots of availability in July/August.
Nice stretch of coast to the North, pint in the shadow of HMS Trincomalee, wander around the headland. Catch train up to Sunderland for beach and a couple of pints overlooking the river and harbour.
Solid.
Better get in there quick. I'm going for Swansea travelodge though for a long weekend, it was only £25 a night - cycle round the Gower Pensinsula then on to Pembrokeshire on the west wales line.
I've been off this last week. Trip to High Wycombe to see family. Walked between Warwick and Kenilworth Castles. Couple of boozey evening in Brummingham pubs.
It's not that hard to do stuff in the UK!
The problem is the trains. The fares are eye watering this summer on some routes, cross country with their awful voyager trains are particularly bad offenders, there are literally no cheap advance fares available. It seems the same for the whole of wales, which still seems to be running some sort of pandemic extremely restricted timetable, meaning of course that the trains that do run will be extremely crowded.
I've booked up far in advance and got decent first class advance fares on LNER and GWR for some long trips. I'm considering the national express to Swansea, the fare was £3.90 from Birmingham. I wouldn't go abroad because really whats the point.
Brum to Middlesbrough a few years ago was a £3 fare on the bus, cheaper than a return into town on the Metro
OK. Middlesbrough ain't great, but you're a branchline from Whitby and a local bus from Staithes.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
There's a strand of twitter historians/history fans that fetishises (not too strong a word I think) the Western Allies' contribution in WWII. They detest Hastings and Beevor for in their view bigging up German and Soviet performances while sneering at the US and particularly British efforts. One of them in all seriousness asked if they should block a tweeter for saying that Montgomery's period in the European theatre was less than perfect.
To me that just seems wokeness in the mirror.
Military history is prone to willy-waving. Praising another party’s contribution to allied victory does not imply that one is denigrating one’s own side.
The Red Army displayed outstanding courage, and Stalin and his clique deserve credit for holding their nerve and providing determined, if ruthless, leadership. OTOH, they deserve huge criticism for the purges, the pact with Hitler, and their inept tactics in the first two years of war.
My own field, the Peninsular War, is riddled with similar biases. You can read biographies of Wellington and come away with the idea that the Spanish did nothing, or Spanish nationalists who claim that Talavera, Salamanca, and Vitoria were basically Spanish victories.
My knowledge of the Peninsula War is based entirely on the Sharpe novels. They imply that the Spanish Army was not particularly effective but the guerrillas had a huge impact, bleeding the French occupying forces white.
How accurate would you say that was?
Didn’t Welllington’s ‘famous’ peninsula campaign mostly consist of retreating from the French, zigzagging across Portugal and western Spain, while the Spanish guerrillas and poor supply gradually abraded the French armies chasing him about trying to force him to battle? With just the occasional small scale battle when the odds were right.
That's overly revionist. The sieges of Badajoz, Ciudad Rodrigo, and San Sebastian, and the battles of Fuentes d'Onoro, Salamanca, and Vitoria were far from small scale. And, there was a lot more to the British military contribution than Wellington's Anglo-Portugese army. The Royal Navy did a lot of harm to the French. Nor would the Spanish army have remained in being without huge British subsidies and supplies.
Overall, the Spanish army inflicted about 55% of French casualties, the partidas about 10%, and the British forces about 35%.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
It serves them right for trying to shamelessly toenail the EU to get one over the UK and putting the NI peace process at grave risk as a result.
Large loyalist/unionist rally opposing the Irish Sea Border taking place in Portadown this afternoon. The latest in a series of protest parades against the Northern Ireland Brexit arrangements.
Staff shortages beginning to affect hospitality businesses here in the tourist hotspot that is the Yorkshire Dales. Pubs and cafes choosing to close midweek or run limited services despite huge demand. On a different matter, walk-in vaccinations for over-18s seemed to have stopped suddenly - no idea why.
Same in the Lakes. Every single cafe, pub, restaurant I have seen or heard from is hiring.
Demand is off the scale. The other night the usual 35 covers, which is busy for Daughter's small kitchen, went up to 50.
I now have a late blooming career as a waitress. Comfortable shoes are now the only thing that matter to me .......
Be interesting to see if this bounce back continues. Haldane's prediction of turbo charged v recovery may be happening.
Certainly the level of building work around me is astonishing.
The U.K. simply doesn’t have the capacity for everyone to have a staycation... I imagine that people cancelling holidays abroad now are finding it very hard to book anything in the U.K. And if you manage to book somewhere in the Dales, treat finding a car park space in the likes of Malham or Grassington as seriously as reserving a sun lounger by the pool...
Hartlepool Marina Travelodge is £35 a night, lots of availability in July/August.
Nice stretch of coast to the North, pint in the shadow of HMS Trincomalee, wander around the headland. Catch train up to Sunderland for beach and a couple of pints overlooking the river and harbour.
Solid.
Better get in there quick. I'm going for Swansea travelodge though for a long weekend, it was only £25 a night - cycle round the Gower Pensinsula then on to Pembrokeshire on the west wales line.
I've been off this last week. Trip to High Wycombe to see family. Walked between Warwick and Kenilworth Castles. Couple of boozey evening in Brummingham pubs.
It's not that hard to do stuff in the UK!
The problem is the trains. The fares are eye watering this summer on some routes, cross country with their awful voyager trains are particularly bad offenders, there are literally no cheap advance fares available. It seems the same for the whole of wales, which still seems to be running some sort of pandemic extremely restricted timetable, meaning of course that the trains that do run will be extremely crowded.
I've booked up far in advance and got decent first class advance fares on LNER and GWR for some long trips. I'm considering the national express to Swansea, the fare was £3.90 from Birmingham. I wouldn't go abroad because really whats the point.
Brum to Middlesbrough a few years ago was a £3 fare on the bus, cheaper than a return into town on the Metro
OK. Middlesbrough ain't great, but you're a branchline from Whitby and a local bus from Staithes.
I did Bristol to Birmingham similarly a couple of years back, About £45 cheaper than the train and you definetly get a seat, it took about half an hour longer. Had some bad experiences historically on National Express but it was absolutely ok, modern bus stations and busses etc.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
There's a strand of twitter historians/history fans that fetishises (not too strong a word I think) the Western Allies' contribution in WWII. They detest Hastings and Beevor for in their view bigging up German and Soviet performances while sneering at the US and particularly British efforts. One of them in all seriousness asked if they should block a tweeter for saying that Montgomery's period in the European theatre was less than perfect.
To me that just seems wokeness in the mirror.
Military history is prone to willy-waving. Praising another party’s contribution to allied victory does not imply that one is denigrating one’s own side.
The Red Army displayed outstanding courage, and Stalin and his clique deserve credit for holding their nerve and providing determined, if ruthless, leadership. OTOH, they deserve huge criticism for the purges, the pact with Hitler, and their inept tactics in the first two years of war.
My own field, the Peninsular War, is riddled with similar biases. You can read biographies of Wellington and come away with the idea that the Spanish did nothing, or Spanish nationalists who claim that Talavera, Salamanca, and Vitoria were basically Spanish victories.
My knowledge of the Peninsula War is based entirely on the Sharpe novels. They imply that the Spanish Army was not particularly effective but the guerrillas had a huge impact, bleeding the French occupying forces white.
How accurate would you say that was?
The Spanish army fought very doggedly, but most of its generals were inept. But, they always came back for more. In the right circumstances, such as defence of Zaragoza or Gerona, they inflicted dreadful casualties on the French (Zaragoza can be compared to Stalingrad.)
There’s no clear line between guerillas and soldiers. Many Spanish soldiers, recognising that formal pitched battles against the French were usually suicidal, fought in the manner of irregulars, raiding, harassing, uniting to overwhelm isolated French military units, before dispersing again.
Thanks for that. Sounds like my impression was correct as a first order approximation.
Cornwell always does a lot of research for his books. IMHO, Major Blas Vivar is modelled quite closely on the Marques de la Romana, one of the few Spanish commanders who really knew his job, and who liberated Galicia in 1809.
Large loyalist/unionist rally opposing the Irish Sea Border taking place in Portadown this afternoon. The latest in a series of protest parades against the Northern Ireland Brexit arrangements.
Large loyalist/unionist rally opposing the Irish Sea Border taking place in Portadown this afternoon. The latest in a series of protest parades against the Northern Ireland Brexit arrangements.
Staff shortages beginning to affect hospitality businesses here in the tourist hotspot that is the Yorkshire Dales. Pubs and cafes choosing to close midweek or run limited services despite huge demand. On a different matter, walk-in vaccinations for over-18s seemed to have stopped suddenly - no idea why.
Same in the Lakes. Every single cafe, pub, restaurant I have seen or heard from is hiring.
Demand is off the scale. The other night the usual 35 covers, which is busy for Daughter's small kitchen, went up to 50.
I now have a late blooming career as a waitress. Comfortable shoes are now the only thing that matter to me .......
Be interesting to see if this bounce back continues. Haldane's prediction of turbo charged v recovery may be happening.
Certainly the level of building work around me is astonishing.
The U.K. simply doesn’t have the capacity for everyone to have a staycation... I imagine that people cancelling holidays abroad now are finding it very hard to book anything in the U.K. And if you manage to book somewhere in the Dales, treat finding a car park space in the likes of Malham or Grassington as seriously as reserving a sun lounger by the pool...
Hartlepool Marina Travelodge is £35 a night, lots of availability in July/August.
Nice stretch of coast to the North, pint in the shadow of HMS Trincomalee, wander around the headland. Catch train up to Sunderland for beach and a couple of pints overlooking the river and harbour.
Solid.
Better get in there quick. I'm going for Swansea travelodge though for a long weekend, it was only £25 a night - cycle round the Gower Pensinsula then on to Pembrokeshire on the west wales line.
I've been off this last week. Trip to High Wycombe to see family. Walked between Warwick and Kenilworth Castles. Couple of boozey evening in Brummingham pubs.
It's not that hard to do stuff in the UK!
The problem is the trains. The fares are eye watering this summer on some routes, cross country with their awful voyager trains are particularly bad offenders, there are literally no cheap advance fares available. It seems the same for the whole of wales, which still seems to be running some sort of pandemic extremely restricted timetable, meaning of course that the trains that do run will be extremely crowded.
I've booked up far in advance and got decent first class advance fares on LNER and GWR for some long trips. I'm considering the national express to Swansea, the fare was £3.90 from Birmingham. I wouldn't go abroad because really whats the point.
Brum to Middlesbrough a few years ago was a £3 fare on the bus, cheaper than a return into town on the Metro
OK. Middlesbrough ain't great, but you're a branchline from Whitby and a local bus from Staithes.
Had some bad experiences historically on National Express
Blocked aisles?
"On the National Express there's a jolly hostess Selling crisps and tea She'll provide you with drinks and theatrical winks For a sky-high fee Mini-skirts were in style when she danced down the aisle Back in '63 (yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah) But it's hard to get by when your arse is the size Of a small country...."
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
There's a strand of twitter historians/history fans that fetishises (not too strong a word I think) the Western Allies' contribution in WWII. They detest Hastings and Beevor for in their view bigging up German and Soviet performances while sneering at the US and particularly British efforts. One of them in all seriousness asked if they should block a tweeter for saying that Montgomery's period in the European theatre was less than perfect.
To me that just seems wokeness in the mirror.
Military history is prone to willy-waving. Praising another party’s contribution to allied victory does not imply that one is denigrating one’s own side.
The Red Army displayed outstanding courage, and Stalin and his clique deserve credit for holding their nerve and providing determined, if ruthless, leadership. OTOH, they deserve huge criticism for the purges, the pact with Hitler, and their inept tactics in the first two years of war.
My own field, the Peninsular War, is riddled with similar biases. You can read biographies of Wellington and come away with the idea that the Spanish did nothing, or Spanish nationalists who claim that Talavera, Salamanca, and Vitoria were basically Spanish victories.
My knowledge of the Peninsula War is based entirely on the Sharpe novels. They imply that the Spanish Army was not particularly effective but the guerrillas had a huge impact, bleeding the French occupying forces white.
How accurate would you say that was?
The Spanish army fought very doggedly, but most of its generals were inept. But, they always came back for more. In the right circumstances, such as defence of Zaragoza or Gerona, they inflicted dreadful casualties on the French (Zaragoza can be compared to Stalingrad.)
There’s no clear line between guerillas and soldiers. Many Spanish soldiers, recognising that formal pitched battles against the French were usually suicidal, fought in the manner of irregulars, raiding, harassing, uniting to overwhelm isolated French military units, before dispersing again.
Thanks for that. Sounds like my impression was correct as a first order approximation.
Cornwell always does a lot of research for his books. IMHO, Major Blas Vivar is modelled quite closely on the Marques de la Romana, one of the few Spanish commanders who really knew his job, and who liberated Galicia in 1809.
Having read them in chronological order, what confuses me is he wrote his first book culminating in a fake story about the capture of a French Eagle, when he could have set it 2 years later and made it about the actual first Eagle capture, substituting Sharpe in for that. Maybe he didn't want to steal a real person's thunder, though he knew to get past that in later novels, as 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'.
Good author, though like most very prolific authors you get plenty of repetitive themes and elements.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
We commit to reaching an equitable solution on the allocation of taxing rights, with market countries awarded taxing rights on at least 20% of profit exceeding a 10% margin for the largest and most profitable multinational enterprises. We will provide for appropriate coordination between the application of the new international tax rules and the removal of all Digital Services Taxes, and other relevant similar measures, on all companies. We also commit to a global minimum tax of at least 15% on a country by country basis. We agree on the importance of progressing agreement in parallel on both Pillars and look forward to reaching an agreement at the July meeting of G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
At the 1978 Tory Conference Thatcher openly appauded speeches from the delegates supportive of Smith. The Shadow Foreign Secretary - John Davies - was loudly heckled when he failed to adopt the same tone.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Scarcely any general will admit to errors. Wellington was notorious for blaming others for his mistakes.
One thing I have noticed over the years is that when the Conservatives are doing well, they are extremely jovial and condescending.
In contrast, when they are doing badly, they become very bitter and twisted.
So it is that the selection of posts here from Conservative contributors suggests to me that the Conservatives are likely to be utterly thrashed by the Lib Dems in Chesham and Amersham.
Is that really a Tory thing? I know I tend to be more jovial when things are going well for me. How were Labour in the early 2000s?
Well, peak Labour arrogance was probably Ed Balls announcing they'd abolished boom and bust, 10 minutes before 2008 happened.
Large loyalist/unionist rally opposing the Irish Sea Border taking place in Portadown this afternoon. The latest in a series of protest parades against the Northern Ireland Brexit arrangements.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
At the 1978 Tory Conference Thatcher openly appauded speeches from the delegates supportive of Smith. The Shadow Foreign Secretary - John Davies - was loudly heckled when he failed to adopt the same tone.
Because who someone applauds is much more important than what they do.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
We commit to reaching an equitable solution on the allocation of taxing rights, with market countries awarded taxing rights on at least 20% of profit exceeding a 10% margin for the largest and most profitable multinational enterprises. We will provide for appropriate coordination between the application of the new international tax rules and the removal of all Digital Services Taxes, and other relevant similar measures, on all companies. We also commit to a global minimum tax of at least 15% on a country by country basis. We agree on the importance of progressing agreement in parallel on both Pillars and look forward to reaching an agreement at the July meeting of G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors.
Trail NZ by 103: this is heading for a draw isn’t it? Particularly if it rains tomorrow (as it might well judging by the forecast).
It’s going to take an imaginative declaration by the Kiwis to avoid a draw from here. Like a quick 150 from 30 overs, then declare with a few overs left tonight.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
It's not just the UK that has been getting ripped off. I dare say many national governments in the EU will be grinning about this as well.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Scarcely any general will admit to errors. Wellington was notorious for blaming others for his mistakes.
The instances I referenced re: Osprey publications, are NOT primary sources but rather secondary. Written many by former soldiers with a clear bias one way or another about events that happened LONG before they came upon the scene. They appear to be pandering to the prejudices of themselves AND others of their ilk. VERY woke.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The Speer Miracle is the biggest pile of that bullshit.
Counting every Panzerfaust made as an "anti-tank gun" etc....
Re: the end of Rhodesia and the birth of Zimbabwe, IIRC this occurred pre-Falklands? When Mrs Thatcher's government was dominated - certainly in terms of foreign policy - by "wets" like Lord Carrington?
So she gets credit for being PM when it happened, but was NOT the prime driver of the policy?
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Scarcely any general will admit to errors. Wellington was notorious for blaming others for his mistakes.
The instances I referenced re: Osprey publications, are NOT primary sources but rather secondary. Written many by former soldiers with a clear bias one way or another about events that happened LONG before they came upon the scene. They appear to be pandering to the prejudices of themselves AND others of their ilk. VERY woke.
What counts as a primary source for a battle? Presumably they are mostly first-hand accounts of those that were there. Is there ever anything more objective?
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Scarcely any general will admit to errors. Wellington was notorious for blaming others for his mistakes.
The instances I referenced re: Osprey publications, are NOT primary sources but rather secondary. Written many by former soldiers with a clear bias one way or another about events that happened LONG before they came upon the scene. They appear to be pandering to the prejudices of themselves AND others of their ilk. VERY woke.
What counts as a primary source for a battle? Presumably they are mostly first-hand accounts of those that were there. Is there ever anything more objective?
A primary source is either a contemporary (or nearly so) military report OR autobiographical writings of participants. Which are NOT as a rule "more objective" than the best secondary writings based on thorough going analysis of MANY primary sources.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Scarcely any general will admit to errors. Wellington was notorious for blaming others for his mistakes.
The instances I referenced re: Osprey publications, are NOT primary sources but rather secondary. Written many by former soldiers with a clear bias one way or another about events that happened LONG before they came upon the scene. They appear to be pandering to the prejudices of themselves AND others of their ilk. VERY woke.
What counts as a primary source for a battle? Presumably they are mostly first-hand accounts of those that were there. Is there ever anything more objective?
Any eye-witness account or record. An account written by a historian or journalist five years after the battle, based upon interviews and examination of records is still a secondary source, whereas an account written by a participant, fifty years on, will still count as a primary source.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
At the 1978 Tory Conference Thatcher openly appauded speeches from the delegates supportive of Smith. The Shadow Foreign Secretary - John Davies - was loudly heckled when he failed to adopt the same tone.
And a year later she let Mugabe take power. Smith had installed a black PM by then, although Mugabe called him a puppet of Smith
“ when Mr Mugabe's cabinet colleagues were celebrating the fall of Margaret Thatcher in 1990, he rebuked them, reportedly saying: "Who organised our independence? Let me tell you - if it hadn't been for Mrs Thatcher none of you would be here today. I'm sorry she's gone."
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
Or if instead of taking Crete, generally reckoned to be strategically useless by historians, they'd used the resources to attack Malta and reinforce their and the Italians' forces in North Africa.
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
Yeah - because of course the U.K. never leached off and exploited Ireland for centuries.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
Yeah, I guess the crusades also give Islamists justification to commit acts of terror, by that logic.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Scarcely any general will admit to errors. Wellington was notorious for blaming others for his mistakes.
The instances I referenced re: Osprey publications, are NOT primary sources but rather secondary. Written many by former soldiers with a clear bias one way or another about events that happened LONG before they came upon the scene. They appear to be pandering to the prejudices of themselves AND others of their ilk. VERY woke.
What counts as a primary source for a battle? Presumably they are mostly first-hand accounts of those that were there. Is there ever anything more objective?
Any eye-witness account or record. An account written by a historian or journalist five years after the battle, based upon interviews and examination of records is still a secondary source, whereas an account written by a participant, fifty years on, will still count as a primary source.
The Osprey monographs are all secondary sources, albeit most are based at least in part on primary source material in addition to secondary sources. Check them out!
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Scarcely any general will admit to errors. Wellington was notorious for blaming others for his mistakes.
The instances I referenced re: Osprey publications, are NOT primary sources but rather secondary. Written many by former soldiers with a clear bias one way or another about events that happened LONG before they came upon the scene. They appear to be pandering to the prejudices of themselves AND others of their ilk. VERY woke.
What counts as a primary source for a battle? Presumably they are mostly first-hand accounts of those that were there. Is there ever anything more objective?
A primary source is either a contemporary (or nearly so) military report OR autobiographical writings of participants. Which are NOT as a rule "more objective" than the best secondary writings based on thorough going analysis of MANY primary sources.
That I think answers my question: primary sources for a battle tend to be very subjective or limited as they are either based on the recollections of someone who could only see part of the battle, or they are the reports of the commanders, eager to put the whole thing in the best possible light for themselves. Would that be a good paraphrase of what you said?
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
Or if instead of taking Crete, generally reckoned to be strategically useless by historians, they'd used the resources to attack Malta and reinforce their and the Italians' forces in North Africa.
Malta clearly could have been taken but, as it was, the British always did enough to defend it and the Axis never quite enough to take it.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
It hadn't been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerillas it's just that it's strategic and economic position had become hopeless. It wasn't credible to resist them from a totally isolated position any longer given the geopolitical context.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
At the 1978 Tory Conference Thatcher openly appauded speeches from the delegates supportive of Smith. The Shadow Foreign Secretary - John Davies - was loudly heckled when he failed to adopt the same tone.
And a year later she let Mugabe take power. Smith had installed a black PM by then, although Mugabe called him a puppet of Smith
“ when Mr Mugabe's cabinet colleagues were celebrating the fall of Margaret Thatcher in 1990, he rebuked them, reportedly saying: "Who organised our independence? Let me tell you - if it hadn't been for Mrs Thatcher none of you would be here today. I'm sorry she's gone."
Among other things Thatcher rejected a proposal by the diplomatic professionals to er.... "count" the votes in the first democratic election in Zimbabwe so that Mugabe would lose.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Scarcely any general will admit to errors. Wellington was notorious for blaming others for his mistakes.
The instances I referenced re: Osprey publications, are NOT primary sources but rather secondary. Written many by former soldiers with a clear bias one way or another about events that happened LONG before they came upon the scene. They appear to be pandering to the prejudices of themselves AND others of their ilk. VERY woke.
What counts as a primary source for a battle? Presumably they are mostly first-hand accounts of those that were there. Is there ever anything more objective?
A primary source is either a contemporary (or nearly so) military report OR autobiographical writings of participants. Which are NOT as a rule "more objective" than the best secondary writings based on thorough going analysis of MANY primary sources.
That I think answers my question: primary sources for a battle tend to be very subjective or limited as they are either based on the recollections of someone who could only see part of the battle, or they are the reports of the commanders, eager to put the whole thing in the best possible light for themselves. Would that be a good paraphrase of what you said?
That's a large part of it. Primary sources also include analyses of campaigns & battles done soon after, which are intended to be more objective.
One example of these, are after-action report prepared by US military on the Anzio operation. Which is quite interesting and factual. But does manage to discuss the subject without once mentioning Winston Churchill!
If what we hear from the propagandists is true then I assume that post Brexit UK got shat on at the G7 whilst Ireland, as part of the EU, simply came, saw and conquered.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
Ireland. Lol. Normally I don't give enough of a shit about Ireland for it to register, on tax they are parasites that leech off the UK economy.
I know sod all about Ireland but it does have Google's European HQ and Microsoft Azure cloud datacentres. I'd not be writing off the Irish economy just yet. Even without corporation tax advantages, it has taken over Britain's role as the English-speaking bridge to Europe.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
Or if instead of taking Crete, generally reckoned to be strategically useless by historians, they'd used the resources to attack Malta and reinforce their and the Italians' forces in North Africa.
Malta clearly could have been taken but, as it was, the British always did enough to defend it and the Axis never quite enough to take it.
Hmmmm.
Would it have been more useful to keep Crete and lose Malta?
Definitely not. Holding Crete benefitted neither side. Malta was a constant thorn in the Germans' side in North Africa.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
It hadn't been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerillas it's just that it's strategic and economic position had become hopeless. It wasn't credible to resist them from a totally isolated position any longer given the geopolitical context.
Exactly. That is how a guerilla war ends, by making the continuation of the war impossible by the government.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
There's a strand of twitter historians/history fans that fetishises (not too strong a word I think) the Western Allies' contribution in WWII. They detest Hastings and Beevor for in their view bigging up German and Soviet performances while sneering at the US and particularly British efforts. One of them in all seriousness asked if they should block a tweeter for saying that Montgomery's period in the European theatre was less than perfect.
To me that just seems wokeness in the mirror.
Military history is prone to willy-waving. Praising another party’s contribution to allied victory does not imply that one is denigrating one’s own side.
The Red Army displayed outstanding courage, and Stalin and his clique deserve credit for holding their nerve and providing determined, if ruthless, leadership. OTOH, they deserve huge criticism for the purges, the pact with Hitler, and their inept tactics in the first two years of war.
My own field, the Peninsular War, is riddled with similar biases. You can read biographies of Wellington and come away with the idea that the Spanish did nothing, or Spanish nationalists who claim that Talavera, Salamanca, and Vitoria were basically Spanish victories.
My knowledge of the Peninsula War is based entirely on the Sharpe novels. They imply that the Spanish Army was not particularly effective but the guerrillas had a huge impact, bleeding the French occupying forces white.
How accurate would you say that was?
Didn’t Welllington’s ‘famous’ peninsula campaign mostly consist of retreating from the French, zigzagging across Portugal and western Spain, while the Spanish guerrillas and poor supply gradually abraded the French armies chasing him about trying to force him to battle? With just the occasional small scale battle when the odds were right.
Comments
In each case, I arrived about half hour earlier than my appointment time, which no one bothered about, key thing was that I had an appointment for that morning. Entire operation was very efficient, got the feeling that there were no "volunteers" (which personally think was mostly a dodge for getting younger workers (such as Amazon employees) jabbed for benefit of themselves AND their employers) at this location.
Best thing was the lady ahead of me in line in February, who got to visit with her daughter, a UW Medical Center health care worker; first time they'd met face-to-face since previous Spring.
Solid.
He was a rather poor politician, however.
Is that true? Or.. was it slightly different?
I'm going for Swansea travelodge though for a long weekend, it was only £25 a night - cycle round the Gower Pensinsula then on to Pembrokeshire on the west wales line.
It's not that hard to do stuff in the UK!
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
https://youtu.be/t1OzfpPtJoQ
I've booked up far in advance and got decent first class advance fares on LNER and GWR for some long trips. I'm considering the national express to Swansea, the fare was £3.90 from Birmingham. I wouldn't go abroad because really whats the point.
Large loyalist/unionist rally opposing the Irish Sea Border taking place in Portadown this afternoon. The latest in a series of protest parades against the Northern Ireland Brexit arrangements.
https://twitter.com/EmmaVardyTV/status/1401182000283852805?s=20
OR was it from his more hands-on studies, in the School of Hard Knocks?
OK. Middlesbrough ain't great, but you're a branchline from Whitby and a local bus from Staithes.
However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Overall, the Spanish army inflicted about 55% of French casualties, the partidas about 10%, and the British forces about 35%.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-document/2021 Azerbaijan Grand Prix - Offence - Car 4 - Red Flag.pdf
@GuidoFawkes
·
48m
2019 Batley & Spen Independent Paul Halloran Not Standing in By-Election https://order-order.com/2021/06/05/2019-batley-spen-independent-paul-halloran-not-standing-in-by-election
Does the thought of me getting horny get you horny?
"On the National Express there's a jolly hostess
Selling crisps and tea
She'll provide you with drinks and theatrical winks
For a sky-high fee
Mini-skirts were in style when she danced down the aisle
Back in '63 (yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah)
But it's hard to get by when your arse is the size
Of a small country...."
Good author, though like most very prolific authors you get plenty of repetitive themes and elements.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0215
We commit to reaching an equitable solution on the allocation of taxing rights, with market countries awarded taxing rights on at least 20% of profit exceeding a 10% margin for the largest and most profitable multinational enterprises. We will provide for appropriate coordination between the application of the new international tax rules and the removal of all Digital Services Taxes, and other relevant similar measures, on all companies. We also commit to a global minimum tax of at least 15% on a country by country basis. We agree on the importance of progressing agreement in parallel on both Pillars and look forward to reaching an agreement at the July meeting of G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors.
Scarcely any general will admit to errors. Wellington was notorious for blaming others for his mistakes.
Oh wait .... it did.
Ireland did no more and no less than what all those British Overseas Territories were encouraged to do by the U.K. government when they could no longer sell bananas.
No doubt all those asset management companies set up in Dublin (like Rees-Mogg's one) will be rushing back home. Or maybe not.
Good to see British hypocrisy is still a thing.
Counting every Panzerfaust made as an "anti-tank gun" etc....
So she gets credit for being PM when it happened, but was NOT the prime driver of the policy?
“ when Mr Mugabe's cabinet colleagues were celebrating the fall of Margaret Thatcher in 1990, he rebuked them, reportedly saying: "Who organised our independence? Let me tell you - if it hadn't been for Mrs Thatcher none of you would be here today. I'm sorry she's gone."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42003217
One example of these, are after-action report prepared by US military on the Anzio operation. Which is quite interesting and factual. But does manage to discuss the subject without once mentioning Winston Churchill!
It’s an offer voters will be stupid to refuse.
Very much like the Peninsular campaign.
Crete was expendable.